The latter

A ladder is a thing with rungs you climb to reach high places.

Because for like 99.9999% of evolutionary history, calories were scarce and unpredictable. You were WAY more likely to die of starvation (due to sickness, drought, winter, injury) than somehow finding so many calories that you got fat. So we all evolved the strategy: "when you do find a high-cal food source, eat as much as possible!!" And in those calorie-scarce times, (aka essentially all of human history!) that was a great strategy to have. It kept your ancestors alive.

Calories becoming cheap and abundant for everyday normal people happened in the last ~200 years, which is a split second on the evolution timescale. There just hasn't been anywhere near enough time to adapt to this yet. So we're all still running the "eat as many calories as you can find" program in our brains because that worked great for like a million years and has only needed the "but not too much" asterisk for a tiny amount of time since then.

This pairs with the reality that even our fairly recent ancestors had limited access to those nutrients. Honey required getting past bees, wild fruits were small and tart, salt was irregularly available, and fat had to be hunted down and killed. The idea of constant availability of as much fat/sugar/salt as you want, in as many varieties as you can imagine, didn't apply.

Furthermore, the consequences are limited on the time scale that affects natural selection. Humans can reproduce by their teens and raise the child to reproductive age by their 30s, long before obesity is likely to kill you.

They mean the latter, which means the later of multiple options given.

[deleted]

2 generations is 1970. The industrialization of food in the 1800s is where it shifted.

[removed]

I'm a lawyer. Much of what you said is almost correct legal jargon, but very little of it matches my understanding of the law. But I'll grant that my legal education focused on Louisiana, so perhaps the legal jargon and rules are simply different in your jurisdiction.

When you say "provides tighter conditions on what terms lead to the contract being executed in the event of a divorce" what do you mean by this? As I understand the term, to "execute" a contract is to bring it into existence, usually by signing it. So a prenuptial agreement would be executed long before divorce. Also, a prenuptial agreement might have terms that trigger in the event of a divorce; but a prenuptial agreement just as often has terms that govern the marriage prior to divorce as well.

When you say it prevents "no fault divorce," what do you mean? I am unaware of any jurisdictions that allow parties to contract out of the option for a no-fault divorce. Even Louisiana, which uniquely has "covenant marriage" programs designed to limit divorce, allows no-fault divorces after a lengthy waiting period.

I don't understand what you are trying to say in your second paragraph. Are you just noting that a prenuptial agreement might provide that an adulterous party will face penalties in the event of a divorce? A prenuptial agreement might indeed have such a provision, but it might not. In general, parties have plenty of leeway to structure their marriage contract so long as their agreement doesn't offend public policy in some way (e.g., disavowing paternity of children from the marriage or condoning one-sided adultery).

As for your last paragraph, the "well in advance" bit seems unnecessary. You'll want to involve attorneys to make sure the agreement is enforceable. Depending on your jurisdiction's rules, you may also need to involve notaries and/or witnesses (Louisiana, for example, requires either an "authentic act" or signatures acknowledged in court https://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2011/cc/cc2331). But, unless there's some jurisdiction-specific rule I'm unaware of, there's no reason the contract needs to be prepared far before the marriage; people can freely modify their marriage by contract even after they have been married.

No, there is no minimum. It's completely dependent upon the contract that defines the terms.

The latter

WYM the ladder?

At least if it was crayons you know the kid will be a Marine.

I recall reading that on some cultures it is reversed.

It's primarily the pressure component. The longer it's in the water, and the higher the pressure of that water, the more the water can seep through tiny crevices.

I've never heard of, and on a search can't find reference to anything about destroying adhesives playing a major role in this.

[removed]

right. Eat while the eating is good. Not eating enough is an evolutionary hazard which means you cannot propagate offspring, but eating too much is not an evolutionary hazard at all. You can eat way too much and still have offspring, it's only much later in life that it becomes a problem.

Thanks. If you know, what things have changed about phones to make them more waterproof, since they didn’t used to be at all?

Water is a solvent and a pretty good one at that.

Your phone is mostly held together with adhesives.

The water will soak into and destroy those adhesives after a time, but not so fast that you have to worry about a momentary submersion.

As it soaks, water begins to make the adhesive fail. As more water gets between the glass and adhesive, it fails faster and faster.

Depth inscreases this because some of the waterresistance is also caused by air pressure inside the phone at points that need to be open like speaker grilles. The tiny holes help prevent water from making it in due to the air inside the phone. Past a point, the pressure around you compresses the air in the phone, displacing it and replacing the missing air with water. So yes, it is mostly down to pressure with depth.

Is there a minimum right? Granted co-owners can't exercise full rights of ownership. Is there a minimum right that cannot be partitioned between legal persons?

Sugar, salt and fats taste good because our bodies have evolved to favour foods containing those items. For hundreds of thousands of years, finding enough nutrition was a challenge for early humans, so we've evolved to favour foods that have higher caloric density. If you're an early human who is starving and you find some lettuce and a fruit, you're better off eating the fruit first because it has more sugar and calories.

In the last 2-3 generations (which is a blink of an eye in the evolutionary scale), we all have enough food and calories but our brain chemistry still favours fats and sugar.

[deleted]

Everything above is correct, however...

According to Prop 65, the state of California would like you to know that Play-Doh contains substances known to cause cancer. They'd also like you to know that that food grade hamburger contains substances that cause cancer. That the water you drink contains substances that cause cancer. Et omnia alia...

Another thing to think about is sad music in major and happy music in minor, it exists and it's not even terribly uncommon

I recently listened to a neuroscience podcast that says we have been conditioned to associate them that way.

[removed]