TBF I can’t remember the last time I used toilet paper.

Bidet shower master race.

any normal person would consider this steam. This isn’t a chemistry or physics class.

Just because you didn’t pay attention in physics in basic education doesn’t mean no-one did.

When is the last time you heard someone refer to someone’s vape productions as “steam” in real life? “Goddamn vapers steaming all over”?

Vapour and steam are different, because you don’t need 100c for water vapour. Ever heard of clouds? Mist? Fog? None of those are steam, none of those are 100 degrees Celsius, but they are all water vapour.

That’s what vaporisers produce.

https://www.reddit.com/r/chemistry/s/lNzhmtSLVW

Ah, so you don’t understand the misunderstanding, or you’re purposefully using an illfitting word.

Vaporisers produce vapour.

VAPOUR:

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

noun

a substance diffused or suspended in the air, especially one normally liquid or solid.

"dense clouds of smoke and toxic vapour

Water vapor is the visible part of steam, and for the purposes of this discussion, we’re talking about boiling liquids

There’s no visible part of steam, despite colloquially people sometimes using language in a way that might make you think there is.

So why would you insist on using the wrong word after being corrected? (That’s a rhetoric question, because I already know the answer.)

Thanks.

But again, that’s mostly about the flavourings, and the flavourings found specifically in US markets. So that’s more like “the US regulatory framework needs work” and less “vaping is dangerous”.

Taking a hit from a vape that has no flavourings or nicotine is essentially exactly the same as taking a breath on a dancefloor in a club when the fog-machine is blowing clouds. Literally the same process, just nearer your mouth and smaller.

That article even says

*“While there’s little research on the side effects of vaping CBD, some general side effects — which tend to be mild — of CBD use include: irritability, fatigue, nausea and diarrhea.”

And that’s pretty ridiculous.

Not readable from EU unless I decide my privacy and data don’t matter at all, which I won’t be doing.

Ugh, that’s no good! It doesn’t say what you think it does. It shows that they are safe, not that they are harmful.

For this study the team included 30 youths aged between 21 and 30 years between 2015 and 2017. They did not have a history of traditional smoking or e-cigarettes.

^ Small sampling.

The participants were divided into two groups – one of the groups was a control group while the other was asked to use e-cigarettes at least twice a day taking 20 puffs during an hour at one time. To measure the puff count, the refills given to the users had LED screens with a puff counter. The e-cigarette refills used contained 50% propylene glycol (PG) and 50% vegetable glycerine (VG) and no nicotine or flavours. The study duration was for one month.

For all the participants, a bronchoscopy was performed at the start of the study and again five weeks after. The lung tissues, bronchi and the lung health were recorded at these sessions. The team wrote, “Inflammatory cell counts and cytokines were determined in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluids. Genome-wide expression, microRNA, and mRNA were determined from bronchial epithelial cells.”

Results revealed that there was no significant difference in levels of inflammatory cells among the e-cigarette users and the control group.

No difference in between the control group and the vapers?

So I don’t know if you’ve mistakenly been sharing that, but it supports the opposite of what I gather is your view on the matter. I know it might not seem like that if you only read the headline, but I tend to actually read the articles and studies I link myself. You know, to avoid awkward things like this.

Steam is the hot gas that is produced when water is boiled. It’s also completely see through, ie, invisible.

That is not what the vapes produce. It’s a water vapor. That’s why they’re called “vaporisers” and not “steamers”.

Ah, finally, there’s actual studies showing actual dangers, and not just manufactured bullshit from the cases where bad regulation lead to people vaping acetate E? Can you please link me those studies so I can use link them forwards?

Well said there in the back.

Not a bad argument. Well thought. tips fedora

Well yes, but no, but yes.

I understand that “literally” can be colloquially used to mean “figuratively”, or just as emphasis, but it’ll take a while yet for the prescriptive meaning to be “overridden”, and given how well we record history currently, given context, it will never fully lose that meaning.

I think the same logic applies here.

I’m not going to say someone is incorrect in using it in a way that doesn’t fit the prescriptive meaning, but just know that mentally I’ll be very mildly frowning at that.

Me neither. Wise decision.

Imagine Trump doing that quacking sound when he’s deep-throating Kamala.

People really misuse the word “liminal”.

Sort of how “literally” became to be used as just emphasis.

A liminal space is occupying a position at, or on both sides of, a boundary or threshold. But because a lot of the liminal spaces had this vague creepy empty feeling, now people use “liminal” to mean “vaguely eery” or words to that effect.

To recap, you — a mod — proudly admit you don’t have the attention span to read the things on the forum you’re a mod on, even the ones you’re actively taking part in?

Hey, you’re free to disagree with me.

Ofc I’m going to judge you for being pro-Russian, as that’s just shameful. However, I assume that you won’t be able to answer whether you are or aren’t, despite pretending that you already have, even though people who have the attention spans to actually read the thread can clearly see you haven’t — you’ve spent a lot of energy avoiding it. This reminds of the time I was in an elevator with a drunk guy who loudly shat his pants and then proclaimed “it wasn’t me!” (And it was very clearly just the two of us in there.)

Since you’re very fond of listing links and sources, I’ll show you how argumenting is actually done. (Since your link lists were nothing but "I hope you never read any of these because they’re not actually even related and I can’t come up with an actual argument.)

You misuse the word “symbology”.

Likeness in symbols representing different things aren’t two different things using the same symbology, they’re the same symbol which represents a different thing.

We’ve been using the Swastika since the Iron Age. When did they form the Nazi party again?

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakaristi_Suomessa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_use_of_the_swastika_in_the_early_20th_century

Awkward how you pretend to be so knowledgable, yet make these cringe “arguments”, because I made you upset by asking you whether you’re pro-Russian or not. Something which you absolutely refuse to answer. Weird, huh?

Approximately so

“Do you really think we’re on the Russian state’s radar”?

So again you’re pretending propaganda only exists in the form of people who are financially compensated or mandated by the Russian state. That’s insanely childish of a take. You either have really bad reading comprehension, or you’re engaging with me in bad faith. Latter is against the rules, I believe?

It’s weird how you can pretend to have asserted that you have implicitly agreed with the fact that Russia has broken international laws with an illegal war of aggression by invading Ukraine. If you’re not pro-Russian, then it should be rather easy to say “Yes, Russia has broken international law.”

Even with your notion of propaganda being spread purely by paid actors, you admit that there’s a non-zero chance of that happening on Lemmy. Now, IF there was such an actor here, would they have a problem with admitting that Russia has broken international law with a war of aggression by invading Ukraine? I believe they would. Wouldn’t you?

Since I very clearly expressed I’ve gone through conscription, enjoyed it, and am currently a NCO in the Finnish reserves, very willing to defend my country militarily, but you assert you’re “using the term appropriately”, I have to deduce that you’re probably using the gay slang term “chicken hawk”, meaning you’re assuming I’m gay, I’m an “older male”, and into twinks?

Also, then you agree that nazis are either actual neonazis, or possibly the current horrid fascists like Putler and Netanyahu.

I’m pro-Palestine and pro-Ukrainian, mostly straight, not even in my 40’s and in the Finnish reserves, and I’m definitely not an actual bird, so… in what was your asinine babbling “appropriate”?

There are approximately zero Russian trolls

Good one, mate. Are you trying to say bad actors who are literally employed by Russia, but ignoring all the people who’ve bought into the propaganda enough to propagate them despite not getting financially compensated by the state of Russia?

Are you seriously trying to say the existence of Russian propaganda on Lemmy is zero percent? I sincerely doubt that, because I’m sure you’re aware of just how ridiculous of a statement that is.

“You’re being utterly ridiculous by asking one simple question, to which I would avoid the answer were I on the side of Russian rhetoric.”

You’re making a mountain out of a molehill. I asked a simple question; do you agree that Russia has broken international law with a war of aggression by invading Ukraine?

It really doesn’t necessitate getting upset nor all the equicovation. What’s more ridiculous: listing a bunch of links trying to imply there’s no such thing as Russian propaganda when asked if you think it was wrong of Russia to invade Ukraine… or… asking someone a simple yes or no question?

You’re the one who said “you chickenhawk nazi lovers.”

It’s not unreasonable to ask for elaboration for such an incoherent attempt at an insult.