BodyBySisyphus [he/him]

There was, to put it mildly, a big brouhaha when this paper was published.

I think it might be nice as a guideline, but I don’t think it’s necessary to make it mandatory. I just thought it’d be funny to highlight the scholarly bathroom germ debate.

Teach the controversy via whiteboard marker on the bathroom mirrors!

Wilcox et al were working in a hospital setting and just found that the air bacterial counts were higher around hand dryers than around paper towel dispensers, which doesn’t establish whether the hand dryers are actually a source of bacteria. A more recent meta-analysis found mixed outcomes. So both the sign and the graffito need to revise and resubmit, ideally with a more comprehensive survey of the published literature.

Given that Psilocybe mushrooms are coprophiles (typically found growing in manure or pastures where manure is abundant), it’s unlikely that they mind being eaten.

As someone who’s had a paper sitting with a journal since August I can understand the motivation.

Waiting for someone to solve the problem by telling him about the dangerous food additive dihydrogen monoxide.

Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out

Blood Libel refers to the belief that Judaism incorporates the murder and consumption of (mainly) Christian children. Conflating this idea with what this meme is clearly referring to (what happening in Palestine) reinforces the Zionist propaganda that Zionism (and therefore the actual ethnic cleansing that Zionists are currently doing) is intrinsic to Judaism and should be immune from criticism on religious grounds.

But I suspect you are aware of that and are here in bad faith, so in short: no u

Without NATO aid, Ukraine will just plainly be taken over by Purine Russia

Ah, I think I’ve found the issue. Here at Hexbear we only support Pyrimidine Russia. We hate fuckin’ cytosine, don’t we folks?

I believe this is yours

Yeah, it’s not what I’d describe as a serious attempt at problem solving.

The Pareto principle is an economics idea - something is considered Pareto efficient if you can make someone better off without making someone else worse off, and you are at a Pareto optimum when you can’t make anyone better off without making someone worse off. Of course, because “better off” and “worse off” are entirely up for interpretation, people argue that taxing the rich to improve the lives of the poor is not Pareto efficient because you’re worse off if you have less money regardless of how much money you have left. So the only Pareto efficient solution is to grow the economy until all the poor people make enough money.

You can’t be poor if you’re dead