InvalidName2

For me personally it's the "almost nothing else" that went into the dishwasher with the plunger that truly pushed the narrative into holy shit territory.

My experience has been starkly different from Sterile_Techniques and I'm also living in what might be termed as "the middle of Ya'll Quaeda" USA. So, it's interesting to hear that there's such a big difference in opinion / understanding on this topic.

For sure, 20 - 25 years ago it seemed like almost nobody had heard of it, and whenever someone said they were allergic to meat because of a tick bite, there was a lot of skepticism and denial.

However, these days, pretty much everybody knows someone who has this allergy, and that's no exaggeration. Even the most backwoods, anti-science, do my own thing, fuck your feelings kind of people are telling others to check themselves for ticks and/or taking steps to keep ticks off them because they're aware of all the risks from tick bites. Now, they might be claiming that it's government bio-warfare, related to 5G and/or covid, or some other unnecessarily contrarian bullshit, but they do take it seriously from what I've experienced.

Also, the good news is (or bad news I guess depending on your perspective) is that a lot of people seem to experience improvement of symptoms in time, so it's not necessarily a permanent thing for everybody. I don't know if it's just that some people continue to test the limits and end up inadvertently putting themselves through exposure therapy or if the immune response itself just naturally wanes over time, but several people I know who've had this for 5 - 10+ years say they can usually get away with a small amount of mammal meat, like maybe a hotdog now and then at a minimum, even though a small bite would have caused them a lot of trouble when they first developed the allergy.

Do you live in North America?

In general, I think full male nudity is still jarring to US audiences because historically speaking, it's not super common in movies and tv shows outside of pornographic settings. Though it does seem like it's becoming a lot more common in recent history.

Also, as is the case with that one particular penis you're asking about, a lot of times when full frontal male nudity is shown in a movie or tv show, it's done for "shock value".

Full frontal male nudity is something that most viewers will notice no matter what because at the end of the day it's genitals and we're mostly all just wired that way. However, aside from that one penis, the rest of the male nudity in the movie was not prominently featured and was otherwise pretty unremarkable. Definitely wouldn't have garnered much of any discussion, relative to some of the other shocking stuff in the movie.

28 Weeks Later was a solid zombie movie, but in and of itself it was not a genre defining (or redefining) film. Also, I think zombie movie fatigue was already in play by the time it came out.

Looking back, you might think that there were only a handful of decent and recent-ish zombie movies at that time (and you'd be mostly correct), however, it was also an era where the new releases wall at the local video store would have been peppered with d-grade, knock-off, cgi zombie movies (a few of which even showed up in the theaters).

So, while I don't entirely agree that it was mostly forgettable, I certainly understand and think that's a valid opinion.

28 Years Later is a self-contained story and it really won't matter if you've seen the prior entries or not. There are some connections and some references to prior films, but nothing noticeable or vital to understanding or enjoying what you're watching.

My general guide on this:

If you didn't hear me the first time, I assume it's 100% my fault.

If you didn't hear me the second time, I assume it's 50% my fault.

If you didn't hear me the third time or there after, I assume it's 100% your fault.

The single, simple answer is the one that you don't want to hear: There is no clean split. Bats are a large and diverse group of flying mammals just like birds are a large and diverse group of flying dinosaurs.

The simplest answer I can come up with (because it's actually a very complicated and convoluted topic that I wouldn't truly do just anyway) is: Most birds can fly because they are an offshoot of one group of dinosaurs (avian dinosaurs) that survived the last great extinction when their non-flying non-avian dinosaur relatives did not. Basically the ones that couldn't fly mostly went extinct. And mammals mostly don't fly, which is possibly because several groups of vertebrates beat them to it and essentially filled all the niches that would have been available to flying animals, kind of blocking that path for them.

Obviously that's nowhere near the full story. There are lots of other factors at play, like some of the peculiarities of mammalian and dinosaur physiology that made one group better suited to flight than the other, ramifications of the great extinction that killed non-avian dinosaurs as well as most large animals in general and whole swaths of other species, and so on.

I don't think of it in that mind frame, to be honest.

To me it's our bodies that have evolved a general reaction to foreign proteins / materials with an inflammatory response (which can feel itchy), though that's obviously the watered down way of thinking about it that doesn't really capture the full picture.

Often times I don't even know there's a mosquito on me unless I happen to see it. Some species are just super tiny and don't seem to cause any pain when they feed. Others are so large that they "itch" (i.e. you can feel their presence) just from them landing on you, whether they have time to bite or not. Either way, it's not the pain or itchiness that motivate me to keep their populations under control, it's primarily concerns over the spread of disease.

For most species of mosquito, humans aren't really their primary target nor are humans the main source of food for them. And, it's only been in very recent history that humanity has had any ability to control mosquito populations on a large scale, not even a blip on the evolutionary scale. So give it time, maybe those of us who don't get itchy from mosquito bites are the fittest amongst us from an evolutionary standpoint and eventually those genes that lead to itchy reactions will go extinct. But I don't think that there's any significant evolutionary pressure on mosquitos as a result of how itchy or not itchy their bites are.

I've never heard of that one specifically and could find no sources mentioning it online. So, I'm being up front when I say I do not know the specific answer.

Having said that, sometimes if we're building out scenarios in our minds based on an inaccurate or flawed premise, that can also lead to flawed outcome in our logic. For instance, is it actually truly possible to get a 430 on any family member that you want ... like just because? And if so, is it possible there are other extenuating circumstances that you might not be considering (ex: Trump is not a family member, none of your family members are president of the United States, etc) which could explain why things might lead to a different outcome between your family member(s) and Trump?

Having said that and given the additional context you provided (i.e. Mental Examination), I'm wondering if it's a situation where the individual needs to be more of an immediate threat to the health / life of themselves or others before it's applicable? Even if you did try to make that case (because I know at least some people would), it's likely not a case where any random person can just make an accusation / report against a well-known public figure to whom they have no clear social ties and expect it to be taken seriously.

Also, this wouldn't apply to the president of the USA, but even people who legitimately do need some kind of immediate institutionalization often can't get it when they need it. It would be an understatement to say that the mental health facilities in this country are overwhelmed and underfunded.

I'm not an ~~entemolo~~ ~~intenolo~~ bug scientician and I know nothing of the specifics of this species, so I can't weigh in there.

However, sometimes these new species have literally been right in front of our faces the whole time, it's just that they're barely distinguishable from other very similar and more common relatives.

This is, of course, a vast oversimplification of things, but I remember reading an article about a new beetle being discovered in some random suburb. Essentially the reason the new species was discovered is because someone was counting the number of hairs on the larval beetles' butts and noticed the discrepancy between two different populations and then realized that they were dealing with two different species, one of which had not been previously described.

Give me Anomolocaris or trilobites any day.

That's no way for a lady to talk.