I am confused. I thought the thread was about gender, and the reference to “social bullshit” and the statement “that outliers exist, doesnt mean anything” were statements in support of excluding transgender people from society. The 0.018% stat (rate of intersex if defined narrowly) is clearly a reference to sex, not gender. So now I am just lost.

I think things get taken too far in some contexts, but the underlying sensitivity is when you are talking to a person who considers themselves an outlier. Like telling someone with no legs that they don’t meet the definition of human and ADA is an abomination that should be repealed. Or telling someone diagnosed with conversion disorder that they can’t receive any physical accommodations, and can’t have any medical consults to check if their symptoms might have a different cause. I hope we can agree those would be insensitive positions to take.

I think they were trying to demonstrate the second type of dot should be increments of 10 - the missed step in the original answer - and both messed it up (started with an increment of 20 as you pointed out) and extended it way beyond what was required for the problem at hand.

The cost is a big turn off for most people. At grocery stores near me, the Impossible and Beyond products are more than double the price of the meat products they are imitating. In part because livestock feed is hugely subsidized by the government.

If the plant-based meat alternatives could gain efficiency through scale and experience to lower the cost below animal meat, we would see way more people trying them and finding what dishes they work best in, which would feed back into scaled market demand. But I don’t see that kind of explosive growth potential at current price levels.

Growing meat cells in a lab and selling them as food is illegal in the states you reference.

What Beyond does in processing plant material into something that resembles some meat products is still legal everywhere.

Or you could soak it in prescription strength urea for a couple of days to get the nail to fall off. Less collateral damage that way.

OP might be talking about a procedure where a podiatrist or dermatologist kills the mis-growing edges of the nail root. The remaining root grows a narrower nail, but hopefully a straighter one. Sometimes the process doesn’t work the first time (hard to judge how much cell-kill stuff will get just the edges and not damage the middle) and has to be repeated.