Big oeuf!

Also the only one with a key pad!?

13524 (1)

I think the op medium- level comment is just a typo of this, otherwise wtf is 13542?

And I’m shocked I’m the first one to say this, surely this is by far the most common way?

I thought it was a typo in the op, but how are you getting from 5 to 4? I always chose a path with just straight lines…

My hypothesis: the clickbait factoid might be talking about the amount of nicotine that exists in a cigarette butt, which might be different from what a child would practically get in their bloodstream after eating said butt.

🫡 sir, yes sir!

Jeankini?

I’m no expert but I’m fairly sure that is basically true in a way. As per zr0’s top-level comment. Forms of life that can make do with less cellular respiration, for example by using external sources to regulate temperature (cold- blooded), don’t need to invite as much oxygen into their cells, and so they get less weird damage over time. Mammals in general have not adopted this strategy.

It was big in the 80s.

I was going to say!

The OP was using the fancy new icons…

Why did you think crocs had holes that size? Haricot are probably the most widely eaten bean in western (croc-wearing) food cultures, so it seems like an obvious design choice.

Are there any girders in the picture then? Or none, or impossible to tell? I can’t see any, by that definition.

Is that a thing? Blowing up fully-fuelled airplanes just for fun?

I came across effect/affect swapping in university level textbook the other day, couldn’t believe it.

*littoral

In terms of blood-borne viruses (like HIV and hepatitis), breast milk is considered in the same risk category as semen or vaginal secretions, only blood is higher. Whereas piss and shit are only considered a risk if they contain blood. Obviously there’s other reasons why you don’t want shit in your food, but it probably won’t give you anything really nasty and long-lasting. Piss it’s pretty much totally safe, but I reckon you could still get in trouble for secretly feeding it to someone.

I remember finding a website with fairly rough versions of popular melodies were transcribed for Nokia ringtone format. Pretty sure I went for some Metallica. Not sure if it was before or after we got ISDN, but I’m fairly sure I already had a hotmail address.

Your second sentence does not follow logically from your first though. A randomly selected male might be half as likely as a randomly selected woman to be a victim of domestic violence, but what a man in the far smaller set of people who have googled that particular phrase? I would venture to say the ratio might be a lot closer

Not cool, mate. Too far. disappointed face.

This is a miscommunication, you two are not really in disagreement as far as I can see. If someone {presents as an effeminate man} AND {they say they’re non-binary} => {they are non-binary}. However if someone {presents as an effeminate man} AND does NOT {say they’re non-binary}… Then it’s not sufficient.