What you're talking about at the beginning isn't manipulation

The hell are you talking about? There are a bazillion papers on all sorts of cannabinoids, full spectrum extracts, etc. You are spreading misinformation.

I really don't understand how this publication thinks it can get away with demanding subscriptions

Instead of...trying? You could be missing out on something great. A single date is not representative of a person's actual self, that's just crazy. The best relationship I ever had was with someone who was a bit awkward at first.

If you're using "prove" in the original sense, then sure. But not in the way everyone uses the word today. To prove something originally meant (and IMO should still mean) to test it, hence "the exception proves the rule". I don't know if you meant it in that sense but that's the only way your statement holds true, haha

>biorecyclable

Biorecycling should definitely be cheaper since it's just using organisms to break the substance down into constituent compounds

>naturally eliminated

Of course they aren't. I don't know that I've ever seen more than a handful of ads that actually piqued my interest in my life.

This is a really awful and offensive joke to make. Childhood sexual abuse is not something to joke about. It might be a good idea to reexamine how your words and actions can affect victims.

It demonstrates undue prejudice, that's for sure. Is that weird? No, unfortunately, but it's wrong.

The world was different at the time Born to Rebel was written, and even moreso when the author was being brought up. At that time, tattoos were practically anathema.

To dismiss the history of the world like that and how much it impacts today is a bit silly. That generation had their own living ancestors who were just as old-fashioned to them. And if you have grandkids, you'll experience the same prejudice as you are exhibiting toward older people now.

It's just kind of how it goes. There are even 17th- and 18th-century media that demonstrate just how long this has been going on. I'd wager it's as old as civilization itself.

Nice racism, really great look. Meanwhile, the entire US is just as polluted and a large share of people don't believe climate change is caused by humans.

Also, carbon pollution ≠ chemical pollution, just so you're aware...

For those who didn't read the paper (let's be real, that's somewhere above 99% of the commenters on any given post), there was only a 12% reduction in total surplus compared to unlicensed entities. Worth noting that trade unions and licensing go hand in hand (i.e., workers generally fare better when licensing is involved, with a higher than average standard of living than that of Uncle Cletus's ragtag band of corner-cutters). Not to mention the significantly reduced risk of shoddy workmanship (which can cause very serious harm), meaning a higher standard of living for consumers.

Not scientific in nature, but Larry David did a great bit about this in one of the more recent seasons of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Suuuuure you do. And I bet you think you'd do a better job too, don't you?

(I did say "healthy" people, mind you. That does include psychological health. Antisocial beliefs like those you appear to harbor don't exactly put one into that category.)

Absolutely not. Licensing is a matter of human rights. The entire reason trades require licensing is because of how many people were hurt and killed by poor work. Are you some kind of anarchist or libertarian or something?

That's not an accurate meme. (Healthy) people on the rightmost end of the bell curve support governance and regulation.

So far the other comments are (for some bizarre reason) pretending robots can actually mimic the experience of companionship by another human. That is simply untrue. There's an untold number of factors that influence hormone releases constituting social bonding, and robots meet none of the necessary qualifications. So far, other commenters have simply been using this post as a vehicle for their detestable ageism and sexism (no better than racism and homophobia, both of which I experience on a near-daily basis [sexism too, but not ageism all the time]), and that's not only abusive to human beings but it's entirely unscientific in nature.

Hmm, light scattering? I'm not in this field, does anyone mind explaining what that means in this context? It sounds like it wouldn't yield a clear display, but that doesn't seem to be the case based on the context—hence my curiosity!

Methamphetamine refers to the racemic mixture. L-methamphetamine is not methamphetamine.

And yet when the link is clicked the article is blocked and purchase of a subscription is demanded...

There exist certain antibiotics that do not allow for resistance in the first place—an easy example is alcohol. This concept is not only theoretically possible, it's something that already exists.

Now, if you'll permit me to say so...there's no need to be so cynical. Not only is that sort of cynicism going to bring you down, but it's the entire reason everyone's so anxious and depressed these days...social media amplifies negativity. If you don't have actual criticisms of the science described in this paper, it's probably best to keep the unfounded negativity to yourself.

It appears you are not familiar with much history of the past century :-p there were countless scientists who were women, even many who contributed greatly to many different fields

You didn't read the title, let alone the actual post... please don't comment until you understand what it is you're commenting on. It saves the mods a lot of time

They did have a control group, you know...it is usually best to read the content before criticizing the researchers' basic competency. In fact, assuming their competence is among the subreddit's rules.

Stop pontificating and read the subreddit's rules.

Doesn't really detract from the point. Most people encountering this post will never actually examine the study, just read the editorialized NORML version.