#the10thdentist

Parasite exposure should be part of the vaccination regime Our immune system evolved in an environment where if it doesn't detect parasites, it's not looking hard enough. Not having any just didn't enter into consideration. And remember, parasites are under constant pressure to make their outer casing blend in with the human cells. The giveaways are subtle. Just a slightly different surface protein, just a slightly different concentration. The bone marrow is constantly pumping out immune cell variations, trying to brute force the parasite defences, until some lucky immune cell has a match. Then the bruteforcing efforts are turned down and mass production of the matching cell starts. And you know what else has slightly weird surface proteins? Specialised, localised tissues that are uncommon in the rest of the body. Like epithelial cells in your colon or lungs. Beta cells in the pancreas. Cartilage. Thyroid. So we should supply real parasites to keep the immune system busy. Pinworm egg capsules, started early and with regular boosters. An occasional itchy butthole is a great deal to prevent a lifetime of Chron's, multiple sclerosis, asthma, type 1 diabetes or arthritis. And if it gets out of control, we already have a thriving ivermectin industry.

I don’t care what the audience score is on Rotten Tomatoes for movies and TV because it includes the lowest common denominator of people judging it. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not particularly enthusiastic about Rotten Tomatoes’ critic scores. I often look into what critics are saying about newly released video games, movies, or TV shows to gauge my expectations. However, I do not take their opinions as the absolute truth, and the scores they assign do not significantly influence my perspective. Nonetheless, I do consider these scores to some extent, though I don’t really place much importance on them. This viewpoint comes from someone who frequently shares opinions on new games, movies, and shows. I engage in this activity quite often, yet I would never label myself as a critic. I am simply an individual who watches a variety of content and plays numerous games, after which I express my thoughts on them. That essentially sums it up. There is not much more to analyze here. You may agree or disagree with this perspective indefinitely. I am not attempting to provide an objective measure of whether something is truly exceptional or terrible. In my view, it is simply a matter of whether it was enjoyable or disappointing. However, I completely disagree with the notion that the audience score accurately reflects the quality of a film or show. For years, I have proclaimed that the Rotten Tomatoes audience score is about as relevant as Justin Bieber or Keeping Up with the Kardashians. It is not as if that show is any more reliable in any respect. Critic reviews, particularly in recent times, have been quite inconsistent and often seem disconnected from reality. I acknowledge that. However, audience scores are not exempt from this issue either. Virtually every movie released tends to receive a relatively high audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, regardless of its actual quality. Something could premiere tomorrow, such as Skibidi Toilet: The Movie, and it could be the most dreadful experience imaginable. It could genuinely be an affront to good taste, yet when you check the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes, it might still be around 75%. Just because the audience score is higher than the critic score doesn't automatically mean the movie is actually good. Quite the opposite, really. For instance, Scream 7 had recently just come out. That movie is absolute hot garbage dumpster fire... and guess what? It has 75% on Rotten Tomatoes. Do this for ANY movie you could think of. Look at one of the worst Disney movies to come out in recent memory. You know that near-universally hated Snow White movie from last year? 69% on Rotten Tomatoes in terms of the audience score. The Lilo and Stitch live-action remake? 91% on Rotten Tomatoes. Wish (2023)? 80% on Rotten Tomatoes. Just look at the worst Marvel movies of the last half-decade, really: * Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania? 81%! * Captain America: Brave New World? 75%! * Eternals? 77%! * The Marvels? 79%! * Thor: Love and Thunder? 76%! It is widely accepted that any film, regardless of its objective quality, will likely receive a fairly commendable audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. This outcome is almost as certain as the daily rise of the sun. It is exceedingly uncommon to encounter a truly disastrous audience score for a movie. For instance, consider The Strangers: Chapter 3 from last year, which is undeniably the finale of what can be described as the worst horror trilogy ever produced. Additionally, for those who may not be aware—many of you might not know—there was a reboot of The Strangers. I am not referring to the original film featuring Liv Tyler, which is regarded as a classic. The reboot consists of Chapters 1, 2, and 3, and it is genuinely the most atrocious horror trilogy ever created. The final installment may very well be one of the most horrendous pieces of horror to have ever sullied the cinematic landscape, yet it still boasts a 49% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. Hell, I actually suffered through the Smurfs movie starring James Corden and that godawful Netflix adaptation of The Electric State from last year… And guess what both of these films have in common with each other? One has an audience score of 64%, while the other stands at 67% as of this writing. All of these examples, which I have already provided as evidence for the core statement of this post, perfectly sum up why I am skeptical of the audience score being treated as a reliable metric for determining a movie’s actual quality, as it can and often does significantly exceed what would be appropriate for films that are actually subpar. And I find it absolutely laughable how everyone online says the critic score doesn't matter, but they always bring it up. Like, if it didn’t matter, why are we bringing it up every single time a movie everyone likes gets a bad review? If it truly did not matter, it wouldn’t be brought up every single time. When the movie you like gets a good critic score tho all of a sudden it matters. I’m also not a fan of people acting like the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is the only one that matters, just because grifters and parrots are so prone to just review-bombing and brigading any movie that failed at the box office.

I don't understand the love and adoration for Stevie Wonder and Songs In The Key Of Life I don't think he's overrated, I can see the value in his music and I would never sit here and say people are wrong for thinking he's great or loving him so much, but I personally just can't get into his music. I like a few songs, Superstition, Isn't She Lovely and I also think I Wish is a fine song, nothing special but listenable. Outside of that, I can't get into the rest of his music. I don't think it's a genre taste problem, I love many artists that operate in the same lane as Stevie and artists he's worked closely with, but I can't get into him. I've tried listening to Songs In The Key Of Life multiple times throughout my life and it does absolutely nothing for me, I feel like a lot of the music is flat and it doesn't make me move or feel anything in the same way a lot of other Soul, Funk and R&B does. I don't find any of it bad or offensive, if any of it came on the radio I wouldn't be annoyed or ask for it to be turned off, but I find it all to be just passable music that does almost nothing special.

A global language can exist but it has to be a sign language. Yeah. Random ass claim but please, hear me out. So I live in India, and language is part of many people's identities. Often, english acts as a great medium of communication, not just because it is a commonly learned second language, but also because it is a neutral third party language, nobody really benefits from their culture overriding the other. I believe a global medium of communication can exist, but any language you choose, someone will *be perceived to* benefit from their culture's language being used for this purpose. If you create an artificial language, this bias still exists. Esperanto, the most successful artificial language intended for global communication, draws primarily from romance languages with a bit of Germanic, Greek and Slavic mixed in. It is heavily biased towards european language structure. Non europeans would feel it is biased towards european spoken language and will be less likely to adopt it. On the other hand, a sign langauge wouldn't have this issue. By no stretch of the imagination could it possibly be centred around *the structure of existing verbal languages* (italicised for idiots who think I'm saying sign language has no dialects, types or accents), because it's a completely different medium. Example: A non antive english speaker would associate Esperanto with english more than ASL. Even better, it would allow people who face issues with verbal communication to communicate with people much easier than before, with only minor changes to the sing language they already use. And globally it would be accepted because it is both artifical and a metaphorical neutral language. Neutral here means that verbal speakers would perceive it as neutral, because no country's (spoken) language will be given preference. This does not mean the sing language would not be biased towards whatever culture or existing sign it draws from, but emrely global perception of it. It's the perfect solution. Edit: I know different sign languages exist. But the speakerbase for those languages is incredibly small. The most spoken sign language in the world, IPSL, has only 15 million speakers at most. An artificial sign language would be happily adopted by most of the planet. Even if it takes after one existing sign language or the other, most people wouldn't really be bothered because they don't know any sign languages at all. Edit 2: Edited for clarity.

Rian Johnson was the best thing for the sequel trilogy. JJ ruined it. I’m prepared to get roasted for this, but the sequel trilogy was doomed the second JJ Abrams decided to just remake A New Hope. TFA was such an ill-conceived copy-paste job that it basically reset the galaxy back to zero for no reason. Rey was actually a great character until they tried to make her a legacy pick. She should’ve just stayed a nobody who came from nothing, exactly like Anakin did. It makes the Force feel way more universal when it isn't just about who your grandpa was. Rian Johnson actually had the right vision for the series, but it felt so rushed because he had to fix the lack of depth JJ left him with. The whole trilogy should’ve been a deep dive into the fall of Ben Solo and Luke’s humanity. Luke needed to be flawed for the story to matter, but instead of a 30 second flashback, that should have been the heart of the first movie. Seeing a legendary hero fail his nephew in real time is way more compelling than another Death Star. Rian tried to give us a real story, but because the foundation was just nostalgia-bait, the whole thing just felt like narrative whiplash. We didn't need a mystery box, we needed an earned tragedy.

I don't care if vegans say I'm a bad person for eating meat because they're right I've always respected vegans and what they stand for because I love animals and the more I learn about the meat industry the more I understand the literal torture the animals are put through. I see a lot of people who don't like vegans because they "think they're superior and call people who eat meat bad people". I think they're fucking right. They are superior in this specific aspect, for the commitment they have made and what they stand for even though I know "humans need meat & dairy to be healthy" and whatever. I don't mind being told I suck for contributing to the demand for this shitty industry because I am aware, I just don't have the motivation to make the same commitment vegans have made. I will continue to eat meat & dairy while also acknowledging I'm not the best person for it.