The argument is essentially: how come daring people to do something gross or embarrassing is so common? There's a weird social dynamic in being the one who goes through with it, and it frequently promotes group cohesion.

So maybe the point of it isn't the act or social dominance, but to get people to display normal emotional responses - safe people will be embarrassed, or hesitant or display social support queues or disgust if they have normal emotional processing. The psychopaths? They'll struggle - particularly at that age where the opportunity to learn to blend hasn't had time to develop.

Basically a group of guys egging each other on to do the riskier dive into the pool or something aren't trying to impress a mate, they're actually filtering for people who don't emotionally react correctly to whatever the dare is.

In a direct conflict, no one is going to sit back and be destroyed by drone swarms: they'll bomb the industrial districts.

In war, the enemy gets a say in your plans: Iran can't beat the US directly, but it can hit energy infrastructure around the Gulf which is politically untenable for the US.

But it works the other way too: if your enemies plan is "you won't bomb the big industrial facilities so we'll just win" then you break out the fancy expensive missiles and bomb the industrial facilities. Or the power plants.

Because who exactly, outside of those major powers, is going to enforce anything?

Linux has a lot of the pieces but is principally lacking a solid distribution system - in particular a big missing component is the network-based SELinux policy distribution system which you can see some hooks in for the concept of a "policy server" which never eventuated.

SELinux would be a lot more viable if it had a solid way to federate and distribute policy and has some nice features in that regard (i.e. the notion that networked systems can exchange policy tags to preserve tagging across network connections).

So I'd love to use the feature, but modern corporate auth defeats it currently.

This is basically "just don't use things you don't enjoy" and the trouble of our time seems to be the number of people who can't or won't do that.

It's somewhat an age thing but also definitely a lot of people in all generations never learn it: you can just stop using things. Walk away and suddenly find you never want to look back, and if you do it's entirely unappealing.

"They" are against me.

Ironically I could cite a very specific group this applies to: fitness influencers in the wake of ozempic. "Natural weight loss" and FUD about the drug took off when it hit mainstream awareness because it really was a direct threat to them. Of course this group also tends to heavily abuse other drugs as they age out - because being a trim fitness inflencer is easy in your 20s, keeping it going into your mid-30s is a lot more difficult.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12361690/

People for so upset that GLP-1 has no long term side effects.

There's still the crowd completely sure everyone will get HyperCancer in 10 years or something (they won't).

Pretty much all venoms are mixes of short (10-15 base) peptide chains.

It's the naturalistic fallacy in an utterly perverse form ( and also goes to show why a regulatory system is good: the average person has no idea that they're dealing with or even common sense about it).

And it shows on the research: e.g. does creatine help muscle building? No.[1] But cue some anecdote from someone where they also changed a dozen other things at the same time but are sure it was that.

[1] https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2025/03/sports-supplem...

You'd be better off with an air sourced hear pump for hot water anyway - the one in my house uses less power then my dehumidifier.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucha_massacre