Should you put glue in pizza?

No, you should not put glue in pizza. Here are several reasons why:

Safety Concerns

• Toxicity: Most glues, especially those not designed for food use, contain chemicals that are toxic if ingested. Consuming glue can lead to serious health issues.
• Allergic Reactions: Some people may have allergic reactions to the components in glue, which could be dangerous.

Culinary Integrity

• Taste and Texture: Glue would significantly alter the taste and texture of the pizza, making it unpalatable. Pizza is meant to be enjoyed for its flavors and textures, and adding glue would ruin that experience.
• Food Quality: Using non-food substances in cooking is not only unappetizing but also undermines the quality of the meal.

Alternatives

If you're looking to enhance your pizza, consider using safe and delicious ingredients such as:

• Cheese: Different types of cheese can add flavor and texture.
• Herbs and Spices: Fresh basil, oregano, or crushed red pepper can elevate the taste.
• Sauces: Experiment with different sauces like pesto, barbecue, or garlic sauce for a unique twist.

In summary, glue has no place in pizza or any food preparation. Stick to safe and edible ingredients to ensure a tasty and enjoyable meal!

by Perplexity

why bank when you can dank

in my experience, FIDO tokens suck. I have to around 10 times every time I use one to log in.

In the latest Diagnostic and Statistics Manual (DSM-5-TR), intellectual disability is the term that replaces mental retardation meaning mentally slow or delayed. Before mental retardation, it was mental deficiency implying there was something inferior. To me, there's no real difference between mental deficiency and intellectual disability. They are synonymous. Before the first DSM, a prominent doctor in the field of intelligence created a tiered system of intelligence that applied the labels moron, imbecile, and idiot (ordered higher to lower intelligence). Those words became derogatory too. The issue is not that scientists can't guess the correct term that wont become an insult.

The issue is that society defines values for people which allows terms to be insults. As long as oppression exists, the vulnerable will fall victim to it. The disabled, by definition, will always be part of the vulnerable group. Additionally, oppression is always justified by arguments on who deserves what, whether it be religion, race, sex, social class, work ethic, or intelligence. As long as we hold the value that inequitable distribution is not only acceptable but the ultimate goal of a just society, then regardless of the rules we establish, however noble or virtuous, the disabled will always be part of the oppressed, and thus, the terms for lower intelligence will continually evolve from neutral to derogatory.

You use Arch, btw

you guys and your facebooks. it's not 2015 anymore.

Juror 1: It wasn't him. I know it in my heart...because I've had congenital heart disease my whole life, so I'm acutely aware of how my heart is feeling at all times. Like when my insurance company raised my premiums, I felt that in my heart. I feel this verdict in my heart, too.

Juror 2: At first, I thought it was him, but then I didn't. Something about it made me change my mind. He just looks like a highly principled person. The media owes this man an apology.

Juror 3: This reminds me of the time I went to the ER with a severe migraine, and the insurance company denied payment for the visit because there was no proof that I had a migraine and said it could have been anxiety, which wasn't covered in my plan. Maybe this wasn't murder. Maybe this was assault. I guess we'll never know now.

Juror 4: The prosecution made a good case, but the defense made one very good point: the victim has a long history of gaslighting vulnerable people. It made it hard to trust them.

Juror 5: I think it was a cover up. Maybe the "victim" killed himself and wanted to make it look like a murder so his family would get the insurance money. They seemed to know a lot about insurance loopholes and tactics.

Juror 6: I feel for the victim, but I think that considering the charges, they need a second opinion...Oh, the law states that someone can't be tried for the same crime twice? If they think that is unjust, they could work with government to come up with a better system then. Though it is going to be a tough battle to repeal the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution since they will need approval from 38 states, but maybe they have the public's sympathy.

Juror 7: I'm glad this trial is over. I need to get to the home to take care of my wife with cancer. The insurance company keeps giving me trouble, and she's too weak to fight it.

Juror 8: Did you know that the defendant hadn't even met the victim once. Who targets a random stranger for no reason at all? The prosecution wasn't able to make a case defining the motive of the defendant.

Juror 9: In my experience, you have to be careful with insurance companies. You can never trust them. The prosecution was working for an insurance company, so it was hard to believe anything they presented.

Juror 10: As a family practice doctor, I have to deal with insurance companies that lie about denials all the time, so I can tell when they are lying, and I think they were lying in the trial.

Juror 11: NOT GUILTY. The defendant seemed to be defending others from death or serious bodily injury, which is legal according to New York Penal Law 35.15.

Juror 12: The defense made a good point. The victim had told his doctor that he smoked a cigarette once in college, and I heard that smoking cigarettes can lead to poor health. Maybe the victim would have survived if he hadn't smoked before. We have to consider that.

The Cambodian Genocide

The Cambodian genocide was the systematic persecution and killing of Cambodian citizens by the Khmer Rouge under the leadership of Prime Minister of Democratic Kampuchea, Pol Pot. It resulted in the deaths of 1.5 to 2 million people from 1975 to 1979, nearly 25% of Cambodia's population in 1975 (c. 7.8 million) reducing the nation's life expectancy to a staggering 12 years in 1975.

But actually a lot of what we’d need is much easier to mass produce and research than you think it is. Like your average artillery, armor, and infantry unit basics.

That's true, so we'd need more details to discuss specific spending and costs.

Also, it doesn’t need to be a two front war. We have an entire ocean protecting us on both sides.

The naval and island hopping campaign battles for the Americans in WWII seemed like they had to happen. I would prefer that the battles take part in the open ocean than in the homeland, though I wouldn't want the battles to take part in islands of allied and neutral countries where the locals have to pay the toll either. Still, it seems like a war with China and Russia at the very least would take part in Europe and the Pacific. Perhaps Africa will be a theater since Russia and China have been developing a lot there. In fact, Wagner Group (the Russian mercenaries that was lead by Prigozhin) has had a presence there for years now. Regardless, that's only China and Russia.

If North Korea joined, then we would include the Korean peninsula, of which North Korea has spend decades preparing for an invasion by digging tunnels and setting up other defenses while their population is brainwashed to fear anything that is not North Korean. If Iran jumps in, then the Middle East including the Persian Gulf which would be an important theater because of energy/oil resources. Basically, a war like that would have the capacity to involve more than two fronts.

It's not an approval rating. It's a rating of what percentage of users find the post and discussion worthy of attention.

I kind of agree, but also think it's important to understand a few things about this:

• The US needs to keep its military-industrial complex active and technologically advanced at all times if it wants to be a military powerhouse. It can't decide to start it up whenever it wants because war machines have gotten too advanced. During WWII, it was easy to get the complex rolling because they just needed to churn out simple prop planes, tanks, rifles, and food. Now, they need stealth planes, laser-guided munitions, and high-tech chips.
• Because of the geography of the US and the geopolitical situation, it would likely fight a two-front war. If the US goes to war with a formidable power, said power would surely ally with another. The US will not just fight China alone. Russia and North Korea would join. Therefore, the US military needs to be large enough to fight knowing that by population, the US is much smaller. China has just over 4 times the population of the US.
• Having an overwhelmingly large and technologically advanced military serves as a deterrent. It's best to never go to war. It saves lives, economies, social institutions, etc. By having a decisively superior military, those that would consider starting a war avoid doing so.
• The Department of Defense and military-industrial complex is a huge jobs program anyway. Service members receive training and all sorts of benefits that support them and their dependents. Military production companies receive reliable government contracts that make their business ventures stable investments while employees receive relatively adequate pay. If the government did not fund those contracts, all those businesses would go out of business and everyone involved would have to find other means of sustenance.
• The US provides military defense and deterrence for more than just itself. It's practically the department of defense for most Pacific islands including Japan and the Philippines. It's also a necessary supporter of the EU and South Korea.

I'm not saying that I agree to the spending or that we shouldn't spend more on social welfare, but the solution is not obviously clear as just spending less on defense in my opinion.

I'm not arguing against you at all. I'm trying to understand your logic because it seems important to understand. Can you provide numbers and sources that show we are at the point of unsustainability? Is government interest about to match revenue so that we are near being unable to pay it? Or is there another reason we're at the point?

As a novice with little training, I've found AI to be helpful with running a server. Other than that, I depend on my own internet searches for info.

exactly. i thought Biden was the shit until Gaza. now, I dont even care about him at all. he's just another politician.

your face is a straight line

Illinois et Arquensas

I thought the same, but an internet search says it means "late to the party".

Elaine was part of the masturbation episode and lost, which further speaks to the progressiveness of the show because a woman was portrayed as having sexuality that was outside of acceptable limits at the time (for love only, preferably in marriage). They also presented being gay as acceptable, which was quite progressive at the time where people were calling each other "gay" and the f-word as a terrible insult.

Even at the young age of middle school watching that show, I knew George was a shitty person. Yet, I still felt sympathy for him because of his parents. Regardless, my favorite character was Frank Costanza. He was so over the top and emotional. The dude had PTSD from soldiers in Korea not liking his food in the field mess hall 😂