That too, tho some seem to overdo it after they revert and reach another level of, um, stability.
Most diet failures I've observed happen not because the diet doesn't work, but because once they reach their target weight, they revert to their old diet, and naturally revert to the old pattern of weight gain. This is regardless of lifestyle.
Fact is, you have to pick a diet you can live with the rest of your life. Cuz otherwise it will "fail" as soon as you stop following it.
If your brain is responding to sugar like cocaine, get your thyroid checked. That sort of response is very typical for insuffucient thyroid hormone -- the brain is always starved for glucose, so if you provide FREE SUGAR! it suddenly gets a boost, which lasts a couple hours or so.
Just because there's less or no marbling in wild game doesn't mean that "lean meat" was all they ate. Toward fall, wild game carry a lot of fat. And from what I've read, the fatty tissues were the most-prized portions, and consumed first -- being not only the most calorie-dense, but more prone to spoilage with time (fats go rancid, while meat can be preserved by drying).
Fortunate that you had another school to switch to. Many places, you have a choice of one.
And I'm with the other two replies... this was the time to start a rifle club!
I don't think it's coincidence that we also have the insanity of "trigger warnings" lest someone be traumatized anew by the mere mention of whatever evil befell them... in Another Forum[TM] I griped that soon mere breathing will require a 'trigger warning' lest it traumatize someone who once had a sip of water go down the wrong way.
Cuz, ya know, the mere mentioning of something (eg. a gun) is the same as doing horrible things with it.
Because if it's running longer, it's probably using more power.
Which is more efficient, passing over the cat hair with the 2200W once, or with the 1600W five times?
"Unless kid #2 in fact had tried very hard but still failed, and says to himself, "Even my best attempt was not good enough. Next time I won't try so hard; that way, if I fail, I can just claim/believe it's because I didn't try my best."
THAT is what happens when no matter how hard you try, your best is never good enough. Parents, take heed: if you regard anything less than perfect success as "failure", you will raise a kid who is afraid to try.
Nope, we can't. But point was that circumstances might winnow the better or worse minds from the average, and if that's the basis of the population you've got available to test, you'll get skewed results.
Likely the spectrum of intelligence isn't so different, but the bumps in the curve are in different places.
There's also skew that happens other ways because, well, history. Frex, I'd hazard that Africans who got enslaved and shipped off to America were, as a group, not the brightest bulbs in their particular regional box -- cuz the brighter bulbs were doing the enslaving and selling of their unfortunate neighbors.
"This is how the PC establishment thinks. If there is a conceivable way to twist and distort what is said so that it can be labeled racist, they will do it."
Exactly. Which is why we make so little progress in treating genetic disease that happens to afflict mental processes. "Oh no, you couldn't have inherited that; someone must have done something to make you that way."
We select for personality traits, intelligence, etc. in animals... that's all genetics. Is it so hard to consider that different environments would have selected for different mental traits in humans, too? And that a physical or mental advantage in that environment might be a disadvantage elsewhere?
Frank Spinath (best known as the lead singer in Edge of Dawn, but a professor of psychology in his day job) published a paper a few years ago on the heritability of personality traits in humans. He found the heritability was around
(And all the breeders of performance animals are saying, "We told you so...")
Same principle applied to the Newcastle outbreak on chicken farms (mostly small producers) a few years ago. Inspectors dashed madly from farm to farm checking for infected chickens, spreading the virus as they went. Smart farmers locked the gate (the inspection was voluntary) and saved their chickens. (Smarter ones vaccinated, but I don't know how good the vaccine is. Tho it's useful for treating distemper in dogs.)
Since it's already happened in one form, it's not only not far-fetched, it's more likely than not, and we can't say what its effects would be (perhaps benign, perhaps even more lethal). So, yeah, by all means keep the damn thing contained as best we can.
This game video done by a friend is interesting from a modern-vectors standpoint:
I find it more likely that some microorganism will find a way to extract energy from the particles, if it's not already doing so. Which may produce the GP's possible state of equilibrium.
Nor do they tell us the ratio to non-plastic junk floating in that same water, especially naturally occuring junk. Not every particle floating in the oceans is of human origin; I'd hazard most are the result of atmospheric dust.
Being enthusiastically biocidal is better than unwittingly transporting mussels and other vermin from one coastline to another.