But here is a good tip, people who want to stay in touch, will be in touch.
People who want to stay in touch and are busy will respond, are happy that you reached out and will suggest a catch-up
Rest is well, not worth your effort.
You can easily feel the vibe and if you would be a person I knew or met at some point I would be: "Wow so great to hear from you!"
I had this case last year when I reached out to an acquaintance, whom I helped back in the days and suggested a "catch-up over a zoom". To which he said he can't allocate time right now as he is busy. Had the same happened on Twitter. It felt a bit painful at first but then people are just living a busy life these days. Its a weird world that nobody experienced before...
So don't worry about these feelings, just do it anyways and worst case scenario you have a great catch-up and happy memories.
This flies in the face of the whole point of OP's post. It's hard to stay in touch. Even when you want to. I have at least 2-3 friends who were very good friends at one point and who I'd like to be good friends with again but we just don't keep in regular contact. When we do talk its great but for some reason or another we don't talk often.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/mental-tylenol-ingred...
In this case they did not even link to the study! They literally only have a link to the magazine's description.
Several searches haven't yielded the study they are referencing either, only more content farms running the same story.
I would hope to see better evidence if this is genuinely established. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but "established finding" is a high bar.
Did you actually read your posted source? It does not mention Tylenol, nor is it on Sci Hub. I can tell you what is in it, I can not read it for you however.
It is likely Google Scholar selected it because it cites another study which does discuss Tylenol, however that study does not support the claim being made and instead makes a different specific claim.
> all about how physical pain and mental pain is basically physiologically identical
That is not what your linked study says. I would encourage you to read it slowly. The study you linked is making a very specific, very narrow claim regarding the neural circuitry of social pain observed in some conditions.
I did a paper on this subject some years ago, so I know the info is legit. I didn't expend a ton of effort because information on human beings in hacker news is almost always shockingly lacking and so if I bother to write a high quality post it almost always gets either ignored or downvoted - because the "experts" here don't have the knowledge base to recognize what is true.
And as for scholar, if you type in the right terms, 99% of the time it gives good results. So in this case obviously "tylenol" is not a good search term because that's a brand name. What you want is the active ingredient, which in this case is Acetaminophen. If you type "Acetaminophen rejection" into scholar what are the results?
I just did and there's a wealth of highly cited studies backing up OP's claim, including the very first result.