No, it won’t. That’s the point of the misconception. You even get to it later then dismiss. We aren’t taking about overall health. We aren’t talking about the 'betes.

I mean, whenever you are talking about health you always consider total outcomes. The articles you are linking are talking about a very specific type of dehydration.

None of those things will dehydrate you more despite people saying differently. Not soda, not milk, even beer under 2% beer will be better. You will be rehydrated, there WILL be a net gain of water in your body. There is no net loss of water no matter how much people say sugar or caffeine will lower the net gain.

“Beverages with more concentrated sugars, such as fruit juices or colas, are not necessarily as hydrating as their lower-sugar cousins. They may spend a little more time in the stomach and empty more slowly compared to plain water, but once these beverages enter the small intestine their high concentration of sugars gets diluted during a physiological process called osmosis. This process in effect “pulls” water from the body into the small intestine to dilute the sugars these beverages contain. And technically, anything inside the intestine is outside your body. Juice and soda are not only less hydrating, but offer extra sugars and calories that won’t fill us up as much as solid foods, explained Majumdar. If the choice is between soda and water for hydration, go with water every time. After all, our kidneys and liver depend on water to get rid of toxins in our bodies”

From your own article…

If you’re dehydrated, you’re lacking salt. There’s a reason why physically demanding companies provide free drink packets to their crews. They don’t want road crews dying by the side of the road because they slammed water and had no salt on a 100 degree day working next to a machine shooting out molten tar and rock. We aren’t pumping people’s blood full of sterile water. Saline bags are .9% salt for a reason.

Again, you are talking about a specific type of dehydration… hyponatremia is exceedingly rare and is usually a sign of an undiagnosed kidney disease. Your nephrons will usually regulate your thirst in conjunction to the available salts in the body.

Dehydration is not just a lack of salt, it’s an imbalance of salt. Meaning that you can just be low on fluid with too much salt available.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/when-replenishing-fluids-does-milk-beat-water-202211142849

"Unsurprisingly, the ad is sponsored by the milk industry. And while I’d never heard this claim before, the studies behind the idea aren’t particularly new or compelling. "

Finally, the main benefit of water is that it’s neutral. The reason why people don’t tell you to slam a glass of milk or soda if you’re dehydrated is because it can upset your stomach. When concentrated amounts of sugars or fats enter the intestine the dilution process can go overboard and cause diarrhea, which can dangerously dehydrate you further.

Hydration is more complicated than what you are alluding too. Simply stating everything but piss and liquor is better than water is just ridiculous and misleading. In specific scenarios other liquids may provide some advantages, but it’s highly reductive to make that claim so broadly. Especially considering it requires you to separate hydration from kidney health, you know the things that control your thirst in the first place.

You know what’s better than water when you need water? Nearly everything that isn’t alcohol or literal piss.

I mean it really depends on the person and their current condition. The article you linked kinda has an abstract definition of hydration that doesn’t take into account things normally associated with dehydration.

If you are working hard outside and are mildly dehydrated I wouldn’t recommend slamming down a sugary soda with caffeine. Excessive sugar is diluted in the intestines which can cause further dehydration, and caffeine is a diuretic.

Normally this wouldn’t really matter, but if you’re already dehydrated it can make the situation worse.

Water is great, it may not be the most effective hydrator in the world as it doesn’t have the electrolytes and sugars that something like Gatorade has. However, it’s the best thing for your overall kidney and liver health which is what really matters. Most Americans already have an excess of salt, fat, and sugar in their diets, so even after working outside and sweating your ass off you are probably better off just having some water.

If you’ve ever played in the surf and can feel when a wave pulls you towards the ocean before another wave pushes you back towards the beach. It’s like that, but just the undertow part. It’s very noticable.

would argue that Muslims are, by default, required by their religion to make the hajj. You make it sound as if it’s opt in, but their religion mandates it with some exceptions.

Nah dude, the vast majority of Muslims never go to mecca. It’s not a mandate anyone enforces but yourself. I think only like 9% of Muslims ever actually get to make the trip.

That’s not fair. I’m still kinda convinced Brandon Sanderson has clones, or has made a compact with the devil or something. How can someone write so much and not be in the throws of of some kind of manic breakdown? It’s just not fair to the other fantasy writers.

In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:

(a) artificial islands;

(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;

© installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.

There no language in the EEZ article that mentions “territorial military outpost”.

According to who?

In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have the exclusive right to construct and to authorize and regulate the construction, operation and use of:

(a) artificial islands;

(b) installations and structures for the purposes provided for in article 56 and other economic purposes;

© installations and structures which may interfere with the exercise of the rights of the coastal State in the zone.

Can you link what article that falls under?

Nah, there’s pretty clear rules. It’s just that the main power in the region tends to ignore them when it suits them. Again, how is the Philippine government breaking international law?

I think that’s more plausible than China’s claim that their exclusive economic zone stretches over a thousand miles off their coast, and supercedes both Vietnams and the Philippines exclusive economic zones…

What’s your point?

You seemed to be suggesting that what the Philippines is doing is breaking the rules of unclos, but you haven’t explained how.

but flouts it at every opportunity. International law for thee but not for me.

How? They are allowed to protect the resources in their exclusive economic zone. China on the other hand is still attempting to enforce a claim that was invalidated by international courts in 2016.

Seems like you might be projecting on the behalf of China.

And how exactly does China’s claim work within unclos? The shoal is only 190nm away from the Philippines and should be part of the Philippines exclusive economic zone. If there is any questions of legitimate territorial claim it would be with Vietnam not China.

Also, stopping any navigation within your own exclusive economic zone goes against unclos, let alone stopping navigation of a country in their own exclusive economic zone.

First of all, that guy looks like shit for a 34 year old. Doesn’t look like the hair plugs took as well as he hoped.

Secondly… This guy just went through like eight years of school and like ten of residency and fellowship to be a surgeon, and he just threw away his whole damn life to own the libs.

No hospital with an operating room is ever going to allow this guy to practice, even if he somehow gets away with a slap on the wrist. This is the exact type of scenario that hospitals dread. Texas Childrens is going to be sued, especially since they let him access patient information after he finished his rotation. I also think there are fines for the facility where a HIPAA violation occurred.

What a loser.

No, it’s not socially acceptable. Yes, I wish it were.

Like, does this mean you are afraid of other people you don’t know judging you, or that you or your friends find it socially unacceptable?

Either way that seems to be more of an individual problem rather than a social one. I am physically affectionate with my friends and have never been confronted about it by a member of the public , not that I would really care if I were. People be dumb, I’m not going to let someone else’s projected homophobia dictate my friendship.

Japan is still a fairly insular nation, especially in regards to the topic of history. During the Meiji restoration they basically rewrote their own history, which also kinda requires you to ignore or reshape everyone else’s history to suit your perspective. As a result, I doubt world history is very well covered in their public education.

I would still say that “the soap attaches the oil to water” isn’t quite right. Per your statement, the soap attaches to both oil and water on opposite sides of the molecule, so the oil isn’t really attached to the water - at least not directly. That was the thing I was trying to articulate.

Yeah, it’s open to interpretation as we aren’t utilizing strict scientific terminology. The reason why i preface it that way is that technically emulsifiers are still oils/fats themselves, they’ve just undergone a chemical reaction that alters their polarity.

Also, when you are trying to create a proper emulsification the majority of the time you add you emulsifiers to the oils/fats first to create a partial emulsification, and then you add your water and energy to finish it off.

But I understand your reasoning, even the best emulsification is still technically an aided dispersion and will lose its homogenisation over time.

The soap doesn’t work by attaching oil to water, the soap attaches to the water and then the soap is carried away by the water. Oil doesn’t dissolve in water, but oil dissolves in soap and soap dissolves in water.

I’m sorry, but that is incorrect. Soap is created as a reaction between fat and an alkaline reagent, often sodium hydroxide. This chemical reaction creates bi-polar molecules, with one side remaining hydrophobic allowing it to bond to other fats, and one side that is hydrophilic and will bond to water.

Oil by itself does not dissolve in soap, it creates a partial emulsification. That partial emulsification will relatively quickly separate back to oil and soap given time, adding water and energy will create a complete emulsion which will hold the water oil and fat together for much longer.

Due to a project at my company, I unfortunately know entirely more about emulsification than I would like.

Yeah, still not great. Even with a bunch of soap you’re still going to have some grease that doesn’t get emulsified with the soap and water.

The way soap works is by attaching molecules of oil to water, but it requires a lot of agitation/energy for a complete emulsion that won’t quickly break down to its constituent parts again.

If you’re in a situation where you have to pour grease down your pipe, continue your soap method, but let the hot water run for a min or two before, during, and after you pour the grease. The hotter the better.

Where exactly in Europe are communist winning elections?

Look up the meaning.

I don’t think you know what an ad hominem is… Attacking someone’s argument is not attacking them as a person. Who was I attacking?

Your logical fallacy is not my fault.

Lol, I think you need to relearn your logical fallacies.

I don’t. The one who “instinctually” believes it means something other than men hanging out are the people who think it sounds gay.

Again, unsubstantiated. And you haven’t explained how it would be homophobic.

First, that’s you inferring it from me not saying something, not me implying it.

Insisting a pro lgbtq website is being homophobic because one sentence taken out of context…

clarified the question, which you ignored

Because you didn’t add any clarity, you just questioned what the point of context was.

Personal bias and logic are too different things. My points are either wrong or they are right.

Personal biases affect how you developed an argument in the first place.

Whether they come from someone who is biased or unbiased does not change whether they are wrong or right.

Yes, and in this point of the argument you still haven’t sufficiently explained how a gay person labeling something as gay is homophobic. You know the entire point of the argument.

Your biases are leading you to draw conclusions from information taken out of context.

Ad hominem

Lol, who exactly am I attacking? I’m just stating it’s odd that you think you know more about homophobia than a queer author.

Argumentum ad populum.

Only because you haven’t stated your interpretation, what else is there to judge? A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Straight men hanging out with each other is labelled as “pretty gay.” This is irrational because straight men can hang out with each other without being gay.

You’re purposely conflating what the author wrote, and misquoting them. Not exactly academically honest.

The quote was that “All Male Monday” sounds pretty gay. Which it does. That’s not homophobic, in fact it would be pretty rad if the context was at an lgbtq bar, and not a gathering of bigots.

Why do you instinctually believe All Male Monday has an inherent negative connotation?

Never said not suggested this. I think they’re idiots. Just like the author of this piece and the tweet, and the editors for allowing it. Multiple times youve falsely out words in my mouth

You have, by ignoring the purpose of the article and just interpreting statements taken out of context. You have also stated it’s gay people’s fault for driving men away from affection from other men.

“An all-male Monday sounds pretty gay to me.”

Yes, if someone advertised for a bar with “All Male Mondays”, It would be easy to assume it’s a gay bar. That by no means implies males hanging out makes you gay. Nor does it imply that being gay is bad, which would be homophobic.

What does context have to do with this? , when my level of homophobia has no bearing on the content of my argument.

What does context have to do with any arguments…? Every argument requires context so you can’t just misinterpret a piece of a body of work.

You tried to attack me, by calling me homophobic

No, your argument implies you are homophobic. Being called gay is not homophobic unless the person calling you gay is doing so as an insult. You are implying that being gay is inherently insulting.

In the context of the article, the writer would have to believe their own sexuality is inherently insulting.

when my level of homophobia has no bearing on the content of my argument.

Well at least we agree that you are homophobic, just apparently not at what level?

And yes, personal biases are important to determining the logical framework of an argument.