southsamurai

Ehhh, the big factor is that a pickling brine is controlled and small.

You don’t start out with an entire ecosystem of bacteria, fungi, scavengers, and the wide ranging temperatures that exist in an ocean.

Secondary to that, you tend to be dealing with cuts of meat when pickling, not entire bodies.

See, part of what causes decomposition are the enzymes released as individual cells die, and those produced by the bacteria already in the body.

When we slaughter an animal, it doesn’t just get thrown in brine whole. If you did, it would rot from the inside, no matter what the outside brine was like.

Instead, the carcass is drained of blood, organs are removed, and the meat will typically be kept very cool during transport and storage. When you put that into the brine, you’re severely limiting what bacteria are present in the first place. The brine will almost always be made with processed water from a tap, or from a known clean source like wells or springs. So, again, you have a very restricted range of bacteria.

The salt then limits them more. So you’ll lack the bacteria that thrive in salty conditions in the ocean, and only those in the air and fresh water even have a chance to eat the meat before salt kills off the ones that won’t ferment or otherwise preserve foods, including meats.

But! Deep sea conditions are very cold, and there has been footage of scavengers down there eating very well preserved carcasses. Some of that meat may well have pickled to some degree, as some of the fermentation bacteria can handle cold.

So, what it amounts to is that pickling isn’t purely done by the action off salt on the food. Brine pickling is essentially sourdough for meats and veggies. You grow bacteria that prevent the food from going bad in a dangerous way, which leaves you with something that will stay edible much longer. That’s kinda over simplified, but I think it’s good enough for this

It only matters insofar as time invested.

If someone is just fucking around, trolling, baiting, or deliberately trying to spread some kind of propaganda in the guise of “just talking”, it’s annoying as fuck to spend fifteen minutes writing up a considered and meaningful comment. Sometimes it’s worth it anyway, if only to leave it for anyone coming along later, but it’s still a giant waste of effort that could could have been spent on someone or something genuine.

That doesn’t include someone playing devil’s advocate though. That’s fine, though it’s good manners to say so up front.

The line can be a little blurry at times, obviously. Some folks just don’t engage with others well. But most of the time, it’s fairly obvious within one or two exchanges that someone is fucking with you, or they’re just really bad at engagement and discussion.

Side scroll for pc, top down for mobile.

That’s how I prefer things

They sure as fuck didn’t ask what you think they asked either, and since your responses have been inaccurate, I’m willing to stand by mine as answering the spirit of it, as well as a more useful one.

That’s how it should work.

Nobody with a lick of sense should be telling the police anything at all. Their attorney should. But that’s not what OP asked.

OP asked if the simple fact would be enough to get police off his ass. It wouldn’t be.

But yes, police can absolutely request records with your consent, and do at times. If you’re dumb enough to not have a lawyer in between.

And, they can as part of their investigation, request warrants for the same information. And they do. It has happened. It isn’t a hypothetical. Various law enforcement agencies get warrants for goggle data often enough that it’s no secret.

For your attorney to be asking for a court order for your records would only happen after you were charged. That’s not what OP asked about.

Afaik, Google wouldn’t even hesitate to give your data to your own attorney anyway. They might, just on the basis of them not wanting to play nice, but records like that can be gained by consent. It’s why cops can track cell phones that are yours without cops needing to get a warrant. If you’re agreeing to it, your due process rights are covered.

Again, you aren’t wrong if Google refused to give your attorney the information. They would then need to be forced via court order. But that isn’t the same thing as a warrant. All warrants are court orders, not all court orders are warrants.

Having an attorney means they have power of attorney. A request from them on your behalf is the same as you making the request. If Google resisted that request, and they could cook up some kind of basis for that I’m sure, but the attorney still wouldn’t need a warrant. Their request would be legal.

A warrant is permission from a court to take an action that would otherwise be illegal, and are issued to agents of the court/state (here in the US anyway, I’m not sure about anywhere else) to take actions that violate rights of citizens or other entities without due process. The warrant is supposed to be part of your due process, though they get abused all to hell and back.

It is police that serve warrants though, usually. They aren’t the only ones, and you could argue that any government agent acting on a warrant is de facto police, but chances of a warrant getting executed without some kind of law enforcement officer present are low. Particularly in the scenario OP asked about.

Think about it like this. If I want to get money from my bank account, I can, within the limitations set by my bank (hours of operation, etc). If I want someone else to be able to, there’s formalities involved, such as putting them on the account or granting them power of attorney. POA of that nature means they act as though they are me for a range of legal statuses. I could sign papers to make anyone POA, but the A in that is Attorney, and once a lawyer represents you officially, they have wide ranging ability to act on your behalf in a legal proceeding.

The courts, and by extension the “Justice system” that includes police, prosecutors and other agents, need a warrant if I don’t give permission. But I can give them that permission, sign some paperwork, and their requests for information would be the same as if I made the request.

And that’s what would happen in OP’s scenario where they want to provide an alibi. If you don’t want to clear yourself via YouTube history, that’s a different question entirely. But, once again, in the hopes of preventing this spiraling, OP asked about providing that alibi to the police.

You’re working on the idea of exhonoration being only at trial. Which, it still wouldn’t take a warrant since it’s your lawyer. But I’m working before indictment, when the investigation is still ongoing because that’s when it would first come up for an accused person. The cops say “where were you at X?” You say, “jerking off to anime on YouTube”, and they want to know if that’s true.

For it to reach trial before you bring it up means your lawyer is not doing their due diligence by asking what the fuck you were doing at the time of the crime.

You’re asking a pretty specific question, but your title looks like trolling. I’m starting with that because people tend to respond emotionally to the first things they read, and it means you aren’t getting solid answers.

Someone else already explained that reddit policies drove that rule, and that’s as much as anyone really knows.

At least, there was a wave of changes like that one, all around the same time, and the few mods that have said anything about it off of reddit have cited that as their reason mostly.

But there are a few that decided to take it as an opportunity to blunt the edge of gendered language in general. Afaik that sub hasn’t had anyone say that, but you did ask about reddit in general as well.

Expanding beyond that, and I want to emphasize that this is not the same thing as above, it’s tangential and here only for background; there are reasons to reduce gendered language overall. While it isn’t really going to totally change English where nobody uses gendered terms at all, reducing needlessly gendered language when speaking about people rather than men or women is an option that would help those among us that don’t fit gender expectations in one way or another. So (again, this is tangential) if you’re seeing it in other places, chances are that it’s intended to meet that concept.

With that, responding solely to your title, I’m not seeing a trend of obsession with it, even among people that are proponents of degendering language. It’s a pretty niche movement, and even the more dedicated proponents know that it isn’t something that’s going to happen just by applying rules to forums.

Dude, if you didn’t want other opinions and input, why the fuck did you post a question?

So, fine, keep doing what you’re doing if you’re happy with it.

You do know that the cops are the ones that do the legwork, right? That most prosecutors rely on them to provide cause to get warrants in the first place. If the cops keep putting the same person forward as their target, that’s who a DA will try to get warrants for, not some other random asshole.

If you can’t convince the cops of your alibi, then chances are good that they’ll keep plodding along at it, regardless of them being right or wrong.

So, yeah, the cops have something to do with it

Depends on how bad the cops want to pin it on you.

If they’re on your ass hard, they’ll ignore exculpatory evidence. Since only YouTube playing isn’t concrete enough to guarantee much of anything about where you were, it’s definitely not going to satisfy them without more.

Even the phone itself being in you home the entire time isn’t definitive proof you were there.

There’s not even a guarantee you could establish reasonable doubt with every record of your phone being available, so you can’t pin your hopes on a jury either.

Hell, you could be on a call from a landline, and that isn’t sure fire proof you were at home. It’s better than a cell call, but there’s ways to fake being at home over landline if someone is determined enough.

It isn’t impossible though. You get the right investigators, they verify that your device was at home, and everything else is consistent with you being there, you could get bumped way down the list for their focus. Mind you, if every other possible suspect is then cleared, they’ll come back to you.

I’m not sure why you’re positing anything when there’s established knowledge about ingrown nails, and professionals that can both diagnose any structural abnormalities, and treat them using already proven modalities.

The answer is to go back to your podiatrist and follow their instructions.

If you’re having chronic ingrown nails, there’s an issue that needs to be corrected, and you aren’t going to improvise a solution, especially with tools that aren’t designed for the job.

Seriously here, you’re making your problem worse with what you’re doing. If your nails are shaped weird or are growing abnormally, you aren’t going to do anything useful just grinding them thin. Best case, you don’t cause more ingrown nails. Worst case you get more of them, and they’re worse because now they’re flexing more severely, and thus dig into the nail bed in worse ways.

Nobody here can diagnose your underlying problem. Could be your footwear, could be a malformation, could be fungal (though unlikely that it wouldn’t have been caught previously, fungal infection s can cause nails to grow in odd ways and lead to chronic ingrown nails), could be even less likely things.

But you aren’t going to dremel your way out of it.

Go see your doctor and find out what’s causing the issue to begin with.

Well, I’m not going to play the “it depends on the writer” card.

But it kinda does apply, even among people conveying their real life experiences. And, to forestall arguments, it doesn’t matter if it is objectively real or not, assuming they aren’t lying, they’re relating their lived experience. Whether that is a delusion or hallucination is irrelevant to this matter.

See, if you start off with the assumption that ghosts either exist, or are a form of shared delusion, then some things can be taken from that.

First, that anyone seeing a ghost is a minority because seeing them isn’t a common occurrence. Second, that regardless of anything else, the first ghost seen isn’t random. Third, that if a ghost can communicate at all (which is not a part of all reports about ghosts), it has limited time to do so.

With those probabilities in mind, if you see a ghost, chances are that it is there for a reason, that you seeing it is for a reason, and that it has to use its time with you to achieve a very specific goal.

Why would the racist ghosts start off saying “now, I’m racist, but hear me out”?

It’s that simple. Unless a ghost is haunting only a given grouping of people, there’s no benefit to expressing their racism at all. If they are haunting a race, then there’s still no need to outright say it; they’re acting on their racism and don’t care if anyone understands their motivations.