Sovcit should try "Avada Kedavra", maybe that's the correct magical incantation.

There seems to be a confusion here:

Amylose is a polysaccharide and one of the two compounds that form starch (alongside amylopectin). What Oatly adds is amylase, one of the enzymes in our body that breaks down polysaccharides into absorbable sugars which means that their oat milk already contains higher amounts of reduced sugars due to that process which is shown in the study I've linked earlier.

I'll read the full article later, but based on the abstract, it doesn't sound promising. Maltose is readily absorbed being a simple sugar while amylose is a multi-sugar (and one of the components of starch) that has to be broken down first in the digestive tract, so I don't think those are comparable.

Based on your ref, I’m not convinced that this is truly the case though.

What you are essentially saying here is that you don't believe sugary drinks will spike your blood sugar level.

There is this study about different kinds of processing with alpha-amylase. The relevant data is in Figure 2, control (C in the figure) was just an oat-water slurry that was heated for some time, En is with the addition of amylase. The rest is about exploring different processing techniques.

It doesn't compare starch-sugar ratio during digestion tho, not sure if there are any studies that do that. But higher initial maltose content means a higher spike.

Nice strawman you got going there, but I never said anything about calories. It's about sugar.

Your uptake of sugar is not equal across all forms, but varies by the underlying sugar. The rate of uptake is measured with the glycemic index, the higher, the faster the uptake. Lactose has a GI of around 45, sucrose of 65 and maltose of 105. Maltose lets your blood sugar level spike significantly more than the others which leads to a more significant crash which induces hunger, irritability, fatigue, and overeating.

Coke is a lot more sugar-dense than milk (more than double the density) and coupled with the presence of a higher GI sugar, it's more of a snack than a refreshing drink.

Additionally, the controlled enzymatic conversion by adding amylase breaks down a lot more of the oat starch than what would normally happen while eating and digesting, so my point still stands.

"Kill first, check later" seems to be a pretty accurate account of Israel's modus operandi tho.

Swap use cases of rice and soy milk and it's me.

Oatly adds amylase to convert oat starch into maltose. The result is that the sugar content is about that of Coca-Cola while they still write "unsweetened" or "no added sugar" on their sassy packaging because it's technically true.

It's good for a dash into your coffee, but I wouldn't suggest it as a daily substitute due to the sugar content.

How is bad BO worse than the shit that comes out when he opens his mouth?

Carbon neutrality means carbon dioxide neutrality. Carbon is just an element and literally everything you see and don't see has some of it in it.

Also, around 2% of our sun's energy production involves the Bethe-Weizsäcker cycle which is a cyclical fusion reaction using carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. (The main source of energy production is through a proton-proton chain since our sun is too small to rely on the CNO-cycle entirely)

Der Versuch zählt.

Didn't get that impression during the Qatar world cup. People leaving stadiums early in droves or not even showing up is something I haven't seen anywhere else, even if their team was unfavored to win.

I've thought about that recently.

In Germany, the 2 historically biggest parties were SPD (used to be liberal-democrat) and CDU (conservative) and they often were the ones tugging it out while the smaller parties were filling in as coalition partners for one or the other.

Over time, the SPD splintered into several semi-big offshoot parties (Linke, for example) while the CDU stayed as a whole. As a result, CDU is now commonly a favorite for getting most votes in an election.

Is that consistent with politics across the globe? And if, why do liberal or center parties tend to split up more than conservatives?

Nihil sub sole novum.

FIFA follows the money and the reason is simple: they have to compete with the insane privatized corporate climate that is association football today. Nobody is playing for the fame and recognition anymore, it's all about publicity, market value and prize money, and those require funds.

Saudi-Arabia benefits off of that by being able to sportswash their unjust regime, FIFA benefits by being able to hold an event. Qatar was the same deal, nobody gives a crap about football there as one could easily see.

That's what endstage capitalism calls "innovation".

They are just gonna call the Irish anti-semites and continue what they are doing.

Ok, I play Nd5 what do you do? If you don't move your bishop or king, I'm gonna fork both by taking on b6. If you defend the pawn with the king, I play Nf6 instead forking your bishop and outside pawn. Gonna win a pawn either way after already winning the bishop for rook exchange earlier.

Forks the h-pawn and the bishop. You cannot protect your pawn with the bishop either because e8 is covered by the knight as well.

Should be easy to push to promote for white after eliminating that pawn.

After takes, takes, white has Nd5 which threatens 2 forks at the same time (Nxb6 and Nf6). Maybe that is winning, idk, I would rather play white tho.

Seeing these two idiots on stage should be a warning to everyone that cocaine is not a recreational drug.

Die Herkunft der Phrase ist ungeklärt. Eine Theorie stammt daher, dass Soldaten nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg hauptsächlich mit der Bahn nach Hause befördert wurden und ihre anstehende Abreise vom Bahnhof sie so abgelenkt hat, dass sie in Gesprächen nicht mehr richtig zugehört haben -> sie haben nur Bahnhof verstanden.