rowinxavier @ rowinxavier @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

358

Joined

2 yr. ago

If everyone had paid for public transport through their taxes it would be a fairly good incentive to use it. I had a travel pass through work and it was really effective at driving me away from my car and onto the train. If more people use public transport it will take people out of their cars, so traffic will improve. It would also get rid of fare evasion policing and many kids who can't afford tickets would not interact with the legal system.

I think it would be a wonderful thing to enact and would have many benefits for both those using the public transport and those who are not. It would make the air cleaner, make the system more efficient, and would serve as a model for the world.

Yep, you can emulate, it does work, but there is a better option. Clone Hero works better, has lower performance requirements, supports all of the songs from all of the games, has great peripheral support, and has a whole community of people making modern songs available.

I would also recommend looking into a RetroCult controller mod if you really get into it. Quite a fun electronics project and suitable for someone with limited experience as it has been made very easy and only includes a little bit of soldering and cutting away a little bit of the case.

At the end of the day death is a guarantee. No matter what you do it will eventually end in death. That means that all time time between here and there is not going to change the end point. The worst is already locked in.

So if the worst outcome is eventually going to happen then you kind of have nothing to lose. You could life the rest of your life afraid of things not working out, afraid to try, afraid to take a risk. You could do that and nobody can stop you.

The question is, do you want that? Do you want a life that is defined by what opportunities you didn't take? Defined by what you avoided?

It seems more likely to be a fun life if you take some healthy risks. Try and meet people. Try to learn new things. Move away from shitty influences. Ditch things that make you unhappy. After all, you literally get one shot at life, you have a finite amount of time left in it, why would you waste it living for people who treat you like shit? Is their opinion of you going to get somehow worse? Could it actually realistically get worse? What impact would that really have?

I left my family at 17. Homeless, cold, and broke. I'm in my 30s now and don't regret a thing. I'm married, have a wondrous cat, have a loving partner who actually cares about me and who I love dearly. No amount of approval from my shitty parents would be worth giving that up.

They already controlled your childhood and made it hell. Don't give them the rest of your life too.

From what I have read there is no physical reason that we could not all have a reasonable standard of living right now with no extra technology. The reason for poverty is not a scarcity if resources, it is a distribution problem. Some people take too much and use systems like law and governance to enforce their relative position. Ditching individual wealth would solve most of the issues which prevent a good life for everyone. Being as most wars are ultimately about wealth and the same for borders it would be revolutionary.

Post capitalism.

We have automation for so much manufacturing. We have solar energy which is basically free after manufacture. We could spend a fairly small amount of time really working towards automating most resource extraction and processing.

We could have a really good standard of living not just in the west but globally and we could in the process resolve the threats of climate change but instead we have billionaires.

No, but you also don't need to blame the cholesterol. Cholesterol is a marker we can easily test, so we use that to measure things, but blaming cholesterol is like blaming fire fighters for fires. Cholesterol levels go up when you have damage to your blood vessel walls because LDL covers damage like a scab covers a wound, then once the damage is healed HDL removes the LDL and leaves repaired vessel wall. If you try to lower LDL artificially you can reduce the blood levels and think things are better but really damage is just not being repaired as well as it should be. A better option is to reduce the initial cause of the damage and let the repair process happen more efficiently.

Don't smoke, don't drink as much as possible, avoid huge amounts of sugar, exercise, sleep, and try to reduce stress. And then you can worry about not eating a credit card worth of plastic.

So to clarify for those who don't want to read the article and a few supporting pieces, this is talking about the presence of plastic micro particles in plaques removed from patients.

Removing the plaque can reduce the risk of stroke so it is done fairly frequently. When they took out the plaque they checked for polyethylene, common plastic for bottles, plastic containers, and similar uses, and for PVC, famous for pipes and incredibly sweaty pants.

In both cases microplastics were found in the plaque. Both of these plastics have been shown to cause inflammation in other experiments where the plastic is introduced into the body.

What they seem to be suggesting is that some amount of the inflammation around a plaque could be caused or enhanced by these microplastics.

This study shows that in some plaques, about half of those examined, these two plastics were present. Previous studies have shown plastics can cause or enhance inflammation.

This study does not show that plastics are the primary cause of heart disease. It also does not show how much of an impact microplastics have on the formation of plaques, how dangerous they are, or whether they grow.

Because of the lack of information on how impactful microplastics are and the difficulty of reducing exposure the best evidence currently suggests focussing on removing the big known risks for heart disease. Those are smoking, alcohol, excessive sugar, burned or oxidised fats and oils, and a lack of physical activity. It would be wise to focus on those factors which we know cause heart disease rather than worrying about this small to nonexistent factor.

Yeah, I've seen some applications of hollow waveguides before, but yeah, visible spectrum has potential applications and honestly, anything they can do to reduce the number of boosting stages the better.

I love the idea of hollow core fibres, basically a long hollow tube with air inside so the laser can be carried through air not glass. It is really cool and a novel approach and we are only seeing the start. What happens if we change the internal gas to something else like argon? Maybe there will be a specific fluid for different laser bands, further reducing transmission loss.

They also say that the current result of 0.2dB per km of travel is a good starting point, but they think they will likely reach 0.01dB per km with this tech and a little more time. That means a massively increased distance before having to read out the signal with a sensor and then send it again with another laser. That means much less cost and lower latency at the physical level. Very cool, a good number of years before application but good news anyway.

Well thank you for the mention, and for showing me this community. subscribed

Good choice, the DOI is usually a better link to use, my bad.

I think I have reasonable grounds to disagree, but I don't want to cause offense or upset, so to be clear I am not attacking you or your thought process, just the conclusions.

There has been a long history of these religious approaches to diet influencing scientific research. If we discount all science done by ideologically biased institutions such as those in this study the actual field looks very different. If we further discount known bad methodologies, for example food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) which are shown to be absolutely inaccurate in most cases, then we again find less support for the conclusion that plant based diets are better for humans than meat based diets. In fact, we will find that there are almost no interventional studies of any length that even potentially could tell us that a meat based diet is worse than a plant based diet.

In most cases the researchers fail the very first step of defining plant based, meat based, high carb, low carb, ketogenic, Mediterranean, and so on. The studies are all way too short, most being done over less than 12 weeks, and very few have any sort of cross over or similar control. Most of the studies are purely observational and have no intervention, so no change can seen as causally linked to an outcome. Most studies are funded in such a way as to bias the outcomes. Most studies are not preregistered. Many suffer from p hacking. Many have no clear outcome measure but instead target a proxy, for example blood cholesterol, but they do not actually look at the true target outcome, heart disease and death.

The whole field of nutritional science is unfortunately very unreliable at this time due to ideological and financial conflicts of interest. This study is a great example. Given that it is well known that FFQs are unreliable why was this study approved at the outset? Why was a further clarification of the actual diets of participants not taken at some point in the study, even from a subset? Why is this type of study funded, executed, and then passed through peer review? If this arrived on my desk I would not approve it for publication simple for methodological reasons. Why does the journal allow a title which is so provocative and clearly useful for pushing an agenda when their supposed scientific credibility are riding on their reputation as gatekeepers of truth?

If we had real science I would be keen to see it. This does not meet that level of quality and the continued publication of this type of unfit paper is dragging down the whole scientific endeavour. If we continue to allow people to claim to know what they cannot show we will end up believing anything and making grave mistakes in our choices about how to live.

Yeah, so this study basically tells us nothing but can be used for propagandistic purposes. If I were a journal editor I would not publish a study that tells us nothing while being ripe for political and ideological use. It is unethical to act as if this is a purely scientific study when it obviously is not, and the editors of the journal are supposed to be experts in the field, they should be very aware of this issue and be taking appropriate steps.

Yeah, here is the link to the original study BTW

https://ajcn.nutrition.org/article/S0002-9165(25)00328-4/fulltext

Results

1. Yes, data was derived from food frequency questionnaires, a known bad method for understanding real consumption.
2. Definitely not controlling for health focus of participants
3. Yep, only diagnosed cases were listed, so not checking everyone to see if they had cancer. This leaves room for someone to not have had it checked and it will simply not show up
4. In this case they made several groups based on how much meat, but the vegetation was all grouped together.

This was also a religiously motivated study. The cohort was recruited from Seventh Day Adventists and that church has been involved in pushing unscientific propaganda about vegetarianism for decades. The influence goes much further, given that the bulk of the authors work for the Loma Linda University Medical Centre, a Seventh Day Adventist institution.

This is not a scientific study, this is religious lropaaganda.

About to go read the study, but my guesses are;

1. Probably using a food diary or similar recall based method to figure out food frequency
2. Likely not controlling for whether people are health focussed or not
3. The cancer link will be measured by risk of death by cancer, obfuscating whether the individual seeks treatment
4. The plant heavy nature will be vague, grouping all plants together rather than any specificity, eg sugar beets and kale both count the same

Back shortly to update.

Start with the bottom, count how many are visible on the lowest layer. This gives you half the circumference of the lower end.

Repeat for the highest part of the cup that is still cup, not above the line.

Multiply each of these by 2 and you have the circumferences of each end of the cut cone.

Rearrange the circle area formula to get the radius from circumference and you have the radius of each end of the cone.

Now use the cut cone formula to calculate the volume in terms of hazelnuts.

Next, take the radius of the top circle and estimate how far above that the highest nut is. Use whatever formula seems more appropriate, in this case maybe just a right angle triangle formula with a full rotation, to estimate the volume of the top.

Sum that together with the conic volume and you have a good estimate.

My estimate, at least 3 hazelnuts.

Good luck

It doesn't match the 3 above because the 3 above is also missing some dots. There is a stripe right down the printing that impacts the unknown number and a 7 on the left and the 3 on the right. It cuts the left most curve of the upper 3 off while also cutting the 7.

Usually a single ' means inches, a double means feet, from my experience. That said, monitors are usually referenced in inches in the USA but also in inches alongside cm in Australia.

Yeah, I've had bad random things happen with tech, only with systems that are closed though. When they are more open you can get logs, see what is happening, and eventually modify things until they work again. I had a phone that just wouldn't stay online for more than 5 minutes if the screen turned off. Screen on, internet working just fine. Screen off for 4 minutes, perfectly happy most of the time. Then suddenly around 5 minutes it would just die. It was running Android so I could see some stuff but I simply couldn't get the information I needed to figure it out. Linux is much more forgiving with logs and such giving actual error messages which with a simple copy paste can get you to a reasonable next step.