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.

Wikileaks was never really a beacon of free speech its always been more of a platform where people can leak information about goverments and other powerful individuals or organizations doing bunch of shady or downright evil stuff behind our back. These often offer rare glimpse behind the scenes allowing us to be little less blind when voting during whather elections comes next.

When WikiLeaks first came about it’s original goal was aimed at leaking information about authoritarian governments, primarily China and some countries in the Middle East. It was pretty big news at the time because assange had wrangled together a team of some pretty high profile Journalist and privacy tech people.

However, most of those people were never really involved in the organization, and were mainly utilized as a marketing scheme. The rest slowly left the organization as works in their fields within WikiLeaks stagnated, or left over security and leadership concerns.

Imo Assange has always been a duplicitous attention seeker. However, if that were illegal, pretty much everyone involved in media would be thrown in a cell. I think his biggest failures that should tarnish his public image is his handling of the leaks. Him rushing to release information against the advise of his security experts, information that hadn’t been properly vetted to protect the whistle blowers from prosecution.

Multiple people have had their lives ruined because he didn’t take the time and effort to protect his sources. And not because they didn’t have the ability to, or lacked the proper protocols, but because Julian didn’t care so long as his name got air time.

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.

Yet here we are, talking about it. “There’s no such thing as ‘Bad Press’”, I guess? Are they right?.. maybe. Are they detracting from the plight?.. also, maybe. Am I sure of my opinion of their protests?.. no, not really.

Right, but we are talking about it knowing the consequences of not enacting changes. In the US fox news is watched by something like 40% of active voters. Meaning a significant portion of voters actively distrust news about climate change, another significant portion do not think about it on a day to day basis.

Giving the news network ammunition like this only further entrenches these audiences in anti climate change reactions.

Seems like something I’ll have to read more about.

Would knowing that this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress that lives in a 33m dollar home affect your opinion?

Sorry for believing a protest should help your cause more than it harms it?

You do know this particular ngo is funded by an oil heiress, right?

Surely we’ll all be okay as long as people are teaching us to be civil and not… harm the cause.

I never claimed that I wanted people to remain “civil”, you can attack that strawman as you wish.

I don’t mind people engaging in violent disobedience or civil disobedience, every MLK needs a Malcom X. However, I just don’t see the benefit in this particular situation. If you are going to do something that could potentially harm public sentiment you should at least be doing something that materially changes things for the positive.

I’m done, a lot of us are. Good luck.

Get off your high horse, were all dealing with the same problem here. Just because someone differs in opinion on how political capital should be spent, it doesn’t mean your perspective has a monopoly on morality or anything.

I say they’re building political capital. They’re creating a fuss.

The people who think of this as a net positive are already supportive of climate change initiatives. So who exactly are they building political capital with?

They’re creating noise, which can then be turned into action.

How? In what situation is there a problem that is more easily solved when people “make a fuss”?

What are you doing?

Not turning potential allies into enemies?

What are you doing?

It was as pointless as everything else, that’s why they did it, it’s screaming into the void to get attention.

It’s not just pointless, it’s potentially damaging to the cause. I don’t mind if someone rubs against the grain of public sentiment for a cause, so long as the way they do it actually accomplishes a goal.

Are there though? I’m old enough to remember this has gone on for decades without anyone doing anything of significance and now we’re at the actual edge of global catastrophe and STILL people are like “hmn, those kids should be recycling.”

And how does cornstarching rocks, or defacing art make any kind of difference? Is there any possible outcome that benefits the cause? It seems like the only thing this accomplishes is drowning out any other news about climate change for 2 to 3 weeks.

Bruh, you and so many people have no idea how many lives are going to be lost in the next century while every milquetoast liberal and conservative in the developed world roll their eyes and get pissed at slight annoyances like… checks notes colored corn starch on rocks you will never visit.

Just because someone disagrees with you on how to spend the very limited amount of political capital accumulated for climate change, does not mean they are less informed on the subject than you.

I don’t give a fuck about Stonehenge, but it’s stupid to believe that others do not. It’s also pretty stupid to ignore concepts like blowback and public sentiment.

They HAVE sprayed BP’s factories and lots and machines, they have sabotaged equipment and chained themselves to machines and have caused material harm to companies like BP, but that doesn’t get any fucking coverage because media doesn’t want to encourage “violent activism” for fear of turning away viewers like YOU who are annoyed by such things.

Lol, they arent afraid of turning away viewers, they are worried about turning away advertisers. They are part of the capital class preserving the fossil fuel industry. Of course they don’t want to spread violent activism. They would much rather all climate activists display protest that they can utilize to turn the public against the cause.

Which begs the question, why are these groups providing the media with ineffective protests that turn public opinion against the cause and garter a ton of negative press in the first place?

I’ve heard of them. I’ve never heard of you.

Not exactly a good thing… One of the problems with making a lot of noise is drowning out the voices of others on the same side.

Political capital is a thing, utilizing it in a protest that doesn’t really accomplish anything but turning public sentiment against your cause is kinda a dumb way to spend it.

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.

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.

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.

Fair enough. I think then it’s important to distinguish between what subsidies are worth tariffing and what subsidies are not. If Germany rezones an area to allow car factories to be built, is that a subsidy worth tariffing?

Eh, I don’t really have a strong opinion on tariffing. Tbh I don’t really have strong opinions about subsidizing private equity, other than they really shouldn’t really exist.

Under “free market” capitalism subsidies nor tariffs should exist by definition. And under socialism or communism, I would much prefer that the state employ the workers to do the work of the state. Subsidizing private equity just moves the people’s money into the pockets of middle men.

I think the current global regression back to an odd stage of mercantilism is the product of the moneyed class in China and the west attempting to goad political leaders into abandoning their economic principles for greater profit margins.

I mean, in this case it’s more that the developers lost money and the government gained assets sold below book value… That’s pretty good return imo. The developers’ investors got fucked, yes, but have you looked at, say, Evergrande’s ownership? Not all Chinese developers are state-owned. In fact, the distressed ones are not.

Right, but the developers are way over leveraged meaning that it’s not really their money but the banks. The banks/government is making the best out of a bad situation, but they are still loosing substantial amounts of capital. One of the reasons this kicked off in the first place was the government trying to get a handle on private equity borrowing more than their company is worth. That’s not really not criticism on the government action, it’s best to pull that bandaid off as soon as possible, but it still hurts. I think it’s mainly the fault of local banks who have probably been either careless or fraudulent in their reporting to the central bank.

Do you know how China imputes rent for their GDP calculations? It’s the construction cost depreciated linearly over the life of the building. Think about that for a second, then come back to me. I can explain it to you, but when I realized what it meant it shook me to the core so maybe it’ll have the same effect on you lol. For reference, the US imputes rent by asking “what would the homeowner have paid if they had to rent.”

Again, this just isn’t something I really care about much. GDP and how it’s calculated is mostly legal fiction, utilized primarily for international bragging rights and as a way to lull investments from foreign capital.

It sounds like China utilizes user cost approach, and the west utilizes the comparison approach. China’s approach makes sense for a more centralized lending apparatus, as it can help prevent the boom and bust cycle so common in western real estate market. But it’s still susceptible to market collapse if you miscalculated building cost or depreciation values, and makes it harder to sustain value in real estate investments unless you are constantly building more and more.

I think in the end it just creates two different types of problems. In the west the comparison approach provides less motivation for developers to build an adequate amount of housing. In China, it creates too much incentive for developers to overdevelop housing to the point where it devalues the very concept of individual investments in housing.

I think a better solution would be to consider affordable housing development to be a natural monopoly that is provided by the government without the input of private capital. But that would be a blow to GDP for both systems, and I think we both know how the capital class of both China and the west would respond to that.

Your claim that surveillance flights are not considered an action worth intercepting in inside EEZ is disproven by the actions of basically every country on the planet.

I didn’t claim that, as I already said there are specified clauses within unclos that delineate between military and commercial aircraft that limit the freedoms of travel for military aircraft.

Which is why it doesn’t make sense to assume a delineation of “military action” vs navigation at sea. If they really wanted to limit navigation for military vessels they would have specified so, as they did with military aircraft.

Again, I’m not saying this is fair or reasonable. Laws of the Sea were originally developed by nations that could enforce them with a strong navy, mainly to maintain a monopoly of that power. It doesn’t make any sense for these nations to ratify a system of rules that strip those powers away from them. The goal is to maintain the hierarchy of power, making the laws just reasonable enough for other nations to sign, as opposed to fighting a stronger naval power.

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.