??? Both options are the same thing tho?

Welcome to old.

Bing chat will do it

They really need to be lower stakes. Year-end exams just cover too much material for failure to be no big deal. Should be that failing a test requires a few days of review to catch up on the parts you didn’t know, and then you’re good.

The homework tho. It was the homework that hurt.

Simple fact of the matter is that that sounds really inconvenient, and needs justifying. If there are readily available biodegradable options right there, why on earth wouldn’t you use them?

They are pretty convenient though. Are there any sustainable alternatives?

Like with straws, I know for fact that there are non-paper biodegradable ones.

Also, with discovery of plastic-eating bacteria, how is the definition of biodegradable shifting?

Edit: Obligatory mention of industry regulations being more effective in helping the environment

Ah yes, but have you considered the gargantuan confirmation bias of anyone willing to map debunked wolf social dynamics onto humans?

Honestly, that feels like giving them too much credit. Chimps are fucking terrifying. The more I learn about them, the more I wonder “jesus fucking christ, how badass/insane was Jane Goodall?!”. Those things are the closest things to real demons I’ve ever heard about.

Edit: well, aside from particularly unhinged humans

Chimpanzees do, though (source). and they’re closer to humans than wolves.

The whole alpha wolf thing kind of sounds like projection.

I think you’re being downvoted for this because, even if it’s a good point in isolation, it’s in the direction of “trans person bad”, and thus indistinguishable from a transphobe adopting the point without believing it. You gotta include a few instances of “_____ did it really well. We need more like that.” to balance it out.

Do you have any examples for comparison?

If they’re not stealing for money, supporting the black market, dying of overdoses, or spreading disease by sharing needles, and have consistent dosages and proximity to support programs, why quit?

Probably the massive social stigma and loss of positive effects due to built tolerance.

It would make the problem way less urgent at any rate.

(https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/opioids/responding-canada-opioid-crisis/safer-supply.html)

Giving addicts free drugs is a subset of harm reduction. Honestly, at this point in the discussion, we need numbers to be productive.

Looks like you’re right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_trope

Common sense is extremely subjective.

Is it really more effective to not help addicts than to use harm reduction methods?

“Facts over feels” and all that.

Mandatory care has the same incentive against self reporting though?

Do we have any data on relapse rates from this vs non-mandatory methods? My guess would be high recidivism if the person is released back into the exact same circumstances in which they started using in the first place.

Do you have a source for that?

Exactly. They’re addicted. They’re going to get the drugs one way or another. May as well minimize the harm.

Permanently. And “quit” seems like too light a word for the herculean task of getting clean. They deserve all the help we can give. That it essentially removes all the negative externalities should make this a no-brainer.