Wait, I haven’t seen ads on YouTube Premium (yet), and I’m just now realizing this could very likely be because Google knows my wife and I don’t watch sports.

For someone inexperienced, even a “normal” dose can make you sick. A 10mg gummy made me so nauseated I vomited before I could make it to the toilet.

On a serious note, you should learn about Graham’s number, it’s legit mind-blowing.

I’m a little confused, that’s pretty typical usage of the word. Or is it because it comes across a little pretentious? As though they’re just trying to cooperate with you to more easily violate your privacy.

I think dems genuinely believe that if Republicans take control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, that they will absolutely implement a nationwide ban, which will reduce access. That implies it’s still a valid concern and not a scare tactic.

And even though overall abortions have increased, there has still been a restriction in access, it’s just that enough people can still afford to overcome those restrictions (for now), as well as Dems pushing to allow meds by mail to help alleviate the restrictions.

But, there have already been unfortunate consequences to the health and lives of women who couldn’t afford to overcome the restrictions, or it was too late, or they were convicted a crime if they did obtain access.

So again, not a scare tactic if they are actual things that are happening, and will just get worse with a nationwide ban.

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that dems want to increase abortions. They want increased access to abortion, but that’s not the same thing.

This really hurts Republicans more than Dems. Let’s say you have a goal of reducing “x”, so you pass a law banning it, but that causes a noticeable increase in the behavior. Your law made things objectively worse towards accomplishing your goal.

If you think the increased occurrence is justified as long as people are punished for it, then you don’t actually care about reducing abortion, you just want to punish people for it.

I will typically use the terms asynchronous and parallel when discussing the concepts, but I hadn’t thought about using multitasking until I saw that comment. I mean, even C# calls them “tasks”.

A comment on the YouTube video makes a good point that we already have a better word for the concept of dealing with multiple things at once: multitasking. Using a word that literally means “things happening at the same time” just adds to the confusion, since people already have a difficult time understanding the distinction between multitasking and concurrency.