swim

How a gun “works” is that a thick-walled chamber houses the cartridge, so that as the powder ignited within rapidly expands (deflagration) there is nowhere for it to go besides violently propelling the projectile into the barrel. If there is no chamber, the thin walls of the cartidge are the path of least resistence, and the bullet likely stays put as the gases escape from cracks in the casing.

So no, while this wouldn’t be “safe” (eye damage comes to mind), there would not be enough energy to significantly wound a human by striking a round’s primer without a chamber.

No barrel makes the whole round detonate. The bullet is ineffective, the “gun” explode :(

autististic

Repeating patterns, checks out

“Did you think I was gonna mug you?” came from the girl, not 2A bro

Not to mention her luxury room and board, the shopping sprees, and the jewelry gifts.

I’m familiar with every large “delivery app” service, and none involve a situation where the driver fronts their personal money. That’s ridiculous. The app service gives the driver a credit card for situations where in-person payment is required.

Animals raised for consumption generate 32 percent of the world’s methane emissions, and agriculture is the largest source of anthropogenic methane pollution. Methane is the second most abundant greenhouse gas after carbon, and it’s 80 to 90 percent more powerful than carbon in its first 20 years in the atmosphere. This is why many scientists believe that aggressively curbing humanity’s methane pollution would be the fastest way to slow planetary warming. And methane isn’t the only environmental problem associated with meat and dairy. Even though animal agriculture provides 17 percent of the world’s calories, it accounts for 80 percent of global agricultural land use and 41 percent of global agricultural water use, which translates into an outsize impact on biodiversity.

Reminds me of “The Persuaders.” Great book. This comes from a Guardian review on it:

By far the most fascinating and potentially useful case study is that of Anat Shenker-Osorio, the communications strategist for progressive causes, whose tactics, pegged to the data, have exposed a lot of shortfalls in leftwing political campaigning. Shenker-Osorio points out that when people get frightened, they skew right; when they feel compassion and common cause with their fellow humans, they skew left.

Similar words, both would work. Look them up if you’re interested. Exponent connotes more of a “believer” to me, whereas the proponent is an advocate.

A person who believes in and promotes the truth or benefits of an idea or theory.

I’m going to relentlessly spam your podcast with spelling and grammar corrections so the ridiculous and unfeasible crimes pale in comparison to the word crimes I’ve exposed.

Everything you’re quoting is from the link I posted, saying things I’ve already said in other comments. I’m proud of you for reading the information.

Based on a 100-gram comparison, the Impossible Burger has more favorable stats for protein (17.2 g compared with beef’s 16.8 g), fiber (4.4 g to beef’s 0 g), and iron (3.7 mg to beef’s 2 mg) than traditional beef. It’s also lower in calories with fewer grams of total fat (11.5 g vs beef’s 19.9 g) and saturated fat (5.3 g vs beef’s 7.3 g)

Yep!

https://www.mdlinx.com/article/is-the-impossible-burger-really-healthier-than-beef/2t0XAvk0YsRsEaLbSfdZKc

Did I ask you to continue providing studies? Agenda? Good luck, friend.

I just told you why the study you linked is invalid for this conversation. Do you want me to quote the comment you just replied to so you can reread it?

Oh honey, your stealth edit shows that you don’t understand. I’ll explain it to you: the study you keep linking doesn’t differentiate between those foods in that “range of ultra-processed foods (UPF),” so that means data coming from “sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery” is getting all mixed in with the data of the “‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers,” which unfortunately renders the conclusions of the study rather meaningless when we’re talking about the CVD outcomes of just one of the data sets.

Link a study showing what?

Low-effort repost of your specious use of a study with nebulous conclusions for this conversation; I’ll quote the user above:

that category contains “soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes.” This gives you no information on Impossible burgers’ impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.