Do you have a source for it? As far as I know and also according to Wikipedia, this is not correct.

Direct alcohol tolerance is largely dependent on body size. Large-bodied people will require more alcohol to reach insobriety than lightly built people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_tolerance

Personally, I’m not offended when referred to as ‘-sexual’. In general, I don’t see my gender as an important part of my identity. I guess I’m ‘just’ cis male but I don’t see that as restrictive in any way.

But thanks for your explanation! Good to know that there’s a negative connotation tied to that term and other people might be offended. I’ll try to keep it in in mind for future discussions. :)

Thank you for the explanation!

Edit: If you don’t mind a follow-on question: Is my former binary definition applicable when we’re talking about ‘transsexual’ rather then ‘transgender’? And when someone says just ‘trans’ in the queer community without any suffix, does that typically refer to -gender or -sexual?

So if I’m born male and identify non-binary, that would be considered trans as well? If I got that right my definition of trans was apparantly too binary. :D

Is ‘non binary trans’ a thing? I hope I don’t offense anyone but so far I though…

• Trans = swap male to female or vice versa
• Non-binary = no defined gender / neither male nor female

If you’re non-binary what do you transition from/to?

Thanks for the explanation. Maybe my example was too extreme but unless they remove everything that’s even slightly controversial, that can give a pretty wrong impression IMO. Wouldn’t be for me at least.

If you consider upvotes but ignore downvotes wouldn’t that give you quite a weird picture in case of controversial posts? Assuming there’s a racist or transphobic post with 100 downvotes and 5 upvotes, would that be displayed as +5? Or does it not show any votes at all?

I use Lemmy a lot to debate or read other people’s perspectives. While content is more important than the vote count, I’m still interested to see what are (un)popular opinions here (knowing that it definitely doesn’t represent the general public!).

Unfortunately, seeing the votes immediately also increases your bias towards posts or comments, so it may have a negative impact on on your individual free thinking.

An ideal compromise for me would be to see how other people voted, but only after I voted myself.

🍌 for scale.

You can be +1. ;)

If it triggers you, than why you don’t stop reading such stuff rather then complaining all day?

edit: This was meant to be a joke, not insulting. Apparantly, it wasn’t the best one, so I apologize. ;)

If you use 70% the remaining 30% are typically water. And water and electronics aren’t necessarily best friends.

Great explanation, thank you!

After all they did in just the first weeks, I highly doubt that there’ll be just another fair following the regular rules. I really hope I’m wrong though.

Never experienced that behavior. Do you want to post an example image here to check if it’s really stored that way or only displayed to you like this?

Why only US bees? Pretty racist, huh?

This. Being able to pee without necessarily setting down is great when you’re outside, or in a public toilet but I see absolutely no sense of doing that at home.

gold color tanning cream

FTFY

I guess this question has to be looked at from multiple dimensions.

From a purely economical and short-term perspective, maybe yes. Every human not contributing to society at an at least average level, is consuming ressources and driving up the costs. No matter if it’s due to illness, disability, depression, age, weakness, missing intelligence etc.

From a social perspective, such a program quickly can turn into a nightmare: First of all, everyone would be under pressure. If you’re not a constant top performer, you’d feel like a burden on society. And the bar to be a top performer would constantly rise as more and more people on the ‘lower end’ decide to end their lives.

Second, it’s impossible to quantify the value of a person holistically. People can provide no direct economic value and still be an important member of society. Like emotionally supporting others, being loved, providing jobs etc.

Furthermore - in a society where at some point the ‘weak’ are expected to ‘voluntarily’ end their lives, people would be constantly scared. No one would be willing to take any risks because getting injured, getting a depression etc. would be like an implicit death penalty. This would again lead to devastating effects on economy.

I personally think that everyone should be allowed to end their lives if they really deeply want it. But this should never be expected, actively promoted or pushed for. And I think it should involve at least a consultation with a medical professional to avoid hasty decisions due to a temporary crisis.

Like this?