FishFace

While your broad point isn't wrong, it's good to separate wealth and income.

What rhyme? Only thing I can think that you mean is some things about "attercop" (old word for spider) that Tolkien writes.

I always heard it used for both and it confused me that they were two different things.

Article talks about energy but not why they're using weapons grade plutonium for that purpose. Anyone got an informed reason?

Yeah. I guess you can analyse it as:

1. Denying the antecedent: "showering every day prevents smelling bad, therefore if you don't shower every day, you will smell bad"
2. Confirmation & Selection bias: "that person smells bad, therefore they can't shower every day, making them an example of not showering every day leading to smelling bad"
3. Bias of anecdotal evidence, presumably - at least, I'm assuming that most such people really do smell bad to themselves after only a day, which is treated as a reliable indicator of everyone's condition.

It's quite interesting to me, because it clearly becomes a very emotive topic when the difference between waiting one, two or three days to bathe is pretty abstract. I have developed a hypothesis that it's the feeling of having a shower when one is feeling sticky and sweaty and dirty, and then coming out feeling nice and clean, that gets readily associated with bad odour. I then think that this link simply can't form easily if your feeling when coming out of the shower is not "nice and clean" but "disgusting ball of skin-flakes held together only by paraffin and artificial grease".

I have encountered this kind of attitude before but I was actually surprised to find it that prevalent here, because I expected more people to be sympathetic to conditions which require deviation from the norm.

Your jaw muscles force your jaws together. It's both jaws doing the biting.

Tylenol is paracetamol, aka acetaminophen, not aspirin.

Now this is the silliness I live for

This is sad, not humorous

Why should a company be legally responsible for copyright infringement of its employees, if it wasn't something they did for work?

They didn't claim it was respectable, they claimed it made them not liable? Where'd you get this idea?

Then you should be less credulous. What is told to prospective employees is effectively public information.