I wash my hands before I piss because my dick is the cleanest surface in that bathroom. Touch nothing afterward without a paper towel barrier
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
110 points (89.3% liked)
You Should Know
32885 readers
1466 users here now
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I have bad news, most (?) paper towels, toilet paper, and even the toilet seat covers are microscopically transparent, meaning there are plenty of gaps for microbes to get through.
Paper towels folded over on themselves absolutely create a barrier between my hand and the door handle. I'm not talking about flushable paper or toilet seat covers
Paper towels are able to absorb water because of cellulose's natural gaps and spaces:
Most bacteria are about 1 micron, and these gaps range from around 1-10 microns.
Especially if damp, it can be argued that they don't stop the transfer of bacteria. It's possible that your bacteria transfers through it and vice versa. This is all before the fact that paper towels can already harbor bacteria on their own.
That being said, paper towels do block some. You just shouldn't think of them as sterile or a magic blocker for bacteria.
I'd be interested to culture petri dishes off my hand after I use a new paper towel to turn off the faucet vs grabbing the wet handle with my entire hand and shutting it off and then drying off my hand...
load more comments
(1 replies)
The McKelvey–Schofield chaos theorem proves that, if an electorate is presented with a series of proposed policy changes and everyone votes according to their honest preference, the proposals can be fashioned and ordered in such a way that any policy can be made to win—even one that no voter prefers to the starting point.
deleted by creator?
Could you source the "even one that no voter prefers to the starting point" part?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKelvey%E2%80%93Schofield_chaos_theorem
There will in most cases be no Condorcet winner and any policy can be enacted through a sequence of votes, regardless of the original policy. This means that adding more policies and changing the order of votes ("agenda manipulation") can be used to arbitrarily pick the winner.
The article doesn’t explicitly say that this includes policies not preferred by any single voter, but it’s implied by “any” and “arbitrary” (and can be verified by the original theorems).
I'm not too familiar in the field, but doesn't a policy have to appeal more to a specific base than its appeal to another base to cause a Cordocet tie?
Yeah, the Condorcet criterion is a lot more restrictive in the space of policies (where you can make incremental changes in any direction) than in elections for a discrete set of candidates. (Which is why they say that in most cases there won’t be one.)
Yeah, so in my understanding of that, doesn’t that mean the winning policy has to appeal more to a voter base than one that appeals to another voter base?
That’s true for any pairwise vote, but not for the entire sequence.
As in the Condorcet paradox, voter preferences are intransitive: voters preferring A to B and B to C doesn’t imply that voters will prefer A to C. But where the Condorcet paradox shows how this can lead to a cyclical subset of candidates where no candidate can beat all other members of the subset, the chaos theorem shows how this can lead to a series of votes that ends absolutely anywhere.
But if it is a paradox, then every proposal that still stands has to have beaten another proposal at least once. Thus I don't see how it could be one nobody has preferred at the start.
It’s not like Condorcet’s scenario where every candidate has a pairwise election against every other candidate—it assumes a subversive agenda-setter who presents each new proposal as a yes-or-no alternative to the existing status quo (the previously-accepted proposal). Once a policy is rejected, it isn’t re-introduced.
My name is Aaron
Hi Aaron, how quickly did you get sick of people deliberately mispronouncing your name?
Also, I think your name is very fun to write in cursive.
yes and thanks. I also like the big A. It's all very circly