unicorn

On the subject of professional organizations (as opposed to USPSTF, WHO, and Cochrane), the American Heart Association recommends hydrating with water, except for athletes and sick people: https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/fitness/fitness-basics/staying-hydrated-staying-healthy "...For most people, water is the best thing to drink to stay hydrated. Some foods can be a source of water, such as fruits and vegetables. Sports drinks with electrolytes may be useful for people doing high-intensity, vigorous exercise...".

The optimal rehydration drink depends on the purpose of the rehydration drink (i.e. reason for water loss). In particular, it matters if the water loss is rapid (such as exercise or diarrhea), or whether it's gradual, such as lounging on a beach chair in a hot tropical climate, or a desert poolside party. Most of the research has been done on the optimalization of hydration for endurance exercises and for illnesses which result in water loss (particularly diarrhea). For these two categories, ingestion of beverages with carbohydrates and electrolytes has been shown to improve exercise performance and health outcomes (not zero-calorie electrolyte solutions). In the case of just having fun at the beach or poolside, perhaps snacking on chips and salsa (or a sandwich and fries), plain water is just fine, as there will be plenty of salt in most peoples' foods. While athletes and sick people benefit from getting as much liquid as possible into their blood vessels, this is probably not the case for people who are just walking around in a warm climate, where the resulting increase in blood pressure may be deleterious. Increasing BP is good for athletes and hypotensive diarrhea patients, but probably not for the average person. Here are some Cochrane-gathered data: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/content?templateType=related&urlTitle=%2Fcentral%2Fdoi%2F10.1002%2Fcentral%2FCN-00119256&doi=10.1002%2Fcentral%2FCN-00119256&p_p_id=scolariscontentdisplay_WAR_scolariscontentdisplay&_scolariscontentdisplay_WAR_scolariscontentdisplay_action=related-content&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_mode=view&type=central&contentLanguage= And an original study: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15438620802103155

I agree with most of what you said, in particular this statement, although I would qualify it by saying that one can also get good health information by following the advice of large national or international public health organizations and other organizers of reliable scientific data. I personally give my highest credibility to the United States Preventative Services Task Force, a group which really pores over all of the studies, and provides hard data. The World Health Organization also has reliable information, though more limited. The Cochrane organization from the UK also provides extremely reliable summaries of what's known in certain subjects. National professional societies also have evidence-based guidelines, although occasionally there may be a slight bias in interpreting data towards the societies. Let's just say I trust professional society guidelines 98%, and USPSTF, WHO, and Cochrane guidelines 99.8%. No question that it's far wiser to trust a competent physician than some information you might glean from social media or the lay press, especially sources quoted by Reader, since, as nice a guy as I'm sure he is, he tends to be overly trusting in some unreliable sources. That being said, it's a good idea to double-check any advice with what the world's experts have to say on the subject.

Not to discourage anyone from drinking plenty of water, but the science is lacking in that statement (though obviously hydration is good for the kidneys and helps prevent kidney stones).

Hopefully they'd only take off if all of the paid passengers had boarded.

Then I don't have to go there, since I've already been to Russia. 😁

Swiss International Airlines is not among the top 5: In Europe the leading airlines were: Airline Completion Factor Within Block Time On-Time Arrivals On-Time Departures Iberia Express (I2) 99.49% 72.03% 84.69% 86.72% Iberia (IB) 98.83% 74.16% 81.58% 79.77% SAS (SK) 99.09% 62.86% 81.40% 82.72% Vueling (VY) 99.09% 76.33% 81.20% 79.43% Norwegian (DY) 99.18% 68.71% 79.23% 79.58% It doesn't surprise me to see Aeromexico on top. They're a really great airline which take special pride in its on-time performance. In North America, the top airlines are, not surprisingly: In North America the leading airlines were: Airline Completion Factor Within Block Time On-Time Arrivals On-Time Departures Delta Air Lines (DL) 98.95% 77.34% 83.46% 83.74% United Airlines (UA) 98.35% 74.95% 80.93% 81.98% Alaska Airlines (AS) 98.56% 63.15% 79.25% 81.70% American Airlines (AA) 98.68% 72.05% 77.78% 79.13% Southwest Airlines (WN) 99.38% 76.55% 77.77% 76.65% In Asia-Pacific, it's: In Asia Pacific the leading airlines were: Airline Completion Factor Within Block Time On-Time Arrivals On-Time Departures JAL (JL) 98.37% 64.95% 80.90% 82.83% ANA (NH) 98.61% 62.63% 80.62% 81.96% Singapore Airlines (SQ) 99.92% 68.45% 78.67% 80.13% Air New Zealand (NZ) 96.89% 75.03% 77.58% 74.73% Thai AirAsia (FD) 99.97% 67.89% 77.46% 77.44% For West Asia and Africa, it's: In the Middle East and Africa the leading airlines were: Airline Completion Factor Within Block Time On-Time Arrivals On-Time Departures FlySafair (FA) 99.86% 81.64% 93.82% 93.69% Oman Air (WY) 99.64% 74.33% 90.27% 93.89% Royal Jordanian (RJ) 99.31% 74.94% 87.02% 87.34% Saudia (SV) 99.82% 68.34% 86.35% 88.82% Kuwait Airways (KU) 99.40% 67.45% 84.63% 87.10% For Latin America, we have: In Latin America the leading airlines were: Airline Completion Factor Within Block Time On-Time Arrivals On-Time Departures Copa Airlines (CM) 98.73% 68.58% 88.22% 91.77% Aeromexico (AM) 99.32% 75.82% 86.70% 87.73% Caribbean Airlines (BW) 99.06% 42.67% 85.47% 87.82% Gol (G3) 98.78% 69.88% 84.09% 83.90% Aerolineas Argentinas (AR) 97.54% 63.40% 83.06% 84.62% I've flown Copa before, and they have a pretty good product. I had a Paraguayan boyfriend for 2.5 years, and Copa is the only way to get to Paraguay with only one plane change (in Panama City). I'm surprised Gol, a low-cost Brazilian airline made it so high on the list, though.

https://www.cirium.com/thoughtcloud/most-on-time-airlines-airports-2024-revealed-cirium/ "...Aeromexico claimed the prestigious title of the most On-Time “Global Airline” in 2024, achieving an impressive On-Time performance rate of 86.70%. Saudia followed closely as the runner-up with 86.35%, while Delta Air Lines secured third place with 83.46%, continuing to showcase its operational reliability on the world stage...".

True, for the single traveler. Few cruise lines accommodate single travelers well. For couples, it's not that expensive, especially when one considers that the price includes transportation, food, and lodging. With the better cruise lines, that includes gourmet meals, which are frightfully expensive. The best part of cruising is the absence of packing and unpacking, which one does on trips with rail, bus, car, or air travel. My husband and I are taking a Mediterranean cruise in May, leaving from Tarragona. Prior to the trip, we're going to spend a few nights in Barcelona, including a day-trip to Andorra. While we will not spend the night there, we will be having lunch there and visiting the city, and I will definitely count that as having visited Andorra. Our cruise ship will also stop in Malta, and, although we'll spend several hours there, not spend the night. I will consider myself down to three unvisited European countries: Belarus, Bosnia, and Moldova. We do have plans for Moldova next May (2026). I'm not sure if I'll be able to visit Belarus until Lukashenko dies...

Yes, by those criteria, I would not have been to Kansas or Kentucky since, while I ate and spent money there, did not spend the night. At least it's a little less ridiculous than Noel Philips' assertion that he's "been to" Maryland just because spent an hour crossing over a thin sliver of the state (and even less of Delaware, for which he passed only a few km). Staying overnight is a bit of a tough criterion, though. I've twice driven across Nebraska, taking 7.5 hours each way, and have seen the entire length of the state and eaten 4 meals there, so I feel quite comfortable saying I've been there (I've never counted changing planes in an airport as being there). Idaho's another state where I've spent quite a few hours on different occasions, stopping at various sights, but have never actually spent the night. I've also visited quite a few sights in New Hampshire and had quite a few meals there over the years. I've been to the top of Mount Washington, the highest peak in New England (and the windiest place in the US), visited Franconia Notch State Park, lunched in Portsmouth, and hiked Flume Gorge. I feel confident in saying I've visited the place, but it's always been in the context of a wider New England trip, either travel from Maine to Vermont, or Massachusetts to Maine, or Vermont to Massachusetts. Never spent the night, though (might be going from Ogunquit, ME to Woodstock VT, for example). Very commonly, a lot of people stay in West Yellowstone, Montana, when visiting Yellowstone National Park, which is primarily in Wyoming. They might even spend several days visiting the park, although their accommodations are in a different state.

They're now saying the death was due to heart failure and pneumonia. The former was probably due to misuse of recreational drugs.

With 39 cm (over 15 inches) of rain over 19 days, is it really possible that the downpours happen over just an hour or two? This forum has a lot of Thai members, so maybe their experience would be helpful. It looks as though Bangkok's rainiest month is September, with 34 cm of rain over 18 days during that month. Does the rain usually last only an hour or two in September? If so, how are the roads after the rain? That the travel website I looked at/linked above called January a "poor" month to visit Bali and Java suggests weather has a significant impact on the travel experience. The fact that the ship is a "quiet paradise" even when docked in a shitty port suggests most people do go on shore when at port. Maybe some people just go on a cruise to say they've "been there," even when they can't really experience a place. There's a travel vlogger by the name of Noel Philips who "documented" his trip to say he's been to all 50 states, showing him take a train from Washington DC to Wilmington, Delaware and back. To him, the fact that he'd passed a sliver of Maryland and Delaware meant he'd "been there." I'm not sure I'd agree he can say he's "been there." When I say I've been to all 50 states (and have visited all Canadian provincial capitals), the only one I feel I cheated on a little is Kansas, because my extent on visiting that state was a dinner I ate in Baxter Springs. OK, also my extent to visiting Kentucky was a dinner in Covington. But at least I did get a look at the place and have a meal there. He especially misses out with Wyoming and South Dakota, since there are a lot of fascinating places in those states.

I'm curious as to which cruise you were on. I've been on over a dozen with Celebrity Cruises alone (and a few others), and met quite a few fellow passengers (in the past, it used to be the case that there were fixed sittings with large tables, and one would meet more fellow guests than is now the case). Rarely did I meet people who didn't go on shore on port days. Flying half-way across the world just to get to the departure port is either very expensive or very uncomfortable/arduous. Even an economy ticket costs thousands for two people. If people just wanted to experience luxury, they could spend the thousands and stay closer to home. I suppose that there are people who take repositioning cruises which are, indeed, quite inexpensive, and have limited port stops. But even those have some ports to explore. I can understand someone going on a cruise close to home, and perhaps only interested in the cruise experience (for example, someone from the US's east coast taking a cruise from Miami, or from the west coast from Los Angeles). But does it really make sense to fly all the way to Singapore just to either stay on the ship or get soaked? Have others gone on cruises in which a majority stay on board when at port? Which cruise lines and which departure ports?

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/showbiz-tv/vivienne-hospitalised-3-times-month-30714606 "The Vivienne previously opened up about battling a severe addiction to ketamine - with doctors telling the star he was on the brink of death before he turned his life around. The Drag Race UK champion, who was born James Lee Williams, has sadly passed away aged just 32. His death was announced in a sad statement on Sunday night (January 5). It read: "It is with immense sadness that we let you know our beloved James Lee Williams - The Vivienne, has passed this weekend. James was an incredibly loved, warm-hearted and amazing person. "Their family are heartbroken at the loss of their son, brother and uncle. They are so proud of the wonderful things James achieved in their life and career. We will not be releasing any further details. We please ask that James's family are given the time and privacy they now need to process and grieve." The cause of death has not been made clear. Opening up about his harrowing experience, the BBC show star recounted how doctors had warned he was on the brink of death...".

I've been interested in a cruise around Indonesia, but most of the ones I see are scheduled to go during their monsoon/rainy season. This one is scheduled to hit Indonesia in early January, at the peak of the rainy season! https://www.royalcaribbean.com/cruises/itinerary/8-night-bali-adventure-holiday-from-singapore-on-ovation/OV08SIN-349797265?sail-date=2025-12-28&currency=USD&country=USA#step=0 Bali gets 39 cm of rain in January, with rain being present on most days. Why would anyone spend big $$ on flights and cruises when a soggy time is almost guaranteed? This website says it's the worst time to go to most of Indonesia (including Bali and Java): https://www.selectiveasia.com/indonesia-holidays/weather I don't get it. Who would book a cruise when one is likely to get drenched? Are there people who just don't look these things up when planning an expensive vacation? Or are there people who don't care about lousy weather?

Some netizen combines four landmarks, office building of People Daily, office building of CCTV, Nest the National Stadium and Shanghai Convention Center in one picture:

Another Chinese building, the office building of People Daily newspaper:

Well, that much I knew, but is there some other way to trigger the view count? If someone links the photo to another site or to social media, will that trigger the count? It just seems that the number of views on those strings seems unusually large, and I'm trying to figure out why. Why would there be over 1000 views in the favorite building string? Are people viewing the string repeatedly? About what is the daily viewership of this forum? I mean, those are interesting photos, but the viewership seems out of proportion.

I'm somewhat surprised by how many views my recent "favorite building" and Bourbon Street strings have received. Is the string getting credit for people linking any photos to another site?

For the female side of things, Qatar has the Al-Janoub Stadium:

Heavens! You might offend Vinapu! 😄