Well, it’s kind of a broken line item. It’s the comment section on a post that usually has nothing to do with the post about technology, politics or shitpost.
Posting a cat pic? – CIA conspiracy. Recipe for deep dish pizza? – CIA conspiracy. Instructions on how to give the heimlich maneuver to a one legged goat? – You guessed it! CIA conspiracy.
I am fairly sure this is a mix of plotlines from several different movies.
I certainly wouldn’t say it was incompetent and there is a good set of data points. Given the nature of what the study is attempting to correlate, not explaining what limitations were taken into account is a a significant limitation, IMHO. It is called out that there are limitations, but that it is essentially just a short footnote. (The full paper does a better job of calling out other studies and some contradictions.)
This referenced study found the opposite and had a no (or weaker correlation) to cancer associated with SSBs: Khairan P, et al. Sugary drink consumption and the subsequent risk of gastric cancer: Khairan P, et al. Sugary drink consumption and the subsequent risk of gastric cancer: The Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study. Eur J Clin Nutr 2023;77:218-25.
Without doing a comparative analysis of the studies, which would be interesting, I have open questions about what the key differences were. My first guess (without calling either study “wrong”) is that maybe risk factors were calculated differently?
On the darker side, there is motivation for keying-in on a specific correlation and that cannot be ignored either. (Past grants, groups requesting the study, etc.) The original paper also sets itself up to be a marketing call-out for artificially sweetened beverages, unfortunately. (I am not saying that is the intent, but the wording aligns exactly with what vitamin water-type company would want to see. It made for a good Lemmy post title, at a minimum.)
At the end of the day, they stated what they were looking for and presented what seems to be a clean analysis of that data. The limitations that were presented have the potential to be significant, however.
“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the masses.” -Major General Smedley D. Butler.
So my chance of developing gastric cancer doubles to 1.8% chance over my lifetime if I drink sugar-beverages every day… (This math wasn’t sponsored by a cancer testing company.)
After you actually get the the study, there wasn’t any mention of other associated lifestyle behaviors that may contribute to the risk of gastric cancers. What sticks out to me is that people drinking one or more sugar-packed beverages per day likely have additional diet or lifestyle concerns.
It’s not that I think the number crunching for the study was wrong or that the sample sizes were too small, it’s just that it was extremely focused on making a correlation for the sake of making a correlation.
I would try and light it outside, but with a long stick (like a wooden skewer). There is a high chance that those are O2 bubbles, if you were trying to make some Sodium Percarbonate which is a common additive to laundry detergent anyway… It’s supposed to be equal parts mix, but I suspect the excess of hydrogen peroxide is intentional as to have the best chance to convert all the sodium bicarb and still have plenty of liquid to soak something in. (Just a guess. Chemistry can be a weird science sometimes and I think there were a few reactions that could of happened here.)
Consumer grade hydrogen peroxide is dirt cheap, and so is the baking soda. I dunno if you saved money and a made a more effective solution for what you are trying to accomplish. A spoonful or two of regular laundry detergent may have masked smells a little better. Dunno. I like science but I also like efficiency, so whatevers! (Experiments are fun.)
Flags have always been poorly standardized outside of system apps and tools. Generally, -u should equal --update (and depending on how the app was written, may warn for --up: “Did you mean --update?”) Single tick flags are generally combinable: -ua or -ls. I have seen long single tick flags somewhere, but can’t remember where. (Your -update example.) Various python libraries than handle flags have helped a ton with getting people to use the same patterns, so that is nice.
You just summed up my first experience with systemd many years ago.
systemctl != sysctl. Both somehow got wedged into the same index in my brain and took years for me to correct. On top of that, <service> <action> was reversed to <action> <service>. (Or was it the other way around?)
I was convinced from my first experience with systemd that the person who wrote it was the purest form of evil. (It’s leveled out a bit over the years, so it’s tolerable to use these days. Still not a fan though.)
Not really a fan of any argument that turns any bias to 11, but whatever.
Efficiency is really the winning point though as combustion engines are horrendously inefficient. Investment cash is better spent improving electric motors instead of squeezing more out of traditional engines. Even if the dial moves from, say, 90% efficient to 91% efficient for electric motors, that would be significant. If we could magically create a “heat battery” that stores heat captured from combustion engines, that would be nice. There are plenty of uses for captured energy like that, but I don’t see that as anywhere near practical for daily use vehicle ls.
Battery recycling still likely needs more improvement, but unfortunately, that will be driven more by future resource limitations. To my understanding, we are still finding new ways to extract lithium and still developing better battery chemistry. That is good, but doesn’t really provide more incentive to improve recycling. (There is are cost/benefit factors in play, I speculate.)
If there is a darker underbelly to EVs, it’s the batteries. They have their own set of long-term problems and mass adoption would be problematic in that regard.
Charging stations need to be at every gas station and just as convenient to charge as it is to fill up. Our power grid is likely not supportive of that quite yet. Having had to stop at a number of sketchy gas stations in the past, having to stay at one of those longer than needed is not usually high up on my favorite things to do. Still though, getting a just enough charge to get to a nicer place could still be a good option. Availability of charging spots needs to be improved. (It’s good now in most busy areas, but poor in some other places.)
I drrive a hybrid now, only because I like the option of carrying around my own charger. It’s not perfect, but it is a decent intermediate step as I will eventually get an EV in the future.
Saying that EVs are just as bad or worse is just a bad argument and doesn’t really need to be countered with what is basically a rant. The benefits and efficiency isn’t really debatable with well manufactured vehicles.
As far as I am concerned, modern EVs are still emerging technology and need several more generations of improvements before I fully convert. They are neat, but not neat enough for me at the moment. I’ll coonvert soon enough, but not quite yet.
Trash app. If you actually want to see all of your data and have it recorded accurately, just switch to the Garmin ecosystem. Garmin isn’t without their own set of issues and problems, for sure. However, if you actually want data and not AI slop summaries, stay a far away from Google Health.
Simply put, it’s designed for people who think that wearing a fitness tracker will improve their health and want a chat bot that will make them feel better about that.
Shocked expressions, big red arrows pointing to nothing, titles based on shock, surprise or open-ended questions are videos I tend to avoid. I don’t particularly care to watch a video where the first emotion had is sympathy for desperation. (It makes you almost question the emotional state of most of the users that “the algorithm” tuned itself for, TBH. I say that only as an observation of scale when looking at the sheer numbers of viewers that YouTube has.)
Sticking with the subtle stuff is just fine. A picture of the host smiling with an informative title and thumbnail is OK, and not very gag evoking.
Blaming “the algorithm” for having to do that shit is likely a very real thing. However, I will religiously watch channels that produce good content first.
Either way, I have conflicting views: A person has to earn a living, but when emotional exploitation is used in this way, I don’t know what to think. Is it really harmless? Not sure about that yet.
I did. All the important things have time to gracefully shutdown now. (Except my for my rack of 4 DL360’s, which need something a little more robust than a Walmart UPS. They aren’t critical and only exist to handle weird one-off projects anyway.)
This happens, too. A burst of local brownouts killed an OPNsense firewall of mine once. (The hardware was fine. The data got wrecked.) The firewall would boot, or almost finish booting, and then another brownout would hit. After the third or fourth cycle, the poor thing was toast.
I should thank the power company for free resilience testing.
There absolutely is a darker side to Lemmy, but for the most part, many of those “legacy” instances have already been pruned from the federation that we are in now. (I suspect there are smaller, highly niche, “Lemmy” bubbles that even I wouldn’t want to go looking for that have never federated with the larger group. There are also various branches you can explore via instances that keep their doors mostly open.)
On the surface, and depending on what you consider toxic, the misinformation campaigns that are run on Lemmy seem fairly normal, but can get fairly dark if you understand the sources and start to do broader geolocation estimation of some of the participants.
There are still the occasional DDoS’s and the occasional CSAM posters, both of those are only a degree or two away from the really nasty shit.
The biggest issue now, and probably will always be, is how easy it is to avoid bans. Some seriously troubled users have generated hundreds of accounts across multiple instances just to troll and appear to generate traffic to specific communities. (“you_emm” being one of the worst, but its posts are fairly easy to sniff out still. It will actively search for untagged mentions as well, hence, my obfuscation.)
But for the most part, the bullshit is easy to filter out. When you stumble across a specific niche, they tend to niche themselves super hard, so beware. All-in-all, Lemmy is chill and fairly quiet which is why I still use it.
In most cases, I believe it’s a mix of hormones and traditionalism. Men have generally been more likely to seek grandeur by participating in violent activities, or, violent activities are demanded by their particular social group. Sometimes a mix of both.
I think it also it boils down to how gender roles are taught by different cultures. If men are taught to be the risk takers, it only makes sense that boundaries and laws will get pushed more by men. After all, intentionally breaking a law may simply be viewed as a calculated risk and not as something that should never be done.
Honestly speaking, it seems too easy of an answer to just blame male physiology. The social aspects of this can’t be ignore either.
Booze is a helluva drug.
https://www.audubon.org/magazine/apparently-magpies-and-crows-are-using-anti-bird-spikes-make-their-nests