If you click on the article, what’s more interesting is how this might be occurring: through the shared microbiome. If there is such a mechanism to it, that’s definitely news.

Seems to me that plenty of homeless people have dogs.

If she is there and so are the kids, you probably have some kind of path to citizenship or at least residency, even if it is not immediate. Being the parent / guardian of a citizen is something to start with in most places, at least. But only if they are actually there.

If there are no kids involved and you are no longer married, I would guess that you have nothing to work with.

I just wanted to add that many countries have similar ancestor laws allowing you to apply for citizenship if you have any roots there. It’s not always easy - but at least you may have an “in” that others would not. So if you think you have a grandfather who immigrated from somewhere or other, look it up and see if you might be able to get on a path to citizenship there. My wife did this earlier this year, and all it took was some paperwork and a visit to a consulate with her parents.

Granted this was 1999 but I wish I could unsee the shit I saw one day when I did a SELECT password FROM user

And what is a private key? How exactly do you “keep” it across multiple devices? It’s all still black magic to me.

It reminds me a little of Game of Thrones, where all the major players, the royals etc all have spy networks. This is a world where very poor peasants and servants are everywhere and many of them, including children, end up in the employ of this person or that person, watching who is coming and going and reporting back, such that one’s movements and meetings are trackable to a minute degree. The better your spy network, the more power you have.

Of course Varys, spymaster to the crown, is famed for the effectiveness of his network, which spans the continent and even across the sea to other major cities.

He himself is a master of disguise. This was left out of the show entirely but he frequently appears by surprise, whipping off the guise of an old woman and later leaving the scene dressed as a priest, etc. He grew up with actors and uses makeup and costume changes to hide his tracks. He can change his voice and gait at will and routinely shocks people by his ability to blend in and appear or disappear at will. He knows how to leave a place by a different entrance than he came in, and knows all the secrets passageways of the castle.

Basically, in a world with no privacy, the world’s foremost surveillance master is a model for all of us in these times. If you want to move freely in public but do so without a trace, be prepared to pull your hood up and when you leave a restaurant, take off the hoodie you were wearing when you went in. Practice different postures to throw off gait tracking.

You don’t have to like it, but this is the world we live in.

Nobody said “cured,” that’s exaggerating it to make a straw man out of it. “Significantly less likely to suffer from it” is the finding. The people in question may never have even been depressed at all.

Apology accepted.

I will need some acknowledgement of my “sad people eat comfort food” argument I have made in clear terms multiple times.

Oh it’s bright and clear as day that you hold this stereotype of depression to be a proven fact, yet it’s nothing but your dearly held stereotype. This is not a factual description of depression at large suitable to tip the interpretation of some experimental data. I’m much more persuaded by the mountain of scientific evidence that fresh fruits and vegetables benefit health. Your argument is based on cultural stereotypes.

If we already knew that eating healthy makes you healthy, then why are we running for alternative explanations here? Why can’t eating healthy make you emotionally healthy, too?

People in this thread seem to have a strong attachment to the stereotype of depressed people gorging themselves on junk food for comfort, but that’s all it is: a stereotype - hardly a reliable description of depression.

It’s exactly what you fucking said, right here:

it hardly takes a brain surgeon to realise that people with depression will indulge in their comfort foods more often. Doritos don’t lead to depression; depression leads to doritos.

So again, why is this SO obvious to you while it’s unthinkable that eating well may be good for you? Any evidence whatsoever that this is the direction the causal arrow points? Or just snappy phrases like “it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to realize…?”

Yes you can see this culturally in the old stereotypes about “old money” versus “new money.”

Rich family with a hereditarily passed down fortune, lands, and control = old money = feudalism.

Entrepreneur who came from nothing but tok advantage of emerging economies to become wealthy overnight = new money = capitalism.

Old money hates new money because capitalism dethroned feudalism.

Did anyone say this is the only variable? One thing can have an effect without being the entire explanation.

I take these daily and while I always have good shits, the pills didn’t turn me into some kind of shit machine. Results may vary I guess.

Well that’s a pain in the ass, isn’t it?

I believe it though. Researchers out there have shown that even things like time of day can make a HUGE difference in the measurable results of different remedies and medicines. It’s inconvenient as shit for those of us who would like to wake up, chug a handful of pills, and get on with our day.

Why are you so eager to believe that happy people eat vegetables rather than the other way around? You don’t think there’s corroborating evidence generally that a diet of fresh fruits and vegetables is good for you?

I’m the opposite. When I’m feeling run down and shitty, I ask myself when’s the last time I had a salad, and go make one. It always makes me feel better. Not just better, more completely full and satisfied.

While wealthier people have access to better food, is it that hard to believe that eating well also benefits your health and well being?

Correlation is never causation? I’m not sure how I feel about that phrasing. Any causation will effect a correlation, so it seems the proper way to think about it is “correlation is not necessarily causation.” Unless we’re just talking about denotations here, as in “correlation and causation are different words.” I guess in that sense, ambulance is never dildo.