We’re not unicellular organisms, though.

Also the wiki page also states that 90% of the metabolism happens in the liver

That’s true of quite a few macronutrients we eat.

Fructose needs to be metabolized in the liver, which converts some of it into glucose or lactate, which then circulates to cells that will use either in respiration. It also gets converted to glycogen stored in the liver, which can then be used to converted into glucose as needed for regulating blood glucose.

Lipid metabolism, which also relies on the liver, has fatty acids assembled into triglycerides, and circulated to where cells can take them in as free fatty acids and glycerol, for cellular respiration through beta oxidation.

Starches and other complex carbohydrates are split up by enzymes in saliva or fermented in the gut, often by microbes, releasing glucose that can enter the bloodstream.

Alcohol metabolism results in acetate both in the liver and circulating in the body. The acetate is metabolized into acetyl-CoA, which is used for synthesizing fatty acids (which can be used for cellular respiration or converted to triglycerides for longer term storage). Acetate can also directly support cellular respiration in the brain, as an alternative to glucose, and chronic alcoholics often have brain tissue that has adapted to use more acetate than glucose.

The point, though, is that all the different metabolic pathways result in oxygen being consumed and carbon dioxide being produced. The limited abilities of specific cells to make use of certain compounds doesn’t change the fact that the entire body has organs that help process what we eat into what our cells can use.

Yeah, it’s a mixing of art styles.

The road, yacht, and bushes all choose not to put very much detail, but the actual cars are all essentially flattened photographs with perfect perspective and angles and shadows.

Not saying that level of accurate detail isn’t possible with hand-drawn comics (see pbfcomics for an artist who is simply amazing at choosing the level of detail appropriate for the joke) but the subtle mismatch just looks wrong at first glance.

Then, the inaccurate details in the exact same comic. It doesn’t seem like one coherent work with one author.

Alcohol definitely interferes with all sorts of stuff, I’m not disputing that. The body prioritizes getting rid of circulating alcohol.

But if you look at the way the body metabolizes alcohol, using alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) enzymes to convert to acetaldehyde, and aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) enzymes to convert to acetate, the process accumulates acetate in the body. And acetate is metabolized in the Krebs cycle.

I don’t know what experiment you’re referring to, but the metabolic pathway that ethanol follows, to acetate, is pretty well established. And that pathway accounts for how the body gets rid of something like 98% of the alcohol it consumes.

As the body gets rid of that poison, it consumes oxygen and releases carbon dioxide, generating energy stored in ATP molecules.

Alcohol has calories. This is basic textbook nutritional science.

Yes, exactly. Even true translations can carry different connotations, and that’s part of what makes translation interesting, that even simple sentences can lose some implied meaning in a direct, correct translation.

Ethanol metabolism does feed into the Krebs cycle and results in about 7 calories per gram. It just passes through some pretty nasty intermediate steps, with acetaldehyde circulating and causing tissue damage in the meantime.

But you can get usable energy out of ethanol.

as I believe humans to be social and compassionate by nature

It’s best read as part of the broader debate about whether human nature pushes people into being cruel or generous or noble or something else, in the absence of social structure.

It’s not even necessarily commentary on the average person, but whether a power vacuum would enable the worst among us to be even worse than they can be in a highly structured society. Bad people taking power can still happen in a group that is 90% good, if the cruel or evil or narcissistic will take control for their own ends, and the good aren’t successful (or don’t try) in maintaining social control for good.

This Wikipedia article gives a pretty good writeup of the history.

The traditional method of legal education in the United States was an apprenticeship type model (and going back to England around the time when the current United States was English colonies), where aspiring lawyers would need to find apprenticeships/clerkships under the supervision and mentorship of existing lawyers.

Then during the 1800s, as you mention, schools like Harvard started offering legal education in the university environment, but university programs were competing with the rising professionalization and standardization of the professional schools where practitioners would formally take on many apprentices with a more formal, systematic curriculum of materials for the apprentices to study and do. So by 1900, the majority of lawyers still did not have law degrees from university-affiliated programs.

Around the same time, English universities were working through reforms of how legal education would work, and experimented with 6-year degrees that required no prior bachelor’s degree, or 3-year programs that did require a separate bachelor’s degree.

Throughout all of this, in England and in the United States, there was debate about whether it should be a postgraduate degree or a bachelor’s degree, the extent to which the education should emphasize theory or practical skills, and how long these programs should be, and what the degree itself should be called.

Eventually, after fits and starts, all the different approaches started to merge into a new consensus in the United States by the 1960s, with the support of the American Bar Association: a 3-year Juris Doctor degree that requires a 4-year degree as a prerequisite. Apprenticeship has pretty much fallen by the wayside, with only very few states allowing that pathway as a method of becoming a lawyer, and some states (like California) requiring additional testing to prove competence (a first year exam known as the baby bar exam, then the bar exam), and almost all legal employers choosing not to hire any lawyers who don’t have J.D.s, that anyone who actually wants to practice as an attorney in the United States will generally go to law school in the United States. Some states allow foreign lawyers to sit for the bar exam after only one additional year of education in an American law school (the international LLM), but that’s a fairly niche path, mainly for people in New York who work in international things.

See, e.g., Ted Kaczynski.

I did have a torrid love affair with a pretzel once.

I don’t know where my wife fits into this equation, but I find Stanley to be the best match for who I am, and is definitely the most relatable character on the show for me.

Yeah, there’s a lot of unwritten rules about where the lines are drawn on legitimate play for competitive advantage in the sport itself, to dirty play that veers into being about hurting someone rather than playing good offense/defense, socially acceptable fighting that is part of the broader game, and is penalized within the rules of the game by the refs on the ice, to socially unacceptable fighting that warrants league intervention after the game for suspensions and the like.

It can still be worth it, but we gotta place each act in the appropriate category.

Beginner level tasks can be done with mediocre tools, because they don’t require a ton of precision. That’s why they’re beginner tasks.

Master level tasks may require highly specialized and high quality tools. A master can tell when a tool isn’t up for the job of that very high level task, and often true expertise involves knowing how to maintain one’s tools to be able to do work with the required level of control or precision.

Understanding the scope of the critique is important. It’s still valid to criticize beginners who blame their tools when failing at very forgiving tasks that don’t require good tools.

I live in the United States. This is true of urban dog parks I’ve lived near in the East Coast, the West Coast, Texas, and the Midwest. I didn’t have a dog when I lived in rural or small town America, so I don’t have direct experience with that, but my impression of stranger openness in rural areas wasn’t that different.

For communal spaces, striking up conversations with people near you is also pretty natural. Sitting next to someone at a bar or counter, especially in hotels and airports, is an easy way to talk to someone to pass a little bit of time, and then just disappear back into anonymity whenever you feel like it. The training wheels version is talking to your bartender, and then leaving to talking to other people who are talking to the bartender.

At this point I also have kids, so anywhere there are other parents is also an easy way to talk to strangers. Parks and playgrounds. School and extracurriculars and summer camps and stuff like that have plenty of opportunities to run into semi regular faces that become familiar.

I also know several of my neighbors’ names (and basically all of their dogs’ names). When I lived in apartment buildings I tended to get to know a few other people who lived in the building, who I’d regularly see in the elevators or lobby or mail room or common areas/amenities.

Probably the most important skill is being able to say something as part of a fleeting moment. Even using the description of “approaching strangers” sounds far more intentional than what I’m talking about, rather than just saying something to someone who is already physically close enough to hear.

And no, nowhere I’ve lived or regularly worked in the US (around 10 cities and 7 states) would it be considered rude to say to a stranger “ooh, I like your shirt.” People like to be complimented, especially on their choices. Same with “can I say hi to your dog?” or “hey where did you buy that coffee, is it anywhere near here?” It’s easiest when not every interaction is expected to escalate, and fostering a particular openness is how extroverts meet others, and occasionally step up to the next level (turning a one-off question to a stop-and-chat, having a good enough small talk that you exchange contact information, grabbing a meal or drink together, doing another activity together, etc.). I get that it’s harder for people who don’t already do all these things to start, but I’m asking people to look for small ways to start, if that’s what they actually want in life.

there’s no real way to practice social interactions in a safe setting

There are small talk opportunities if you know where to look.

Dog parks are my favorite. Bring your dog, make small talk with the other owners, get to know some of them. It’s a low stakes environment that doesn’t cost any money, allows you to exit at any time, guarantees at least one shared interest or commonality with people who live near you. You don’t even have to talk to people the first few times you go, and can build up comfort/familiarity in the specific place before you take the next step of striking up a conversation with another regular you see a lot.

Another option is where unrelated parties might mingle in shared space: communal tables or bar seating at coffee shops or bars or parks or even restaurants. These fleeting interactions might help practice the skills of small talk, enough to where it’s easy to have conversations with strangers.

And sometimes you can outsource the actual cold approach to the extrovert strangers you might encounter, by giving them something to talk about. A baseball cap with your university, a T-shirt with your favorite band from a tour you saw live, a tattoo of something fun, other items of clothing or accessories that might attract positive attention. Sometimes people will say something about it, and then you can talk about a shared interest or background at that point.

Lines and waiting rooms are also sometimes good places to pass the time with conversations. It’s a little harder now than 20 years ago, with the rise of smartphones, but it’s still a place where people might be bored and appreciate a little conversation to mix things up.

Same. I’m not in any way sympathetic to the processed food industry, but I think the nova system is scientifically un-rigorous, even in the low standards of nutrition science.

Experts in the field struggle to classify foods into processed versus ultra-processed, because on the face of the definition, it is imprecise and difficult to apply to some of the most commonly eaten foods in the world, prepared in many of the same ways that have been happening for centuries or millennia: bread, cheese, yogurt, pickles, fruit preserves.

It’s a bad system, and people who are concerned about processed foods should study the actual ingredients involved.

A belt should hold that down so that it’s not bouncing at all. It’s worth finding one that’s comfortable, and you can get used to it pretty quickly.

I didn’t like mine touching my skin so I would tuck in my shirt while running with a belt.

For a bigger ergonomics/comfort challenge, you might even extend out to run lengths where you have to bring your own water. I switched between handheld water bottles and backpacks, depending on length of run and amount of water needed. At that point, the weight and size of a phone is pretty insignificant in comparison.

I don’t run as much anymore, but these days I’m on a smartwatch plus wireless headphones. The watch doubles as a payment card too, in case I want to buy something while I’m out. Like candy fuel for my run.

It’s all related, though. Liver disease often causes cardiovascular issues, or vice versa. It’s most pronounced in skinny people with fatty liver disease, who have a significantly elevated risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. Either way, the liver is immensely important for a whole bunch of metabolic functions, and cardiovascular health depends on all those metabolic functions working properly.

Footie pajamas sound like a nightmare. I need my toes to be free.

It’s a matching function. There are things that some people are allowed to prioritize as important that I don’t care about at all. I don’t care about talent/skill in music, dance, art, but I know people who do. I prefer tall women and know a bunch of people who prefer small/petite women. Some people like firm butts and some like big boobs. Some prefer women who have advanced degrees, and others don’t care for it. Some can find accents sexy, while others don’t. There are a million little personality quirks that can be a turn off to some and turn on for others.

Defining “perfection” isn’t productive. Try to find someone who likes your strengths and doesn’t mind your weaknesses, and vice versa. But that doesn’t necessarily mean compromising on your important priorities just because people aren’t perfect. You’re still allowed to define standards.

Well, it’s sometimes exciting to be let into that level of intimacy, but it kinda presupposes a woman who normally has a fairly complex hair/makeup routine letting you see her without it. If going without makeup is the norm, then it’s not that intimate to be able to see the norm.