Vadered

Vadered t1_je418x5 wrote

This is incorrect, or at least incomplete.

You are correct in that it isn't recommended to give rescue breaths for untrained people, or even trained people who are rusty. Trained first responders DO give rescue breaths. There are a few reasons the general public is advised not to give breaths:

  • There's a certain subset of the population who just won't give CPR at all if they think rescue breathing is required, and compression-only CPR that they are willing to do is infinitely better than perfect CPR they will not.
  • Most people suck at both rescue breathing and chest compressions, and time spent poorly cycling the air in their lungs that is still mostly oxygenated because their blood hasn't been able to circulate well is time better spent trying to circulate it better.
  • There's a risk of transmitting disease without certain equipment that bystanders aren't likely to have on them.

That said, trained first responders are still taught to give rescue breaths, because when done properly, it safely enhances both survival and recovery rates.

3

Vadered t1_je3z5q1 wrote

> The closest thing to "settling" a criminal case is to take a plea deal, meaning you do admit guilt, usually in exchange for a lesser sentence than you might receive if found guilty at trial.

In most US jurisdictions you can actually "plead guilty" while still maintaining innocence. It's called an Alford plea, and it's basically saying, I didn't do it, but if we went to trial you could probably get a conviction based on the evidence you have, and I'd rather take the plea deal and reduce my sentence.

It's an important thing to allow because you shouldn't have to admit guilt if you aren't guilty, but you also deserve the same ability to reduce your sentence as somebody who pleads guilty. Why would you want to accept a sentence when you are innocent? Well, the system isn't perfect. Sometimes the police fixate on the wrong suspect and fail to investigate everything. Sometimes the evidence is misleading. And while the law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, sometimes genuinely unreasonable things happen.

4

Vadered t1_je2g7lo wrote

In the US, it means it does not consist of ingredients which are known to be toxic - to cause illness, disability, or death. This includes ingestion, contact, and airborne toxins, both short-term and long term. Furthermore, it's restricted to only reasonable use/exposure - everything up to and including water will poison you if you eat/drink enough of it, after all!

6

Vadered t1_jdl16hb wrote

There is a gap, yes. Guilt is about the action itself, remorse is about the victim of the action. Guilt is I shouldn't have done punched a person in the face because punching people in the face is wrong, remorse is I shouldn't have punched you in the face, because it hurt you and I'm sorry for hurting you.

It's entirely possible that you can feel guilt about an action but not remorse, or vice versa.

  • Maybe I don't like a person and while I know punching people is wrong, I don't feel bad about them getting punched. That's guilt, but not remorse.
  • Maybe I do like a person and while I don't care that punching people is wrong, I feel bad that I hurt that particular person. That's remorse without guilt.
  • Maybe I punched somebody and feel bad about both the action and how it affected somebody. That's both guilt and remorse.
  • Maybe I punched somebody and don't care that it's wrong or that I hurt them. That's psychopathic neither guilt nor remorse.
1

Vadered t1_jdkua0f wrote

Guilt - I did something wrong and feel bad about doing it.

Shame - I did something wrong and I feel bad about myself.

Remorse - I did something wrong and I'm sorry for doing it.

Regret - Something happened - maybe caused by me, but maybe not - and I wish I had done something differently.

These things can overlap, but that's the general gist of it.

2

Vadered t1_ixyq1l1 wrote

CPR will not save anyone from dying on its own. What CPR does is basically manually force blood through the body. It's not as good as a real heartbeat, so you'll still die from lack of oxygen getting to organs eventually. What it DOES do is it serves to slow down the process of dying until real help arrives that can hopefully address the real problems.

In terms of your question, it depends. If the pacemaker is still firing but out of rhythm (called an arrhythmia) and you can keep somebody alive until a defibrillator arrives and it arrives pretty quickly, then yes, they have a decent chance. If the rhythm has fully stopped, no defibrillator in the world will save them, unfortunately.

2

Vadered t1_ixyoidd wrote

People have answered how the actual process works, so let me answer your other question:

> how would someone be able to tell that the money wasn’t legit?

They can't, directly; cash isn't stamped with a "DRUG MONEY" mark or anything, after all. What they can tell is that you don't seem to have a reasonable explanation for how you legally acquired it.

Say I sell drugs or whatever and make millions of dollars in cash. I can use it on groceries and restaurants and the like, and I can use it to pay other people for illegal things (like more drugs to sell), but at some point I will want to use it to buy a house or a car or whatever large purchase. Buying expensive things with physical money is super weird and looks suspicious, and people will probably report me to the government if I try.

So I want to pay electronically, right? Well, how do I get my big stacks of drug money into the system? If I just take a million dollars to the bank, they'll report it to the government (they have to by law), and the government will have a lot of questions about how I got it and I won't have a good explanation. I could break it up into smaller amounts and deposit it over time in an attempt to evade detection (a process known as structuring), but banks know about structuring and I'd have to deposit it over an enormous amount of time in order to not looks suspicious.

So instead, I start up or purchase a business that operates in cash - something like a laundromat, for example. Now I have a perfectly plausible reason for depositing thousands of dollars in cash each week: that's how my "customers" pay me. This gives me a way of getting it into the banking system, and once it's in the system I can buy my house or car or boat or whatever just like any normal person. Sure, I lose some of the money in the form of taxes and whatever I have to spend actually running your business (having a front does require some actual cash outflow), but that's a small price to pay compared to having an enormous amount of money sitting in a warehouse that I can't use on anything.

Now to be fair, there's a second alternative. If I simply don't spend or deposit very much of the money, or if I use it as cash over a very, very long amount of time, nobody will have any way of figuring out I got it illegally; the problem is that what's the point of doing risky, illegal things in order to get money you can't use?

1

Vadered t1_ixs6mgj wrote

In terms of mold, they aren't really that much worse than other berries - all berries go moldy VERY quickly. They carry natural molds on them that make their shelf lives very short.

In terms of smushed, raspberries are hollow. When you pick a raspberry off of the plant, the center part called the torus stays behind - think of it like the stem. This means the fruits are hollow and are more vulnerable to smashing, because they don't have the internal mass to resist force.

11

Vadered t1_iu8qfxy wrote

> Why do developed nations need constant economic growth

They don't, technically - in fact it's not even possible to have unlimited economic growth in a world with finite resources. Eventually we won't be able to make more stuff with what's left on Earth, though hopefully that's a long, long way away. But just because we don't need growth doesn't mean it's not valuable:

  • If your population is growing, like many nations are, your economy needs to grow along with it or you end up with less per person.
  • You say people have enough stuff, but let's be real - very few people ever feel like they have enough stuff, or at least that more stuff would be undesirable. People want to progress and feel like they are advancing in their lives, and more or better stuff is one of the measuring sticks they use.
  • A big part of the economy is people's perception of the economy. If the economy starts to grow less, people might be tempted to save more of their money, which means they are buying less stuff, which slows down the growth more, which encourages more hoarding, which slows down the economy more, etc. This is one of the ways recessions and depressions happen.
8

Vadered t1_iu8p9ga wrote

Ou se trouve la bibliotheque?

That's French for "Where is the library?"

Congratulations, you now know how to read a certain sentence in French. But you probably don't know how to say it. How is that possible? Well, you've only been exposed to it in writing, not speech. Repeat that many times for many sentences and words and you are literate in French but unable to speak it.

The answer to your question is the same, but in reverse - you are exposed to the language verbally but never learn to read or write it.

1