The scarring from all the heavy coughing etc?
Still, rather not have all that sitting there for 10 years. The liver recovers from a few pints a lot quicker I believe, and even in the less favourable case of a fatty liver, a matter of weeks of abstienence rather than years. Disease of either, is probably a more dangerous situation.
Yeah good input though. I'm surprised WHO sees it as worse than smoking. Not something I think I could ever find myself agreeing with, but honestly it seems every form of evidence/study these days has another one saying different so I don't much believe in objective truth any more. Just going to enjoy life, as long as it lasts. Smoke literally feels nasty to me in a way that drinking (within reason) doesn't.
This is one thing I actually like them doing. I'm a social watcher and also have other things to do; I want to talk about an episode with friends afterwards, and the phenomenon of racing to binge watch an entire series in one or two sittings ruined that. (As well as forcing me to stay away from half the internet until I've binged the series myself due to spoilers). I don't like being "forced" to binge, much rather savour it one episode at a time as it's produced, really take in and enjoy and discuss the details of each one. Really makes you appreciate it more IMO.
I see your financial argument though, I guess you could wait until a series is over and then subscribe for 1 month and binge away. Or, of course, yarr.
I'm with you on the high seas ever since Star Trek bounced around from place to place. When you're thinking "uhhh which do I watch this particular spinoff on, is it Netflix or Amazon Prime or..." it's already too much like hard work. Then they decided to make the latest exclusive to Paramount, yet another subscription. Eh, nah, at that point it's time to make like Tascha and Yarr it.
However in part I think the comparison to cable (or would've been Sky here) is psychological. With those big services you're still effectively paying to watch a few shows a bunch of different "streaming services" (channels/networks in that case) but as it's all bundled up into, say, £60/month, you don't think about it. Or, the average person doesn't - personally I've never justified that much to watch TV. Now that it's split out into different payments, £10 here for service A, £10 there for service B, the waste of paying so much to so many different services just to watch a few shows becomes more apparent.
Was going to say piracy then realised you said the general public. I don't think piracy will ever be as prolific as it was when you could just physically hand your mate a VHS tape - torrenting etc is a bit complex for most, as well as the risk of your ISP getting in touch. Those in the know use VPNs and the like but this is a bit techy for the general public.
I think they'll just cough up. Most average people don't micromanage their finances so they don't notice how a tenner for this streaming a service, a tenner for that streaming service etc ends up adding up to more than their cable/satellite/etc subscription did. They just see "a tenner for Paramount" (or whatever) in a vacuum and figure that it's not much, rather than adding them all together to work out what their monthly TV cost is.
Hmmm
Still, as even they say, the less the safer. I'd say go after the low hanging fruit of binge drinkers (of which there are many).long before going after those of us who drink moderately.
Problem with these is they state some tiny amount equivalent to like half a glass of wine as the most you should have in a day, even though in the real world.. basically anyone who drinks has a at least a little bit more than that and the moderate majority are fine and not on death's door. I know 70 and 80 year olds in the pub who must drink 10+ units a day (I actually notice the oldies are the worst for wanting like 6%+ ABV beers) and are still there doing fine. So it has a bit of a "boy who cried wolf" effect to slap warnings on about drinking more than 14 units a week / 2 a day / whatever when at least in the UK like "everyone" drinks more than that. It just becomes a lauging stock, "look at that silly over-cautious nanny label". If there should be any warning, IMO it'd be not to binge. If you can't remember what happened the next morning, you drank too much, and it's if you do that too often that it's a major health risk.
Drinking more than these labelled amounts isn't good for you, but health warnings should be more closely aligned to "really bad for you" to be taken seriously imo.
Not really equivalent. Smoking permanently leaves all kind of nasty shit in your lungs and causes cancer. Also very addictive, making moderation physically difficult (alcohol can also be addictive but not to the same extremes). Alcohol in moderation isn't really an issue. Pushing it more can give your liver a bad time, but as long as you give it a break before the point of disease it can bounce right back.
There is a societal problem especially in the UK in that it's seen as a sort of matter of pride to throw moderation out of the window and get as wasted as possible, but I have my doubts that graphic health warnings will do much about that. Either way it's more an effect of society ignoring and sometimes even shaming moderation (how many times have you been shamed for going home before you fall over on a work's night out) than the alcohol itself.
Huh, wow, someone talking sense on the subject and not getting downvoted to oblivion.
Some instances will be more averse to legal risk than others. Some will also lean more towards "censorship" (showing bigots the door) whilst others will be "free speech encouraged" (full of them). That's the beauty of the fediverse. Pick your poison. Why go all pitchforks and DDOS attacks etc against an instance that doesn't share your values when it's piss easy to just switch to one that does?
(I'm somewhere down the middle on the piracy subject. I believe in supporting small individual developers trying to feed their kids. But Adobe and the like can go fuck themselves)
I keep trying to be charitable and think of it in an "incompetence rather than malice" way, but Linus lying, twisting and tripling down isn't making it easy.
Wow it's ALMOST got a slice of the operating system pi!
More specifically (btw pint = 568ml) when I said about laughing at it I meant more at how it's so little you might as well not drink at all. Which I get is their point as this poster obviously loathes alcohol and thinks it's the most dangerous thing in the world, but yet we're not all dropping left and right as you'd expect. If it was that dangerous the UK population would've been wiped out by now.
No one, literally no one, goes out and has half a pint then says "well the label says that's too much so I'm off home". That's where, right or wrong, the suggestion is kind of laughable.
It's an ideal, perhaps. But it's such a tight ideal that no one will even try to follow it. Maybe if they aimed for "better" rather than "almost perfect" (with perfection being teetotality) they'd have more success. A label more like "if you can't remember what happened when you wake up tomorrow, you're severely harming your health" would at least get some of those in the biggest danger to rein it in a bit.