I believe that the the claim that medieval people needed to drink beer because water wasn't safe to drink is a bit of a myth. They built aquaducts, dug wells, etc.
As far as I understand it, it was more to do with preference (beer is great!) and calories. Beer was a good way to turn grains into easily quaffed liquid meals.
I love them! Generally find that once you get one it's a lot easier. I find that if I've not looked at one for a while, and 8k kit getting it, and I go back to the first one I got (some boxing kangaroos) and normally it just clicks again.
My partner can't see them, and is convinced it's just a dumb hoax that people on the Internet play pretending they can see them.
It is! Loved it as a kid, and gave me a lifelong fondness for command line terminals.
That there were some areas ruled by monarchs and now they're one bigger area ruled by a single monarch.
I see a bunch of people posting civil and reasonable issues with the thinking behind your shower thought, and then you replying in an immature and disingenuous manner. I think the contrasting upvotes / downvotes in your comments vs everyone elses suggests that my interpretation is shared by the wider community.
I almost didn't comment because I thought from your behaviour it was obvious trolling, and there's no point reasoning with trolls. But looking through your post history, you seem like you're generally posting on good faith, so I thought I'd try and explain that you do not need to react so defensively to legitamate discussion and disagreement.
A shower thought doesn't need to be factually correct to be interesting, but when you post a pretty extreme take on a serious and sensitive subject, it isn't surprising that people are going to clarify where you've gone wrong.
Not a night, but my group of friends will pick a theme like 80s fantasy movies of 40s noirs, and put together 8ish films, with a mix of classics and more obscure choices. You've got the week to watch the movie, then at the weekend we send our thoughts / review. Generally come up with a set of review criteria, our TieDyeFuturism: 70s sci-fi season had stuff like "The Real Monster is... MAN", "Virtually Indistinguishable from Magic" and "A woman on the Bridge?!"
This isn't debate club.
If people aren't suppose to discuss and possibly disagree, why post? What do you think is the purpose of the showerthoughts community?
You could try doing some searches for companies in your area that do the sort of work your interested. Most of them will have some public facing site for attracting customers or just for corporate image. Then you can normally find an email or social media details to get in touch and explain what you can offer.
And if the way you have to contact them is LinkedIn you might have to just suck it up. Almost no one who uses LinkedIn likes it. Like most things about employment, people just figure out how to give the right image for the industry they want to work in, and put on that professional front whenever they have to deal with the constant stream of bullshit. So if that means writing an upbeat "I think I could offer a lot of skills and passion to contribute to your organisation inspiring mission" type message to a 50yo self-centered ceo then, well, that's how you get jobs sometimes.
I watched a video (can't remember who or what it was called) that looked into the early days of radio. In the early 1900s it was a massive craze, especially among teenage boys, and quickly resulted in kids transmitting "obscene messages" and calling in fake commands and reports to naval radio operators. At the time there was no encryption or restriction on amateur radio use, and it lead to some embarrassing and dangerous moments for the navy.
The government finally acted in 1912 by forcing amateur radio to be restricted to the shortwave frequencies, decimating the hobby. This was partly driven by an incorrect rumor that these radio trolls had been responsible for, or interfered with the rescue of, the Titanic a few months earlier.
It was interesting to learn that trolls have always been with us, and also that the government could so decisively shape a new form of communication. If the 1980s giverments had banned use of the Internet by anyone outside the military and a small number of commercial or academic licence holders, things would be very different. Sure, the technology would be there and people would run amateur ip networks, or secretly piggyback of official uses, but it would be more like the dark net / tor than what actually happened.
I think you are completely misrepresenting the literature in the field. There has been decades of research on inner monologues, but whether anyone truly has no inner monologue is still a matter of debate, and suggesting that it could be as much as 50% is absolutely wild.
One recent example is Nedergaard and Lupyan (2024), who used questionnaires on 1,037 participants and found no one who reported a complete lack of inner speech. They did show a link between lower frequency of internal speech and lower performance on sole verbal cognitive tasks.
But this was frequently misreported in popular science news, which may be where you got the idea. For example, Science Daily's headline "People without an inner voice have poorer verbal memory" and subheading "Between 5-10 per cent of the population do not experience an inner voice" certainly make some bold claims (although still well below your "up to 50%" statistic). But just a few lines into the article it's been rephrase as "between 5-10 per cent of the population do not have the same experience of an inner voice". This is more accurate, as all studies agree that there is a variety of experiences of inner voices / monologues, but a different experience is not the same as an absence.
In another comment you make reference to the experience sampling study (where a buzzer would sound and participants would record whether they were experiencing an inner monologue) which I assume is the work of Heavey and Hurlburt. It's true that they claim that 5 of their 30 participants recorded no instances of inner voice, but let's be clear about what the experimental procedure was: the participant would turn on the buzzer, which would buzz at a random time (an average of every 30 minutes) and the study was based on two periods of five samples. So, ten data points collected over approx five hours.
Even people with strong inner monologues report different frequencies of inner speech depending on their activities. Many people do not experience inner speech when actively engaging in other verbal activity - talking with friends, watching a video; while quiet focused activities such as golf show much higher reporting of inner speech. So the absence for five individuals of any inner speech during those ten particular samples is in no sense equievlant to "16% of peole have no inner monologue". Indeed even the study's authors acknowledge "it is possible that these participants may all have actually had quite similar inner experiences; it is merely the reports of those experiences that differed."
Tldr: I think you're making some very wild claims about this subject, without posting sources. No significant study I know of claims that any sizable percentage of the population have no inner voice, (although there certainly is an interesting variety in how frequent and clearly it is experienced.)
I came across this cryptic phrase in a description of an old D&D adventure Tale of the Comet . In context, it seems to describe the designer solving a problem of game balance by having the powerful technology items have limited charges / uses before expiring. But I cannot parse prophet-squeeze-monster and I certianly don't recognise it as a classic trope. Any ideas?
La Vie En Rose is a classic for a reason. I'd probably go for Grace Jones' version.