"digestible" and "nutritious" aren't social constructs, so no. If your body can transform it chemically in a way that produces energy, it's food. Otherwise it's not. The same things are food regardless of your culture.
Everyone is talking about dominant and recessive genes, so I just want to clarify a couple things.
The way your body directly uses genes is as a blueprint to construct proteins. Your cells are always producing proteins from the genes in all your chromosomes. It has complex ways of regulating how much of each it produces, but your body doesn't care what chromosome it's coming from. Once an embryo is fertilized, there's really no distinction between "mom" chromosomes or "dad" chromosomes, as far as the embryo and its protein machinery are concerned.
"Dominant" and "recessive" characterization is about how those proteins affect your body at the macro scale, not whether your body actually uses the gene and produces its proteins -- it always does that. For example, brown hair is a dominant trait, and blonde is recessive. But this is because producing any amount of brown pigment will make your hair brown, regardless of what other pigments you're making, simply because it's darker. Literally the same as combining blonde and brown paint. It has nothing to do with whether the genes are actually being expressed -- the brown hair gene doesn't stop the blonde hair gene from making its pigments.
I just don't understand how people can get so sucked into gacha games. All the art design, the game world, all the other stuff they try to use to camouflage the slot machine, none of that stuff works more than a few hours. Once you see the "seams" of the skinner box, once it becomes blindingly obvious there's nothing to find at the "end" of chasing higher DPS or whatever, why do people continue? It loses any sense of fun the moment it happens.
Cypher was right
Except for the killing everyone else part
In addition to what others said, the way you perceive light intensity is not linear. Between your eye adjusting to changing light levels and just the way your brains visual centers work, it's closer to logarithmic. Indoor lighting at night probably feels like, what, 10% of the brightness of daylight? In reality it's less than 1%, sometimes closer to 0.1%.
It's wildly under-taught. It explains like half of all problems in the world. Education: "teaching to the test." Economics: optimizing GDP at the expense of non-material well-being. Maximizing shareholder value by selling out employees and enshittifying your product. Software: "data-driven decision making" optimizing short -term gains over long-term because they are more measurable. That's just off the top of my head.
I was curious enough to actually go find the 6th edition on open library. The actual definition:
Money. In usual and ordinary acceptation it means coins and paper currency used as a circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, evidences of debt, or other personal or real estate. Lane v Railey, 280 KY. 319, 133 S.W.2d 74, 79, 81.
A medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government as part of its currency. U.C.C. S 1-201(24).
Neither "sawdust" nor "beaver pellets" appear anywhere in the 1700-page book. Googling that phrase turns up only this very thread.
Other than maybe a few very rote, boilerplate types of development, all this shit about replacing coders is almost entirely noise made by either the wishful thinking of oligarchs or credulous repetition of that wishful thinking by clueless journalists.
But it's still a pretty rough time to be just getting into tech, just because of the state of the job market.
Uh... Ask, I guess?
So, let's put aside for a moment the rather shocking number of people casually advocating for murder in this thread.
I want to talk instead about how everyone here is just talking for granted the notion that removing the billionaires, Republican politicians, or whatever "they" you care to think of, would be a solution, or even a positive step, for modern social ills.
There's a big undercurrent in almost any political discussion online, this implication that every one of the world's problems actually has a super simple solution, that The Powerful could just snap their fingers and make it happen if they wanted to, and it's only because of their greed etc that we have any problems that all. Obviously we live in a time of huge inequity and we'd be a lot better off if we found a good way to improve it.
But many (most?) of our biggest problems are inherent to the challenge of keeping 8 billion people alive and happy in a hostile universe, and in fact nobody has ever had a perfect solution. Throwing the entire planet into chaos by causally throwing away human beings' rights and leaving an enormous portion of the world's capital in uncertain hands, ready to be seized by some other set of psychopathic opportunists who happen to be in a position to do so, certainly ain't it.
Idk, most navigation would be along or close to the ecliptic plane of the system, wouldn't it