caffeine deficiency hq

Although I couldn’t find specific data on the density of apple scent in the air, a 2011 study suggests that the average lower threshold for detecting a smell in the air is around 2.77 mg/m³. Given that the scent of an apple is relatively faint, this threshold will serve as a reasonable estimate for our purposes.

According to a 2006 study, the average human sniff has a volume of approximately 500 cm³, or 0.0005 m³ . Using this data, we can estimate that one sniff of apple scent contains about 0.001385 mg of apple essence.

For comparison, an average medium-sized apple weighs roughly 182 grams, as noted in a 2023 article by Dr. Atli Arnarson for Healthline . Based on this information, it would take around 131.5 million sniffs to smell the entire mass of an apple. Given that each sniff takes approximately 1.6 seconds , and accounting for the time to exhale between sniffs, it would require nearly 14 years of continuous sniffing to fully smell an entire apple.

References:

Kleinbeck S, Schäper M, Juran SA, Kiesswetter E, Blaszkewicz M, Golka K, Zimmermann A, Brüning T, Van Thriel C. Odor thresholds and breathing changes of human volunteers as consequences of sulphur dioxide exposure considering individual factors. Saf Health Work. 2011 Dec;2(4):355-64. doi: 10.5491/SHAW.2011.2.4.355. Epub 2011 Dec 5. PMID: 22953220; PMCID: PMC3430915.

Joel Mainland, Noam Sobel, The Sniff Is Part of the Olfactory Percept, Chemical Senses, Volume 31, Issue 2, February 2006, Pages 181–196, https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjj012

um. online

THERE’S A TIMESKIP

THERE’S A TIMESKIP

THERE’S A TIMESKIP

after losing control of the signal fire there’s a FUCKING TIMESKIP and when the next chapter starts everyone’s hair is several inches longer and their clothes have rotted to shreds and they’re still just kind of chilling!!!!

IT TAKES THE TERRIBLE IMPERIALISM MIND-POISONED EXCESSIVELY BRITISH BOYS IN THE ACTUAL BOOK SEVERAL MONTHS TO COMMIT A SINGLE ACT OF INTENTIONAL VIOLENCE, EVEN THE ONE (1) CHILD WRITTEN AS AN ACTUAL SOCIOPATH

AND then when they DO turn on each other it is because

THERE’S AN UNSPECIFIED WORLD WAR HAPPENING

AND A PILOT’S CORPSE CRASH LANDS ON THE ISLAND POST-DOGFIGHT AND THE CHILDREN MISTAKE THE PARACHUTE FOR A MONSTER AND SPIRAL INTO PARANOIA

BECAUSE CHILDREN INHERIT THE LEGACY AND TRAUMA OF VIOLENCE FROM THE ADULTS WAGING WAR AROUND THEM

HURR DURR IN THE REAL WORLD IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN LIKE IN LORD OF THE FLIES -

yes. yes he did. i’m also gonna direct you to the real life ‘lord of the flies’ which occured in the 1960s, when six tongan schoolboys got stranded on a desert island for over a year before being rescued by an australian fisherman (who, it should be noted, later took on all six as crewmembers because the reason they were out in the first place was because they wanted to see the world, and named his ship the Ata after the island they were stranded on). nobody died. the only injuries that occurred were accidental, and when one of the boys broke his leg falling down a cliff, the others braced it and looked after him so well that it healed perfectly. if they argued, then they would literally go to opposite sides of the island until they’d cooled off. after leaving the island, they remained friends for the rest of their lives. here’s a photo of them as adults, with their rescuer (who is third from the left) and other members of his crew.

> looks inside

LEMON

BLOOD

LEMON

BLOOD

LEMON

BLOOD

VINEGAR

LEMON

"This is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't want to read this because it is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"Censorship of some topics in fiction and art is good and I would be happy if it were to be enacted in a way I approved of"

and

"some things should be banned from ever being written or read about in fiction"

are both authoritarian viewpoints to hold and express, even if you don't have the power to enact them.

Something being nasty is not a good reason to ban fiction about it.

If we accept that "something being nasty is a good reason to bad fiction about it" then we give a foot in the door for all the people who truly, genuinely believe that queer people are nasty to ban all queer literature.

Either you’re for it or you aren’t.

The moment you agree that something should never, ever exist in fiction is the moment that anything can be banned.

Remember a while back how Tumblr banned a bunch of tags, including many popular innocuous ones that even people who are for censorship used and were upset about?

When censorship happens, stuff YOU like can and will be banned. That’s how it works.

Remember how a bunch of people had their accounts terminated here only last year for writing about their own sexual abuse?

When you ban “pedo” topics, say, any talk of child sexual abuse in any form, that means people can no longer write about their own experiences. It means people cannot educate others so they can learn how to protect themselves or get help from these situations.

Censorship is authoritarian. Full stop.

Even if “everyone” agrees something is “gross” and “shouldn’t exist,” that does not fucking matter.

Do you know who generally believes queer people are gross and shouldn’t exist??

The same people who are banning books left and right solely because they have queer characters or relationships.

The same people who attack and kill queer folk for simply exisiting.

This is not just some fandom matter or a case of being chronically online.

In 2007, Livejournal capitulated to the "pedophilia and sex crimes!" cries of (hate group) Warriors 4 Innocence, and you know what communities got shut down? Slashfic communities. Sexual assault survivor support communities. Authors who'd written non-smut m/m fic even got caught up in it. It was DEVASTATING to fandom spaces. I think pretty much everyone knew at least one person whose account was literally DELETED, or were a member of a community that was wiped off the map because they were considerate enough to include topics like "sexual assault" or "BDSM" in the profiles under the badly-named category of "interests" to indicate that posts on said blogs or communities may include discussion of things like that. Even if it was for a SUPPORT group. And it was because a group of religious bigots came to LJ and said essentially "EVERYONE thinks it's gross and that it's promoting CSA, we should ban it."

Like, strikethrough and boldthrough were a large part of what propelled AO3 out of a more unfocused conversation on one person's blog about hosting a site INTENDED for fandom content, into being an actual archive and nonprofit. And it's a large part of why you won't find AO3 banning topics that you find "gross".

So, the reason actual CP is illegal is that, for it to exist, a child has to be harmed. Children are exploited to produce the material. Having laws against it is a sane and reasonable thing and it would be fucked up if we didn't.

Compare 'pedo fics' and you'll find a very important difference: those are fictional characters. They're not real. Nothing done to them is a crime. It can't be. It would be actually insane to try to criminalize something that only exists as words on a page.

And it's not really about whether your disgust with the subject is justified. The point, the crucial point, is that no one is actually being hurt. It's not an act you're feeling disgusted about, but an idea. And you don't want us criminalizing ideas. It's been done. It doesn't ever go well.

(I will make the controversial statement that this also applies to art, at least when it features fictional characters. Yeah, it's gross. But it's still lines on a page. There is no safe world in which someone can be arrested for making lines on a page. We do not want that world.)

When Co-workers do things like ask about weekend plans, chat about non-work topics, eat lunch in the same room, they are--subconsciously--reaffirming that they are part of a cooperative (or, minimally, non-antagonistic) social group.

The other primates cement social bonds by grooming each other; we do it by making small talk.

If they solicit your participation in these rituals, and you repeatedly refuse those bids, you are marking yourself out as, at best, an outsider to the group, and thus potentially antagonistic.

This is all happening on the monkey-brain level; they have no idea what they're doing or how they are interpreting your response, so there's no way to clear up the misunderstanding.

To the ape sleeping in your co-worker's DNA, either you are part of the grooming circle, or you are an outsider who, for all it knows, may be coming to steal all the bananas.

at some point, either in response to an invitation, or just in the natural course of conversation, you can add in that you are a "quiet type" who "needs their silence" or what have you. customize to your personal needs. i find it helpful to imagine a well dressed elderly woman describing the sort of peace she needs to manifest.

roughly once a week if you see a group of people chatting, engage with them. keep it pleasant. it can be superficial. word will travel that you are Nice and Quiet and Not The Chatty Type protecting you from group lunches etc. if you have an office with a door that you keep closed a lot, putting up any kind of decor will also send positive signals.