Most of the times when people get busted for "chatting" to kids online, it's because the child is actually a law enforcement officer who has gotten the person to admit their intent in a way that isn't legally questionable.
Even if twitch reported the allegations to law enforcement, it's unlikely any prosecutor is going to bring up charges on a famous/wealthy person unless they have an open and shut case. Which is really rare outside of sting operations.
No, it won't. That's the point of the misconception. You even get to it later then dismiss. We aren't taking about overall health. We aren't talking about the 'betes.
I mean, whenever you are talking about health you always consider total outcomes. The articles you are linking are talking about a very specific type of dehydration.
None of those things will dehydrate you more despite people saying differently. Not soda, not milk, even beer under 2% beer will be better. You will be rehydrated, there WILL be a net gain of water in your body. There is no net loss of water no matter how much people say sugar or caffeine will lower the net gain.
"Beverages with more concentrated sugars, such as fruit juices or colas, are not necessarily as hydrating as their lower-sugar cousins. They may spend a little more time in the stomach and empty more slowly compared to plain water, but once these beverages enter the small intestine their high concentration of sugars gets diluted during a physiological process called osmosis. This process in effect “pulls” water from the body into the small intestine to dilute the sugars these beverages contain. And technically, anything inside the intestine is outside your body. Juice and soda are not only less hydrating, but offer extra sugars and calories that won’t fill us up as much as solid foods, explained Majumdar. If the choice is between soda and water for hydration, go with water every time. After all, our kidneys and liver depend on water to get rid of toxins in our bodies"
From your own article....
If you're dehydrated, you're lacking salt. There's a reason why physically demanding companies provide free drink packets to their crews. They don't want road crews dying by the side of the road because they slammed water and had no salt on a 100 degree day working next to a machine shooting out molten tar and rock. We aren't pumping people's blood full of sterile water. Saline bags are .9% salt for a reason.
Again, you are talking about a specific type of dehydration..... hyponatremia is exceedingly rare and is usually a sign of an undiagnosed kidney disease. Your nephrons will usually regulate your thirst in conjunction to the available salts in the body.
Dehydration is not just a lack of salt, it's an imbalance of salt. Meaning that you can just be low on fluid with too much salt available.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/when-replenishing-fluids-does-milk-beat-water-202211142849
"Unsurprisingly, the ad is sponsored by the milk industry. And while I'd never heard this claim before, the studies behind the idea aren't particularly new or compelling. "
Finally, the main benefit of water is that it's neutral. The reason why people don't tell you to slam a glass of milk or soda if you're dehydrated is because it can upset your stomach. When concentrated amounts of sugars or fats enter the intestine the dilution process can go overboard and cause diarrhea, which can dangerously dehydrate you further.
Hydration is more complicated than what you are alluding too. Simply stating everything but piss and liquor is better than water is just ridiculous and misleading. In specific scenarios other liquids may provide some advantages, but it's highly reductive to make that claim so broadly. Especially considering it requires you to separate hydration from kidney health, you know the things that control your thirst in the first place.
Wikileaks was never really a beacon of free speech its always been more of a platform where people can leak information about goverments and other powerful individuals or organizations doing bunch of shady or downright evil stuff behind our back. These often offer rare glimpse behind the scenes allowing us to be little less blind when voting during whather elections comes next.
When WikiLeaks first came about it's original goal was aimed at leaking information about authoritarian governments, primarily China and some countries in the Middle East. It was pretty big news at the time because assange had wrangled together a team of some pretty high profile Journalist and privacy tech people.
However, most of those people were never really involved in the organization, and were mainly utilized as a marketing scheme. The rest slowly left the organization as works in their fields within WikiLeaks stagnated, or left over security and leadership concerns.
Imo Assange has always been a duplicitous attention seeker. However, if that were illegal, pretty much everyone involved in media would be thrown in a cell. I think his biggest failures that should tarnish his public image is his handling of the leaks. Him rushing to release information against the advise of his security experts, information that hadn't been properly vetted to protect the whistle blowers from prosecution.
Multiple people have had their lives ruined because he didn't take the time and effort to protect his sources. And not because they didn't have the ability to, or lacked the proper protocols, but because Julian didn't care so long as his name got air time.
You know what's better than water when you need water? Nearly everything that isn't alcohol or literal piss.
I mean it really depends on the person and their current condition. The article you linked kinda has an abstract definition of hydration that doesn't take into account things normally associated with dehydration.
If you are working hard outside and are mildly dehydrated I wouldn't recommend slamming down a sugary soda with caffeine. Excessive sugar is diluted in the intestines which can cause further dehydration, and caffeine is a diuretic.
Normally this wouldn't really matter, but if you're already dehydrated it can make the situation worse.
Water is great, it may not be the most effective hydrator in the world as it doesn't have the electrolytes and sugars that something like Gatorade has. However, it's the best thing for your overall kidney and liver health which is what really matters. Most Americans already have an excess of salt, fat, and sugar in their diets, so even after working outside and sweating your ass off you are probably better off just having some water.
Russia has the technological edge in weaponry these days. Hell, the US doesn't even have hypersonic capable missiles.
I mean, it kinda depends on what you consider a "hypersonic missile". If it's just any missile that can go mach 5, then everyone's had hypersonic missiles tech for a while. Ramjets have been a thing since the 60's.
If we're talking about "hypersonic missiles" that can travel at mach 5 and maneuver/change flight patterns, then no one really has a hypersonic missile.
The Kinzhal and zircon both follow normal trajectory patterns and can be intercepted with relative ease compared to what hypersonic missiles are supposed to be able to do.
Yet here we are, talking about it. "There's no such thing as 'Bad Press'", I guess? Are they right?... maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?... also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?... no, not really.
Right, but we are talking about it knowing the consequences of not enacting changes. In the US fox news is watched by something like 40% of active voters. Meaning a significant portion of voters actively distrust news about climate change, another significant portion do not think about it on a day to day basis.
Giving the news network ammunition like this only further entrenches these audiences in anti climate change reactions.
Seems like something I'll have to read more about.
Would knowing that this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress that lives in a 33m dollar home affect your opinion?
Sorry for believing a protest should help your cause more than it harms it?
You do know this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress, right?
Surely we'll all be okay as long as people are teaching us to be civil and not... harm the cause.
I never claimed that I wanted people to remain "civil", you can attack that strawman as you wish.
I don't mind people engaging in violent disobedience or civil disobedience, every MLK needs a Malcom X. However, I just don't see the benefit in this particular situation. If you are going to do something that could potentially harm public sentiment you should at least be doing something that materially changes things for the positive.
I'm done, a lot of us are. Good luck.
Get off your high horse, were all dealing with the same problem here. Just because someone differs in opinion on how political capital should be spent, it doesn't mean your perspective has a monopoly on morality or anything.
I say they're building political capital. They're creating a fuss.
The people who think of this as a net positive are already supportive of climate change initiatives. So who exactly are they building political capital with?
They're creating noise, which can then be turned into action.
How? In what situation is there a problem that is more easily solved when people "make a fuss"?
What are you doing?
Not turning potential allies into enemies?
What are you doing?
It was as pointless as everything else, that's why they did it, it's screaming into the void to get attention.
It's not just pointless, it's potentially damaging to the cause. I don't mind if someone rubs against the grain of public sentiment for a cause, so long as the way they do it actually accomplishes a goal.
Are there though? I'm old enough to remember this has gone on for decades without anyone doing anything of significance and now we're at the actual edge of global catastrophe and STILL people are like "hmn, those kids should be recycling."
And how does cornstarching rocks, or defacing art make any kind of difference? Is there any possible outcome that benefits the cause? It seems like the only thing this accomplishes is drowning out any other news about climate change for 2 to 3 weeks.
Bruh, you and so many people have no idea how many lives are going to be lost in the next century while every milquetoast liberal and conservative in the developed world roll their eyes and get pissed at slight annoyances like... checks notes colored corn starch on rocks you will never visit.
Just because someone disagrees with you on how to spend the very limited amount of political capital accumulated for climate change, does not mean they are less informed on the subject than you.
I don't give a fuck about Stonehenge, but it's stupid to believe that others do not. It's also pretty stupid to ignore concepts like blowback and public sentiment.
They HAVE sprayed BP's factories and lots and machines, they have sabotaged equipment and chained themselves to machines and have caused material harm to companies like BP, but that doesn't get any fucking coverage because media doesn't want to encourage "violent activism" for fear of turning away viewers like YOU who are annoyed by such things.
Lol, they arent afraid of turning away viewers, they are worried about turning away advertisers. They are part of the capital class preserving the fossil fuel industry. Of course they don't want to spread violent activism. They would much rather all climate activists display protest that they can utilize to turn the public against the cause.
Which begs the question, why are these groups providing the media with ineffective protests that turn public opinion against the cause and garter a ton of negative press in the first place?
I've heard of them. I've never heard of you.
Not exactly a good thing..... One of the problems with making a lot of noise is drowning out the voices of others on the same side.
Political capital is a thing, utilizing it in a protest that doesn't really accomplish anything but turning public sentiment against your cause is kinda a dumb way to spend it.
Eh, it could be a multitude of reasons. It could be that they just had a bad contract. Even if there is a morality clause, how that morality clause is enacted may be dependent on actual charges being filed.
It is possible they had a reasonable concern about the situation, but it wasn't drastic enough for them to legally terminate the contract. Wanting to save face in this scenario isn't exactly too hard to imagine considering their demographics.
Or it could be that it was simply cheaper to pay the rest of the contract than it would to arbitrate in court. Or they may have feared themselves being further implicated during a proceeding if someone at twitch enabled or tried to cover it up.
Really, it could be just about anything.