In grocery stores in many parts of the US at least, it is extremely hard not to find bread in plastic bags. Even the one of 3 near me that has its own bakery puts the bread in a plastic bag, and then in another bag that is paper with a plastic “window”, and the paper part has a PE wax lining for god knows what reason.

Nah, reach is a huge advantage. I’m not sure how rapier fencing differs from regulation sabre/epée/foil, but here’s my 2 cents from that perspective:

Smaller people are not, as a rule, substantially quicker than larger. If you see any difference in your experience, it’s likely a selection bias (shorter people have to be quicker to compete at the same level). The shorter person must enter the strike range of the taller person before the taller person comes within theirs and must be significantly quicker or more skilled to overcome that dead space. If the taller person can maintain a proper distance, gg. Taller people can also lunge farther, giving a wider active range.

Targeting is a smaller issue than you make it out to be; footwork and maintaining balance, which reposition the core, are at least as important as leaning to dodge, and advantage the taller person (longer legs = more movement range). If the taller person is coming from above as you say, they can just continue their slash (sabre) downward toward that less mobile core, or squat a bit deeper if the arc won’t reach. If instead you were referring to a poke, they’re either already targeting the torso anyway (foil) or whatever body part is most easily reachable (epée; still often torso, but cheeky wrist/arm strikes can be something of an equalizer here), and anyway they are already striking at a range that the shorter person cannot, making a successful counterattack more difficult.

Besides reach, a height difference is brutal when it comes to sabre fencing; the shorter person is restricted to targeting arms and torso (can’t reach the head easily), so the taller person can anticipate strikes from fewer angles. The taller person can come from any direction and has gravity on their side for own overhead strikes. Those suck to defend against.

That’s some expensive cereal…

So you’re saying that you don’t like trying to relight the thermal oxidizer for the formaldehyde stream that went out due to spillover from another process, with an emergency flare? Got it.

I mean, sure, things like that are super dangerous, but at least they’re obviously, flashily dangerous and for that reason have a lot more attention paid to them. The real nasties are arguably the ones that aren’t so flashy but are much more common amd don’t have immediate effects. Formaldehyde and benzene will give you cancer, and acrylate monomers will make it so you one day wake up allergic to the modern world.

Huh TIL. Growing up with the merger, I suppose I’ve come to assume that non-merger folks have different pronunciations for any words with a- or o-adjacent spellings.

cot-caught merger be like that sometimes

The only thing you can know for sure is that you exist.

Or maybe not, depending on your definitions of “you” and “exist” :)

Professional zero finders of derivatives of mathematical models built from duct tape, prayers, and Jimmy’s observations from before he got cataracts.

My condolences, buddy.

You may be interested to know that these kinds of paper adhesives are usually intentionally designed so that the substrate (paper) tears before the adhesive does. This is meant to ensure robust packing and to give proof that the package has not been tampered with. Couple this with ever thinner and shittier substrates, and, well…

thanks, I needed a win

aɪ noː jɚ ˈbiːɪŋ fəˈsiːʃəs, bʌt ˈɪŋglɪʃ ˈvɑʊəlz ɛsˈpɛʃəli kən biː ə ˈɹiːəl ˈklʌstɚfʌk. ɪf ə wɚd ɪz tə biː ˌjunɪˈvɚsəli ˈɹɛkəgnaɪzd baɪ ɪts ˈspɛlɪŋ, ðɛn ðə ˈspɛlɪŋ wɪl nɑt ˈfeɪθfəli ˌɹɛpɹɪˈzɛnt mɛni ˈpiplz pɹəˌnʌnsiˈeɪʃənz… so nɑʊ ju hæv ðə seɪm ˈpɹɑbləm æz bəˈfoɹ ɛkˈsɛpt wɪθ ˈhɑrdɚ-tə-taɪp ˈlɛtɚz.

ʃwɑ ɪn pɑɹˈtɪkulɚ ɪz ə hoːl ˈʃɪtʃoː ɑn ɪts oːn

ɑn ðæt noːt, gɛs weɹ aɪ gɹuː ʌp :)

Neat, thanks for the clarification. Even though the initial proportion is 50/50 for X-activation, are there scenarios where one daughter line is more prominent than the other, or does it usually remain 50/50?

This is not true. That women cannot have the congenital dichromacy (or anomalous trichromacy) that biological males commonly have is flat out wrong. A biological female can still be a protan or deutan, but the phenotype requires that both X chromosomes carry the recessive color vision-deficient alleles. Nevertheless, given that ~8% of all X chromosomes have such a gene regardless of sex, the incidence in the female population is still around half a percent, which is not insignificant.

Interestingly, one form of tetrachromacy in females actually has the same cause as color vision deficiency in some males (specifically anomalous trichromacy). From what I understand, only one X chromosome is active per cone cell, and which one is active is random. So, half of such a person’s cone cells of one type are “normal” while the rest of that type are anomalous and have a slightly different peak wavelength. The net result is four different types of cone cells, i.e., tetrachromacy, which may have an incidence of more than 10% in females.

wół go pyta: