FauxPseudo

FauxPseudo OP , 13 hours ago

Without the color:

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b9935e1c-b382-4e9f-bef3-89e18044543c.jpeg

FauxPseudo OP , 12 hours ago

Nothing. For Sunday's I create new Heathcliff content as penance for removing him the rest of the time.

FauxPseudo , 13 hours ago

Roundup acid? Now there's a phrase I've never heard before. Depending on if it's buffered or not Roundup can have a pH of 3.5 to 9. But it's not the pH of glyphosate that makes it an effective herbicide. I'd probably not use that phrase in the future because it's a distraction that undermines your point.

FauxPseudo , 13 hours ago

You ever see an article about a "this changes everything" study but when you look at the study you start seeing all kinds of problems?

There is an untested assumption here. Just because glyphosate is present doesn't mean it's having an effect. That's like when we found aluminum plaques in Alzheimer's brains and assumed the aluminum was causing it.

I know that this article mentions new research showing DNA harm. This is counter to all previous studies so it will require a bit of replication to confirm that. The study they are depending on doesn't do a very good job showing it. The DNA damage they focused on was exclusively oxidative stress [OS] and at least twice that I saw they suggested looking to see if this could be counted with antioxidants. I expected it to be mentioned once because I had the same idea myself by the second time I had to fight the impulse to check and see if this was funded by Big Antioxidant.

Prior studies have shown that if you give super doses of GLY to sperm that it does effect motility for up to an hour, but a) this hasn't been shown in realistic dosages or in vivo. Just in vitro.
b) hasn't shown to effect DNA. I don't think this study did a good enough job of countering the prior data. As can be seen in these key graphs below.
c) they only tested for GLY. By not testing for anything else they get to attribute all variances to the one thing they tested for when it could have been something else. That alone should disqualify the study from being taken seriously without replication with better controls. This is exactly the kind of thing that gets weeded (no pun intended) out in replication and where Regression Towards the Mean rears its omnipresent head.

Only infertile couples were selected to be in this study. That creates a Texas Sharpshooter problem. There is no control group. Without s control you don't have a valid study.

The study found that eating an organic diet had no impact on GLY levels. That's worrying. Either their tests failed to find a difference, the study participants lied about their diet, or GLY is everywhere in the environment (both cities and farms). The study does not tell us how it was determined that the people included that only eat organic are, in fact, organic only eaters. It doesn't tell us if this was a check box or observation. If it was a checkbox what was the wording? Because self reporting and question design is important.
"Do you eat only organic?"
"Do you eat only certified organic?"
"Have you had an diet that consist of only certified organic foods for at least 6 months?"
Those are all going to give very different answers and because they didn't find any GLY variation between organic and non-organic diets the way they determined who had an organic and non-organic diet really matters.

There is definitely some shadiness going on with GLY. Bayer said that it was going to stop selling GLY to filthy casuals by January 2023. It is still very much for sale and shows no signs of going away.

Two asides.

1. according to this study being a smoker has a much larger impact than GLY. Given that a third of French people (all subjects in the study were French) smoke this seems like a much bigger concern than GLY.
2. The antinatalist in me is kinda fine with the whole situation because if it does actually reduce births then, sarcastically, this is a self limiting problem. Eventually there won't be enough people to mess things up and this is just a tool to get us there. The unspoken premise behind this study is that not having kids is bad.

FauxPseudo , 1 day ago

I got it in 2010/2011 and I think it was about $14. After inflation that works out to about $20.

FauxPseudo OP , 1 day ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/5cb0bde2-1616-4366-ba0d-7929b51eb684.jpeg

FauxPseudo OP , 1 day ago

Wireless power but it doesn't have WiFi so it has a data cable for the Roku plugged into a router and DVD player that both live in the TV stand.

FauxPseudo OP , 1 day ago

Taste is subjective. Some people just don't like absurdism. That's fine.

FauxPseudo OP , 23 hours ago

Garfield minus Garfield was a curated collection instead of an ongoing daily thing. Garfield minus Garfield was to show how existential things can get. This is nothing like that. This is showing that the comic is almost exactly the same even without the titular character.

Whether it's entertaining or not is subjective.

FauxPseudo OP , 2 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d2ced6da-6480-4e91-8c5d-b2fe75cb3cc9.jpeg

FauxPseudo OP , 1 day ago

I'm not sure if he is wishing to stop the garbage rain or if the wish for it to rain garbage was completed before the coin even made it into the wishing well.

FauxPseudo OP , 3 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db694e99-61a6-43e9-8354-1396ed64ea95.jpeg

FauxPseudo OP , 3 days ago

I think you did a great job of explaining the problems with this one. There is no prior context. It's a non-sequitur in a sea of non-squiturs. When I did the edit on this one I felt like it actually got better some people just hate snails. And for him to be referencing the giant snail made more sense than talking about the cat walking the snail.

FauxPseudo OP , 3 days ago

Yeah, it didn't even work as an anti-joke.

FauxPseudo OP , 3 days ago

Except they are sitting down and not showing any signs that this is an inconvenience.

FauxPseudo OP , 4 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/7fa2aa1f-177d-455b-9777-91cd3cbda050.jpeg

FauxPseudo OP , 5 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/bc53f9fd-33d6-426c-b72f-b5dff65e7f14.jpeg

FauxPseudo OP , 6 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/26daa42a-3a7f-4098-960f-dee6d55f2796.jpeg

FauxPseudo OP , 7 days ago

If you look at the edited version and then the original and they both make the same level of sense then the edit was successful in showing that Heathcliff's presence was irrelevant in the comic even though his name is on it.

As for if it's funny or not that gets into your level of appreciation for anti-jokes, surrealist, dadaist and absurdist humor. It's not for everyone.

FauxPseudo OP , 7 days ago

It's something to do. Takes like 5 minutes most days.

FauxPseudo OP , 8 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/bed2bc1c-969d-4e08-8157-5b5cb3857351.jpeg

FauxPseudo OP , 8 days ago

I think a key thing we're missing here is that this isn't a Heathcliff green alien post. This is a Kermit the Frog post.

It's not that an NAPG stopped including guest appearances for this week's comics but that he did include a deep reference here to an outside property.

Or maybe I'm overthinking it

FauxPseudo OP , 9 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ad18ec62-ed39-4961-9c87-c486c47fd8e9.jpeg

FauxPseudo OP , 9 days ago

I almost changed the boots into sneakers just to trigger Tucker.

FauxPseudo OP , 9 days ago

But Heathcliff is a super cat. He has unlimited money and an incredible liver

FauxPseudo OP , 9 days ago

First of all it's called Garfield Minus Garfield.
Second. Those were carefully selected. This is day in day out.
Third, those were meant to be existential. These are meant to show the titular character is irrelevant and the comic works exactly the same most of the time.
Fourth, nothing with Garfield is good. Even if he is removed.
Fifth, did your mom ever acknowledge that mistakes were made?

FauxPseudo OP , 10 days ago

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/df573d6a-6c96-4d14-8082-4fd4e2ea3431.jpeg

FauxPseudo OP , 10 days ago

Kinda surprised it wasn't a hot dog. He was partial to them in Empire.

FauxPseudo OP , 10 days ago

In order to remove Heathcliff I occasionally need to change the text that refers to him to completely remove him. Otherwise there is a ghost of Heathcliff and that won't do.

FauxPseudo OP , 10 days ago

Maybe this will help

https://solrad.co/unrepentant-or-how-to-read-heathcliff

FauxPseudo OP , 10 days ago

Understandable. Except that in the Heathcliff comics. If there is any kind of speech from a character, im this case the butcher swearing, the bottom text is never from the same person.

No one ever speaks twice.

FauxPseudo OP , 10 days ago

Then there is the issue that Yoda has a specific way of talking. It would be weird if the shopkeeper used it too.

FauxPseudo OP , 10 days ago

The fact that we have no idea why Iggy lives with his grandparents has caused a lot of speculation. And it's not even a NAPG thing. It goes back to the beginning in the 70s. Back when a kid living with their grandparents usually meant prison or death took the parents out of the picture.

FauxPseudo , 10 days ago

The next episode of This Week in Parasitism is going to be lit.

FauxPseudo OP , 11 days ago

Then things are going as planned.

FauxPseudo OP , 11 days ago

Pepe must be in jail with Pops Heathcliff because he couldn't make it to this event.

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/750c578d-4c40-421e-9084-23a29e18902a.png

FauxPseudo OP , 11 days ago

Michigan J. Frog.