It isn’t supposed to be used in densely populated areas because its extremely dangerous. Even if it wasn’t intentionally used as a weapon (which it very obviously was), then its still not excusable because it still causes a lot of harm to civilians.

Anyone who has any decency or feeling of inner justice will support innocent civilians regardless of their country of origin, and will condemn terrorist acts and war crimes regardless of who commited them.

I guess its more prevelant than I thought, or at least it used to be. Its very confusing to me how people could fall for that. How little do you have to know about music to think a specific type of it will literally increase your intelligence.

I had a history teacher in (US) high school who was not afraid at all to tell his students the whole truth about stuff like this. Its too bad he was the only one not allowed to teach government classes.

There’s a good chance when you were younger, you heard classical music in the classroom to try and make you smarter. However, this is a myth - there is no such link between music and intelligence (or that we can measure intelligence for another matter!)

I’ve never heard anyone claim classical music makes you smarter. I have heard people say it makes you focus better, which is true to some extent. This was one of the first things my therapist recommended I try after being diagnosed with adhd. I can’t imagine it isn’t applicable to people without adhd, although probably to varying degrees depending on the person.

The only thing I take issue with is the specification of classical music. Some people have told me this is because classical music doesn’t have words in it, which would distract you instead of help you focus. Not only can classical music have lyrics, but every other genre of music is perfectly capable of not having lyrics. I’m not sure if its even true that the lyrics would distract you in the first place.

Its pretty clear to me that the only reason people play classical music specifically for this purpose is because it makes them feel smart. You could argue that feeling smart might actually help you get things done, but I dislike the perception of classical music as smart people music in general. It’s just a style of music, like every other. There’s nothing that makes it superior or more sophisticated, its just what Europeans liked a few centuries ago.

Its not water vapor, nor is it dangerous to inhale water vapor. Vaping is not safe, but you don’t make a very good argument as to why. The person you’re responding too is also partially correct although they are wrong that vaping is completely harmless. People are often led to believe its more harmful that it truly is because health problems relating to black market marijuana cartridges were falsely attributed to normal vapes.

Unreal is open source, although it isn’t free. I would certainly prefer it to unity though.

I interpreted the “stricter” definition as just being more intense. Like its only used to describe someone who reads constantly, and knows nearly everything about literature. Or someone who is almost obsessively studying math, or chess theory. Or someone who is very interested in numerous “nerdy” things.

Maybe that’s not what they meant, I’m not sure. You’re right, their wording is kind of ambiguous.

I don’t think they mean it to be negative. I assumed they mean its used more loosely now and has lost some of the meaning it used to have as a result. They can’t find a more fitting word for what they want to say, so they just specify they mean the stricter definition of the word nerd.

You could try ds/dsi games that are designed for touch screen. I’ve played Pokémon black without many issues. Apart from that, if you have the option to use a pc, it will be a better experience. The benefit of using your phone is just that its mobile. I usually bring an xbox controller with me when I travel so I can play whatever game I want.

I highly recommend emulating games on your phone. Some of them aren’t great without a controller but its worth a shot.

Well according to you, being natural and having a long history means its safe. Are you now saying that maybe a substance’s origin has nothing to so with how dangerous it is?

If people are drinking more than one of these per day, that’s a problem. It should be more like once every few days or optimally, never.

200mg of caffeine is reasonable depending on body weight.

“The principle sources of caffeine intake among adolescents are sweetened coffee and energy drinks, with a daily caffeine intake below the current suggested maximum acceptable levels for adolescents (2.5 mg/kg body weight/day”

ophrp.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.24171/j.phrp.2018.9.6.01

An opinion is not medical science.

Yes I said its an opinion, I made no claim it was medical science. My opinion is that in many cases, a teenager consuming reasonable amounts of caffeine is not something to worry about. I base this off of the knowledge I have of caffeine as someone who isn’t a doctor. If you want a doctor’s opinion, you should go to a doctor instead of the internet.

You don’t need a medical degree to have an opinion. Caffeine is a mostly harmless drug.

I have said multiple times at this point that its not worth learning imperial for whatever advantages it may have. Its obviously not good to create new units for every application. But that’s not what I said is it? I said there are aspects of imperial I would miss if I switched entirely.

Or, here’s a wild idea, you could use some indicator that shifts the unit’s scale, some kind of „prefix“ you slap in front of it.

Show me the indicator for Celsius that makes it a proper size for that application.

I would if you were able to have a real conversation, but all you deliver is a 47/53 grasping for straws per freedom eagle.

I guess that’s how you would see it if you just ignore all of my arguments and assume metric is better at everything all the time. Do you think I’m doing this because I’m patriotic? You think I started this argument where I openly admit imperial’s faults, just to defend America’s pride? You have ignored nearly all of my arguments because you are unable to accept the fact that metric isn’t better at literally everything. Nothing is perfect, and I’m not sucking america’s dick by telling you that. The one thing I got wrong was assuming you wanted a real conversation.

A “coffee” at starbucks, or an energy drink Have more in common with a dessert, then water filtered thru ground up beans.

Is your only problem the sugar? If so, don’t you think some coffee drinks should be regulated as well as energy drinks? That’s essentially my point, I don’t think it makes sense to enforce age restrictions on energy drinks but not on similar products too.

If its the caffeine, then regular coffee isn’t necessarily better than an energy drink anyway. Caffeine content in coffee varies wildly based on numerous different factors. You can make a cup of black coffee with 265mg of caffeine in it, and it would even be cheaper than one with 100mg.

coffee is natural and has been used for centuries.

So is cocaine and opium. Are you joking? I honestly can’t tell.

What is it that makes coffee better for you than an energy drink? I know they usually have an obscene amount of sugar and caffeine, but you can get that in coffee too. I make a drink fairly often with 4 shots of espresso, around 250mg of caffeine. It doesn’t have that much sugar but I could easily add as much as I wanted. A normal cup of coffee would of course be much better than an energy drink, but if energy drinks should have restrictions then why shouldn’t coffee too?