Speaking of terrible studies. The one you linked is absolutely terrible.

Have you read of the actual paper. Their conclusions are absolutely not supported by the evidence and their methodology is statistically invalid.

It’s a decent argument but it’s not supported in the data.

Now I am going to have to dig up that study from China. They had a sample size of over 1 million people with repeated blood draws, medical history and a full alcohol use history. It showed the same all-mortality curve for non-drinkers (never consumed) versus light drinkers.

What’s interesting is heavy drinkers who quit reverted back close to the never consumed level after like 5 years.

I swear I had it saved to my zotero account but I can’t find it. I will keep looking.

Bottom line: ethanol under the right dosage reduces cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The amount of reduction more than compensates for its risks of creating other diseases like cancer. However the negative effects of over-consumption make it unethical for any medical professional to recommend non-drinkers to start drinking. If you choose to drink, 1-2 drinks per day depending on sex and weight is the hard limit.

They accept women into the club. It’s a very inclusive club, hatred is the only requirement for entry.

That analysis statistically was terrible and the title is disingenuous and misrepresents the data set.

I am still waiting for someone to refudate this analysis. So far, I have yet to see one even close. It’s one of the best I have seen.

https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jacc.2007.04.089

The most important statistic mentioned is light drinkers have a reduction in all-cause mortality compared to non-drinkers. While heavy drinkers or binge drinkers have an increase.

It’s a critical statistic that all of these sensationalist headlines fail to account for or even analyze.

I had to clean a hundred of them every quarter for a couple of years (work study was in the computer lab).

Since the build up was oils from people’s hands you needed the right cleaners.

The balls got tossed into hot soapy water. Soak them for 10 minutes and they came out clean.

The rollers inside the mice were the worst. They required a Q-tip with some acetone or rubbing alcohol. For the really stubborn ones, I pulled out the naptha.

SF nematodes and sticky traps can reduce their numbers but they will always be present. BTi application to all of your pots will eliminate them in a few weeks.

Seed storage is a complicated topic. The ideal storage condition depends completely on the species.

Some seeds need to be stored frozen (lettuce and tons of flowers). Some need to be stored at 5C and 40% humidity. Others store near at 30C and 15% humidity. Then there is seeds like wild rice that buck all the tends (can not be stored more than 15 months, has to be in water at 1-2C).

So for Peppers, tomatoes, and cucurbits - the ideal storage condition is 5C and 40% humidity. A wine fridge set to 8C is better than a refrigerator. Do not freeze them. Most seedbanks use manilla coin envelopes but hermetically sealed containers are fine. Do NOT use a dessicant (shortens the storage by years). Pepper seeds will germ for more than a decade under these conditions.

Fungus gnat larvae - they have likely already spread to other pots. The adult is a small adult fly.

To controll them use BTi ( Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis) from mosquito dunks in your watering can.

Way too big. Nematodes you need an observational microscope to see.

Reality is often absurd and not what you expect.

Just how much time have you spent in marketing to be such and expert on the subject?

There is a finite amount of manipulation techniques used by marketers and others to manipulate human behavior. These have been fine tuned to the nth degree to target susceptible individuals over the centuries. However they only work on susceptible individuals.

Individuals that differ from the targeted norm can resistant to the manipulation. This can be a instinctive response or a trained one via education. This is why in totalitarian government regimes, there is always a few individuals who don’t fall for the shit.

Oops my last sentence got cut off

The vast majority of ads don’t work. Statistically there is a high probability of a subset of individuals where they don’t work at all. So shitting on anyone who claims they don’t work for them, only shows your own susceptibility to unsupported claims.

Human behavior is a wide distribution of genetic and cultural influences. Any broad claims like “everyone is susceptable to advertizing” is unsupportable.

Ads are designed to trigger a change in a person’s behavior in the target audience. If you are not the target audience or the ad is poorly calibrated it causes annoyance.

Most advertizing offers very little ROI to the business. This is why online advertisers are so aggressive on how they measure “engagement”. Given that ad revenue is the the primary driver of online and TV, the industry massively overemphasizes their effectiveness. Most advertising campaigns are only marginally effective if at all.

There is always an ad that will work on you but it’s not common. It’s likely less than 0.01% the massive amount of ads you are exposed to. But hey if you see 100 ads per day and one ad every 100 days works. It can be worth it to the company.