Heracleum Mantegazzianum

any rule of this sort is an imperfect attempt to capture why some particular bit of writing doesn't work, but the real rules are more complex than can be written down. you can't learn them explicitly, you can only develop your own sense of what does and does not sound good. once you've done so, you won't need to check if you used an adverb, you will know when you look at what you wrote that something's off, and, hopefully, how to fix it. this is why the only universally useful writing advice is 'read a lot and write a lot.'

The Ottolenghi - it is vital that you use 1g of this very expensive ingredient. It comes from a 500g bag with a one-week shelf life.

The time machine - 15-minute recipe! First, leave to marinate overnight...

The dishwasher - one-pot recipe! Now decant your ingredients and wipe out your pot. And again. And again. And again.

The optimist - cook the onions until caramelised (2 minutes).

The kindergarten teacher - get one nommable little tree of broccoli and bosh that into boiling water. Delish!

The brand names only - ingredients: Ritz crackers, Philadelphia cheese, Cool Whip, orange Jell-o...

The 1950s palate - use one (1) clove of garlic and a small pinch of chili flakes (omit if preferred).

The artifact - you absolutely need this one specific thing that hasn't been available in your country for decades

The helping hand - put it in your stand mixer (see also: "air fryer" or "instant pot")

The prepared - easy and quick! Start with diced onions, peppers seeded and chopped, peeled and deveined shrimp, peeled minced garlic (variant of the time traveler)

The gimmick - over two dozen cookie recipes that you can bake on the hood of your car! No one will know the secret ingredient to this cheesecake is beef liver! These cocktails are all bar standards that I've named after Pokemon!

yes* the image most people have in their heads of a nonbinary person is someone white, thin, lacking breasts, lacking a visible penis, lacking facial hair, lacking makeup, lacking lacking lacking. but why is it that when people critique this image, they never critique the idea that this is how we are defining androgyny? people loving talking about how this image is neutral-masculine as proof it favors transmasculine/FTX people, but there are plenty of transfeminine/MTX people who also go for this neutral-androgynous look.

meanwhile, many nb/gq/gnc people of all assigned sexes and genders are hairy, fat, have breasts (or give themselves breasts), have penises (or give themselves penises), dresses using both feminine and masculine clothing, etc. hell, just look at how stigmatized the androgyny of intersex people with PMOS & other kinds of hyperandrogenism are. the image of a fat hairy person with large breasts and a deep voice is repulsive in patriarchal culture; this is androgyny, too. to act like "androgyny" is one simple thing is to erase how misandrogyny actually functions.

I think part of what is making young people lonelier, in discussing why they're increasingly isolated, is that they're so afraid of meeting someone who doesn't hold their same beliefs, and instead of being just core beliefs it is kinda ancillary shit.

It's actually okay to disagree even on social topics! Even on some political ones! But I mean, online you can start with "i love this mutual but they have a really bad/uninformed opinion about x media"

I know this is IMMEDIATELY going to be taken in bad faith, and yes babygirl, you are so right, I DO want you to go make best friends with both the KKK grand wizard AND your nearest nazi leader.

But seriously, as someone who has spent two decades doing community organization: finding ways to connect with different people is so so so important. There are people i follow here who ate 80% smart and their brain falls out of their head 20% of the time and that is GOOD FOR MY MENTAL ECOSYSTEM AND GOOD FOR LEARNING HOW TO BE A PERSON

Because you can't recruit people to willingly jump out of mid-flight passenger planes for science, you redesign the study to engineer a scenario where the risk to the control group is minimsed. The plane is landed.

And then, because you've removed the main reason to use a parachute, you find that parachutes have "no effect" on mortality or injury.

The constraints of performing an ethical RCT guarantee this result. A result that we obviously know is dangerously wrong to extrapolate to the real-life uses of parachutes.

Now here's the thing: The people insisting that "evidence-based medicine" says we need RCTs of trans healthcare know this is what they're doing. It's extremely well established that you can abuse these "standards" to engineer incorrect results.

As in, how would an RCT look like that attempts to create misleading data, when it comes to HRT or trans healthcare in general?

Based on the extreme rates of patient complaints and high rates of patients being traumatized by the clinicians' behaviour, that is.