Some of the modern-day countries retained their five-digit postcodes from Yugoslav times (Serbia and Bosnia for sure, maybe a few more, I'm too lazy to check), some only got rid of the first digit which used to identify individual Yugoslav republics (AKA modern-day countries).
So I'd say it's highly likely they'd be delivered, as it's still mostly the same, though I should point out many cities changed names since. For like the most basic example, Montenegro's capital was called Titograd between WW2 and 1992, before it swapped back to being called Podgorica.
I've encountered a surprising number of forms where "Serbia" isn't an option, but Yugoslavia is, even in 2026. There's been a number of times here in the Netherlands where I had to pick Yugoslavia as my place of birth on official government forms because we were technically still Yugoslavia in '98 and not Serbia and Montenegro.
I have no doubts that snail mail addressed to Yugoslavia still exists and probably gets routed just fine
Considering how my parents still refer to that area of the world as Yugoslavia, I'm pretty sure the postal system will know how to route it. Will probably be escalated to a human for labeling though.
Granted, ccTLDs has been already going on for years before USSR change their pronoun to were. Mostly for email, no idea if ccTLDs found their use on BBS.
I can understand .su continuing because Russia pretty much took over everything that represent Soviet Union elsewhere (embassies, Security Council seat, etc) and other former Soviet states either support the continuation or indifferent. Yugoslavia continuation is more contentious topic.
> while eventually tapering and getting them off the glp entirely as the final end goal
It's an honourable goal but the evidence isn't great for that
> You still have to improve diet and regularly exercise anyhow
You don't have to. Should though.
When the drugs are working as intended, you'll lose weight without 'trying' to improve your diet, exercise will speed up the weight loss, but isn't strictly necessary for it to "work". Encouraged, sure, but you'll get weight loss from the appetite suppression alone.
The 'high protein' advice is because a lot of glp1 consumers had poor diets to begin with, and they're catabolic drugs. Combine that with reduced appetite and you're at risk of insufficient protein consumption to maintain whatever muscle mass you started with.
> lacks the [...] bioavailability of real animal protein
I never understood this argument: what's the problem with consuming proportionately more to make up for the reduction?
I'm not rushing to demand IV tylenol because its oral bioavailability is only 80%-90%, which is around the "loss" we're talking for plant vs animal protein on average. And the ultraprocessing should improve plant's profile here.
Eating raw Miso a few times a month can move one's biome to get more plant protein digested per gram than even from egg whites. So the issue with protein is somewhat overhyped. The main potential shortfalls in the vegan diet are vitamins B-12, D & K.
>what's the problem with consuming proportionately more to make up for the reduction?
Because the macros suck. If you’re trying to hit certain protein / carb / fat ratios, eating more of the “protein” means eating a lot more carbs and fat too, which often isn’t the goal.
Your analogy is not accurate, it would be more like waking up in pain in the middle of the night after a bad injury, and taking t3s with codeine+ caffeine, and wanting more codeine without wanting the added caffeine.
if you have only fixed-ratio food options, sure, but otherwise, no.
> and taking t3s with codeine+ caffeine, and wanting more codeine without wanting the added caffeine.
that's what tylenol #4s are for, double the codeine, none the caffeine. Take half a t#4 and half of a regular standard tylenol = T#3 without the codeine.
On top of that, there seems to be a pervasive misconception of the effectiveness of plant vs animal-based protein on things like muscle growth. Older studies showed that plant-based proteins had lower digestibility scores via metrics like PDCAAS. In turn, people interpolated that muscle growth would be lower. Some early studies comparing the two protein sources on muscle synthesis didn't do gram-for-gram comparisons and that increased the misconception. Newer studies are showing that, if you match the protein amount at or above the 1-1.6 g/kg for muscle growth, you will get the same level of muscle growth.
I feel like it'll take another 5 years for this "bio-availability" myth to die out.
1. if you’re a natgas producing country with lots of farms (hi USA and Canada) , your mega farm is probably injecting ammonia directly into soil as its nitrogen source, not urea. Pdf pg10, labelled pg5: https://www.ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/pub...
80-90% of US nitrogen fertilization is ammonia (because it’s almost entirely nitrogen and the rest are bonded to heavier molecules than hydrogen).
And much of it gets applied in the fall, not spring
2. Nitrogen fertilizer varies by crop. Beans crops (soy, kidney beans, chickpeas) fixate their own nitrogen and have zero/minimal applied. Corn and grains, particularly the higher protein varieties need among the most applied.
3. If you like to eat farmed land animals, you’re going to have a bad time from high fertilizer prices. Of traditional edibles: cattle is going to be the worst impacted. Chicken the least. Pork is in the middle. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/peril-and-promise/2022/03/feed-conv...
I don't know if I agree with their conclusion on #3, beef is fed 90% alfalfa grass which is literally cheaper than dirt and fixates its own nitrogen. Yeah they eat more feed per pound of meat, but alfalfa is literally the cheapest and easiest crop to grow. Sow it, mow it, bail it, now you have good ground to plant grains in without artificial fertilizer next year. You only feed cows grains during their last month to finish them to increase marbling/fat content.
If you produce less beef, you grow less alfalfa, and you end up using more artificial fertilizer which might even raise grain prices.
For the foreseeable future, building enough nuclear for peak capacity is exceedingly expensive.
> None of the power plants ever do a "fast cold start"
Somewhere in each grid you will have “black start” capacity contracts, dunno if nuclear can fills this role (or if grids exclude nukes for one reason or another).
Plenty of peaker plants built with the intention of running double digit hours per year and therefore the tradeoff supports being largely “off” in between those calls. Batteries might fill that gap.
reply