brokenkebaby

I think it's pretty clear what it means if you start reading from your own comment. You claimed that a history of promiscuity means nothing (and even blamed it on the parent commenter's insecurities, remember?) My response was that it signals higher possibility of ruined relationship in future. Which you somehow misread. That's it.

>you are free to divorce your partner and not end up financially ruined or

Maybe my writing is too unclear, or yours, but I'm not sure what are you trying to say. My claim: separation is not free, and loneness is not free. Which is in response to you writing that we should appreciate the ease with which pairs falling apart.

>How much is "normal"

If you have a phenomenon creating economical, mental burdens, strongly correlating with children life failures, how much of it you'd like to see? I guess as low as there are cases of real danger, marital fraud, or people lost to addictions. Which I suppose would be a single digit percent.

>I don't think anyone believes being sympathetic or hot is sufficient to sustain a relationship.

I didn't claim you do. The point made is about "How promiscuous either of you were [...] before you met will have no bearing [...]" Which doesn't stay particularly well exacty because of the thing on which we both agree.

>you can part ways without sacrificing your health, livelihood, social status or wellbeing

Whay's "good" is obviously subjective to your life goals. But both parting ways, and being alone is well-known to incur costs on one's health, livelihood, social status, and well-being. It also negatively impacts kids if there are any. There's a limited number of cases where staying together is just too bad, but it doesn't mean that high divorce rate is nothing to care about (societally), or one's particular divorce is fine (personally).

>How promiscuous either of you were at any time before you met will have no bearing on that whatsoever, if you are committed to each other.

The problem is in the fact that commitment doesn't naturally happen from sympathy, or sexual attraction. As fitting two lives is hard, it's a choice which for most people stems from cultural alignments, or hard necessity. If someone's learned behavior is to fly as a butterfly over multiple flowers you can bet with a high probability that culture won't be helpful here. And necessity to stick together for survival is unlikely to exist for modern middle class.

Btw while cotton dries slower than PE, or wool in any case, it also worth to note that moisture wicking doesn't mean just drying quickly. It means water absorption happen in such a way that it makes skin drier. Cotton regretfully absolutely doesn't do it. Its microthreads literally keep water around themselves (that's why it's called hydrophylic). While drying, water constantly redistributes itself around threads. So even slightly wet cotton textile touches your skin with water.

The reason cotton is perferred is because it's way cheaper than all viable alternatives.

You literally quoting a piece of commercial copyrighting (=ad) to contradict knowledge by experience. It's not like one data point, cotton is highly unpopular in hiking, and athlete communities. 1. Because it's strongly hydrophilic it absorbs water, and keeps it. 2. It's sorta breatheable while it's dry, but not so much when wet, and see p.1. 3. I guess you can find a type of cloth which dries worse than cotton, but plenty of synthetics do it better anyway

Not in my experience. Cotton takes your sweat, and makes you feel like you are soaking in it (and that's why it chafes more - skin loses elasticity in prolonged contact with water). Nothing is airy about it.

It's guaranteed to be false for the simple fact of human organism adaptability to caffeine. You certainly feel increased alertness after a cup of coffee, so subjectively it may feel very empowering. But if you're a long-time caffeine consumer your baseline (no caffeine alertness) goes down, and in the long run coffee just brings you up to the same level non-consumers have for free. So let's not fool ourselves, coffee is primaryly for pleasure, it doesn't make any miracles for productivity

Coffee really became common beverage in Islamic world about 3 centuries after the "golden age" finished

Not in that way. Arabic expansion grew a new layer above cultural heritage of East Mediterranian region, and Persia, and its most important centers were exactly there, showing a lot of continuity with their "pre-coffee" roots. Which I think contradicts your theory.

>Isn’t it widely recorded that handwashing only came to be a norm mid-1800s?

You're mixing up two completely different modes of washing. The one related to medicine in XIX is about washing hands in lime solution. Pop science magazines always miss this part to make it feel more sensational I guess.

Washing visibly dirty hands (e.g. with soil, grease, or blood), often using sand as an abrasive cleaner, and ashes to dissolve fat, or (depending on one's wealth) a real soap was a norm for a very long time before. [Edit: added the last para]

Both doesn't work for me

I don't know every Slavic language, but know a few. There are rules of transformation of sounds which can make -ph to become -f, or -p, while -v is very-very unlikely. And the fact that in some languages "v" can be pronounced as "f" before unvoiced is not really applicable here - it doesn't make "f" to become "v". I think it's just a randomly generated Slavic-looking name. The author is Chinese btw

>I wish there was just a standard language for programming.

Approved by a Central Planning Committee, I suppose?