[-] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 weeks ago

Depends on the context maybe? Idk I am not a mod. I've just seen comments about arguing for eating meat or saying something like "I'm going to eat 2 hamburgers now because of you" which are just annoying. I thought that was what this was about. I'll leave my comments up for anyone else confused.

[-] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 weeks ago

I forgot Lemmy lets you see who downvoted and upvoted. Idk why that is happening. I thought the brigade was about comments.

[-] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 weeks ago

This is their rule 5:

[-] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 weeks ago

Am I missing something here? The vegan community is for vegans and people to ask questions about being vegan but is not for debating about any part of being vegan. That is their rule 5, which I see people break every day thinking it is ok to shit all over vegans there. If you don't want to hear about vegans then block the community.

[-] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 month ago

I am fine with late term abortions and we should have them as an option. They make up about 1% of abortions. These are abortions that happen after 21 weeks and can include reasons like:

-fetus abnormalities in the brain that cannot be caught until the third trimester or even doctors not fully disclosing severities because they are pro-life,

-unwanted pregnancy to a woman that didn't know she was pregnant until later on,

-finances changing or even relationships changing

-barriers preventing women from getting abortions (financial such as not having enough money to pay out of pocket or having to travel out of state which frequently required both more money and multiple visits because of policy)

You can read more here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9321603/

I've also read a separate study I cannot find that included women who were addicted to drugs wanting an abortion but addiction made it complicated to get an abortion early on.

But anyway the reason doesn't matter to me at this point, the conversation should be between a woman and her doctor, not politicians.

[-] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 2 months ago

I'm female and bi and it is definitely noticeable when someone is staring at my chest and it is very uncomfortable. When I was younger there were certain guys that rarely looked me in my face and were just looking at my chest the whole time. I asked other girls about it and they agreed they too felt them gazing at their chests and it was really uncomfortable and off-putting for them as well. If you wanna help then tell them discreetly to tighten their bra straps. Otherwise I don't find it acceptable to stare at a woman's chest. A glance maybe but you should really be looking at their faces. People are not meat or eye candy, don't objectify them, just remember the person they are inside. There may be women ok with it and like flaunting it but that's not been my personal experience.

[-] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 months ago

I had an IUD (Mirena) and never gave birth and it was the worst pain I've ever experienced. I was yelling and crying in pain during/after insertion. Removal was easier but still pretty damn painful. I took some ibuprofen before hand and it did not really help.

[-] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 2 months ago

I hate that simplex is like this.

[-] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 2 months ago

Most teens don't want to put anything up there because it hurts, even tampons hurt as a virgin especially with 0 lube. I never liked regular dildos, most women do not orgasm through penetration. So I would say they are messing with you. I've had guys ask me if I ever experimented with pencils or rulers because if they were a girl they would do it. No, wtf only guys think women are like this.

[-] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 2 months ago

It's gotta be the drone rights guy, they both were narcissists and drone rights was known to have multiple accounts where they pretended to not be the same person until put under pressure. I am amazed at how accepting people are of this person.

[-] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Clothing that is UPF 50 can provide protection but unless your wardrobe is filled with these specialized clothing you won't get the same protection. For instance, a white T-shirt provides only moderate sun protection, with a UPF of about 7. When that T-shirt gets wet, it provides a UPF of only 3. A dark, long-sleeved denim shirt can provide a UPF of about 1,700; in essence, complete sun protection. (https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-prevention/sun-protection/sun-protective-clothing/)

It's recommended to use both sunscreen and sun protective clothing by just about every skin cancer authority (https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/causes-and-prevention/sun-safety/preventing-skin-cancer). I have no idea what data you are referring to that sunscreen is not a good thing, I suspect exposure to fear mongering from the "natural" anti-science crowd. Let me guess, you think sunscreen is a hormonal disruptor even though you would need to use oxybenzone (the "worst" one) sunscreen continuously for 277 years to get the equivalent amount to cause a noticeable hormonal effect - so even oxybenzone is considered safe. Or you think "nano" sunscreen is bad even though the studies so far have found that the nanoparticles don’t get very far into the skin (only to the dead layers of the stratum corneum). It’s possible that nanoparticles will penetrate further if you apply them on broken skin, but they’re currently considered safe.

Physical vs chemical sunscreens is a debate with a lot of misinformation and fear mongering because people will drink water while not registering water is a filthy cHeMiCaL (half joking). You should be much more concerned where you buy your sunscreen because the US has shitty standards for UVA protection while the other countries have much better UVA systems and standards. I can't even begin to debunk this but here we go:

https://labmuffin.com/chemical-vs-physical-sunscreens-the-science-with-video/

Physical and Chemical work the same

Physical sunscreen ingredients (more correctly known as inorganic sunscreen ingredients) are zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

Chemical sunscreen ingredients (more correctly known as organic sunscreen ingredients) are everything else.

The reason organic (carbon-based) and inorganic (not carbon-based) is a better classification than chemical/physical is that there’s overlap between how they work. Both types work by absorbing UV and turning it into heat. Inorganic sunscreens also scatter and reflect about 5-10% of the incoming UV, as do some particulate organic sunscreens like Tinosorb M, so really they should be classified as both chemical and physical.

Natural things aren’t better than synthetic, man-made things

The amount of heat produced from UV by sunscreen is really, imperceptibly tiny. There’s also only a 5% difference in the heat produced by the two types of sunscreens, since physical sunscreens also absorb about 95% of the UV they protect you from.

Even if they were – physical sunscreens aren’t even natural. They’re processed to get rid of toxic contaminants, and often need to be coated in synthetic chemicals to stop them from being photocatalytic, and prevent them from clumping up and causing patchy protection.

https://www.kindofstephen.com/physical-vs-chemical-sunscreens-myths/

Even more detailed explanation

Chemicals are physical – they have a mass and take up space. On the other end, the “physical” sunscreens titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are chemicals, you can find the elements titanium and zinc on the periodic table.

In marketing, organic is a label that describes how something is produced – often with a safe-list of chemical treatments and approved practices.

In chemistry, organic means the chemistry of compounds that contain carbon. Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide don’t contain carbon. They’re made up of metal and oxygen and classified as inorganic.

Marking the categories as organic and inorganic makes more sense because all of the sunscreen chemicals used contain carbon, except for titanium dioxide and zinc oxide.

It’s often said that inorganic sunscreens (titanium dioxide and zinc oxide) reflect UV off of the skin and organic sunscreens absorb UV and convert it into heat. In reality, for most of the UV spectrum they work very similarly.

Organic sunscreens absorb UV because of the way the bonds between their carbon molecules are arranged... The energy from UV light promotes electrons in the conjugated carbon bonds of organic sunscreen molecules from a lower energy state to a higher energy excited state. The excited electrons in the bonds then relax or release the absorbed energy by stretching, vibrating, or bending – this turns that energy into heat.

Inorganic sunscreens work very similarly – even though their structure is different from organic sunscreens... The principle behind the UV protection is exactly the same as organic sunscreens.

There is a strong belief that these inorganic metal oxide sunscreens act by reflecting UV light instead of absorbing it, but this isn’t the complete story. UV light is divided into UVB and UVA. UVB is between 280 to 315 or 320 nm and UVA is between 315 or 320 to 400 nm. Inorganic sunscreens predominately absorb in the UVB spectrum and reflect in the long UVA (above 360 nm) and visible spectrum. Only about 5% of UVB light is reflected by inorganic sunscreens and the remainder gets absorbed and converted – just like organic sunscreens.

Both organic and inorganic sunscreen particles can penetrate into the upper layers of the skin. If and how much they penetrate is dependent on properties like their particle or molecular size as well as the overall sunscreen formula. This isn’t a desired effect and formulators work to reduce the amount that penetrates. Modern organic sunscreens often have larger molecular sizes, chemical and physical properties, or even coatings which make it more difficult for them to penetrate past the surface of the skin.

Keep in mind that skin penetration doesn’t mean that it’s causing harm to our bodies. There has to be a biological mechanism for it cause an effect. There is a lot current and ongoing research into this area, but we don’t have any strong answers yet.

28

I love the app so far but I am having trouble with opening Lemmy links from other instances. When someone links to say a Lemmy.world post, I am hit with a window saying I have to have a Lemmy.world account in order to vote and such. This is incredibly inconvenient, I don't know how voyager does it but voyager just lets me view the post and vote/etc. in my instance without forcing me to change accounts. Anyway to get rid of this behavior so it is more like voyager? I want other Lemmy links to be opened in my instance so I can vote and such.

Also unrelated but just now I was unable to upload a picture from summit and had to switch apps to upload the photo.

[-] YarrMatey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I had to take the bus and it left at *7:00am so I was waking up around 6ish everyday. I was constantly tired and had trouble staying awake in school. Taking the bus back put me at arriving at 4pm home. It was awful tbh. I see grade school years, especially high school, as the worst years of my life followed closely by early adulthood in college.

view more: next ›

YarrMatey

joined 1 year ago