I think that these, believe it or not, convey distinct meanings and aren't redundant. They use slightly different senses of the words.

For example:

"It's possibly possible for humans to colonize Mars/create sentient AI."

"It's possibly possible for me to lift 400 pounds if I became a bodybuilder."

"It's possibly possible for Earth to combine with another planet".

That is, it may be possible for humans to colonize Mars or create sentient AIs, or for you to lift 400 pounds, but we don't know yet. (Without making empirical claims, let's assume for sake of example that we know this to be true.) The first meaning of possibility relates to chance/probability whereas the second relates to ability/capability/feasibility. Another way to express it more clearly is "It's potentially possible/there's a chance that it's possible/capable of happening or being done". To just say "It's possible" might convey the same meaning, but risks confusing/conflating it with saying that it's definitely or even currently possible, rather than hypothetically (either physically/nomologically or just logically) possible in the sense of not currently being able to rule it out, falsify/disprove it or prove it either way (but having reason to think it could happen in some scenario).

"It's not necessarily necessary for you to wear a tie to the meeting, they might not care."

"It's not necessarily necessary to use antibiotics to treat the infection".

It may be necessary (in achieving a stipulated goal/outcome, such as success in getting a job or promotion, or tackling an infection) for some conditions or event/actions to be true/occur like wearing a tie or using antibiotics, but not definitely (we can't guarantee it would be required). First necessary relates to degree of certainty/confidence/conviction or accuracy/completeness of what you're saying, second relates to its requirement for serving a purpose (whether or not the purpose is itself necessary/required in any way). One way to say it might be "It's not definitely/absolutely/guaranteed to be required/essential".

How speak?

Title

When looking in the mirror, you can easily tell when you're smiling.

It would certainly shine a light on why people almost exclusively talk about meat when talking to vegans. If "meat" is being used to mean any and all dietary animal products, or even just including dairy and eggs, not just animal flesh, then it would explain a lot of behavior I've experienced.

I think vegans know, that all you hear from non-vegans is talk about meat. Trying to provoke us by saying they like/love meat, or meat is tasty, or that they're eating meat, or in cases of the internet, people (farmers, homesteaders) informing us that they'll be personally slaughtering animals in our name and attributing blame to us for that action. But even in less hostile cases, talking about how much they would struggle to give up meat, or debating the ethics, environmentalism, health & other factors purely related to meat production & consumption, defending their own consumption of meat or others', while seemingly ignoring what a vegan is and treating us as if we're vegetarians.

Ever since being vegan, it's been a weird notable experience for me that everyone talks to me about "meat". When I was vegetarian (by my understanding of the definition at that time, which just meant no consumption of animal flesh/bodies), no one ever talked about it. As soon as I'm vegan? "Oh, a vegan. Meat, meat, meat." It would make more sense to me if people said that when I was vegetarian, and then started talking about dairy, eggs or leather to me all the time when I went vegan. But I digress. I do have theories, like maybe the existence of people who don't use any animals with an ethical association triggers them more, and maybe that causes them to default to asserting their defiant attitude to continue consuming the "product" they're most attracted to, meat (though you also hear very frequently "I could never give up cheese").

Btw- "meat" isn't what I would rather say. I don't even like that word anymore, at least when used for animal flesh, because it feels like a euphemism & helps distance consumers from what "it" is. Plus, it denies the existence of plant-based meat or its meat status (nvm how meat just meant food originally, including plants). But I'll call it meat for these purposes or clarity and because we're discussing how language is used.

Title. What is the most ethical smartphone to buy instead of Fairphone that DOES have a 3.5mm headphone jack? By ethical I mean ticking as many boxes as possible: fair trade, environmentally sustainable (ideally using recycled materials), vegan (no animal products), etc etc. I also might get it second hand, but I still want the phone itself to be from an ethical company. Thanks

I blame society for telling me to use drugs. I went along with it to fit in. I don't care about fitting in anymore, but I don't think it was my fault for partaking given the social atmosphere. So why do I have to suffer these dreams that torment me about it? Do I have unresolved trauma related to it or some shit?

PS. I am straight edge now, I haven't used drugs in a long time and don't think about them while I'm awake at all. I prefer to be sober minded. The only part they play in my life is in occasional dreams apparently, which are usually negative and unpleasant.

Is this a satirical statement mocking the free Palestine movement or a genuinely pro Palestine slogan?

Or is it "The monkey for whom I'm wondering if they can see my ears."

or

"The monkey, regarding whom, I'm wondering if they can see my ears."

or

"The monkey who I'm wondering if they can see my ears."

All of them sound stupid.

SPOILERS for all ahead:

Can the Joker universe (Joker and Joker: Folie a Deux) and The Batman universe (The Batman, its upcoming sequels, and The Penguin TV series) be considered the same continuity in headcanon, even if not in reality?

The way they're structured seems like they almost could be in the same universe, and many people questioned if they were at some point before it was confirmed they weren't. Joker kind of acts as an origin story for the Batman mythos and his "Rogues Gallery" generally, not for any specific version of Batman, but it seems to connect quite well with Matt Reeves' The Batman: Bruce Wayne is a child in Joker, Harvey Dent is quite young in Folie a Deux and just had his villain arc set up, and the new version of the Joker we see in Arkham at the end of the second movie was also not much older than Bruce at the time, so that they could serve as villains for him once he grew up. And we seemingly saw a version of the Joker in Arkham at the end of The Batman; maybe that's him, or yet another person who carried on the mantle of the Joker that was established in the 2 Joker films.

I want to make clear that I'm not asking if they are in the same universe, I know they're not (officially)... nor am I asking if they should cross over in some way, I don't think they should. Just whether they could be compatible in theory.

Also, I'm aware that the tone is different, though very similar. I don't think The Batman's depicition of Gotham, Arkham and society in general are quite as bleak/cynical or the people in it are quite as horrible as in Joker's version, but Joker is seemingly set a long time before The Batman so that could explain the differences there as the society progressed and became a bit less harsh by the time of The Batman. They share a gritty, slightly mature style focused on Gotham's underworld and the grounded nature of only showing criminals and people that could exist in reality.

The one continuity issue I see is regarding what happened to Bruce Wayne's parents, but if that one element was removed could they otherwise be conciliated? Also, couldn't we just argue that the criminals that killed his parents in The Batman were actually Joker's followers just presented differently (and with different actors playing his parents of course)? We didn't see much of that time period when Bruce was a kid in The Batman, so it's possible there was an Arthur Fleck that had started a riot at the time?

All of the info about why added sugar is unhealthy compared to fruits seems to be that the sugar in fruit comes with fibre and nutrients that offset the negative health impacts of sugar to a degree by delaying its absorption and preventing a blood sugar spike.

However, by this reasoning alone, wouldn't it be possible to infer that if added sugar was paired with the same amount of fibre and nutrients, its effects could be mitigated in the same way as they are in fruit?

Well I haven't found any evidence either supporting or negating this idea or anyone even talking about that question specifically aside from a few other people asking the same thing, and random people replying without citing any evidence. For example someone suggested that indeed taking this approach may work a little bit, but it still won't be as healthy as eating fruit due to the "fibre-infused food matrix" of fruit or that sugar that is found naturally in fruits is "complexed" with fiber that slows down the absorption more, whereas the added sugar is more freely available to absorb quickly because it's separate from the fibre even if eaten together with it (though the separate fibre will still do some of the same job but not as well)?

"It can slow the absorption of sugar slightly but won't make a huge difference. Sugar from wholefruit and veg will always be processed differently due to the food matrix the sugars contained in that must be vroken down resulting in a slow and gradual release, when u eat added sugar but just have some fiber all that sugar is still there readily available to absorb. Overall it would be better to just stick to fruit and eat mixed macro meals with healthy unsaturated fats and proteins"

Well if possible I would like to see some scientific evidence/studies talking specifically about the difference on the body between consuming whole fruits containing their natural sugar and fibre + nutrients, compared to consuming added sugar along with foods containing fibre and nutrients in equivalent amounts (such as bircher muesli with added palm sugar, or another example if necessary for the sake of equalizing the fibre+nutrients content), and ideally health outcome data showing there is actually a difference between these...

And just more information in general about the idea of naturally occurring sugar and fibre contained together in a single food matrix being different/more healthy than added sugar taken together with separate fibre foods.

Thanks

It's a classic techno song that might be described as euro trance. I think I've heard the song but I'm asking for a friend. It might be an instance of the Mandela effect because the song can't seem to be found anywhere.

It's a classic techno song that might be described as EuroTrance. I think I've heard the song but I'm asking for a friend. It's possible it might be an instance of the Mandela effect because the song can't be found anywhere.