fwungy

My latest alert, which triggered this post, turned out to be because there was a Mom's for Liberty protest at our local school.

I don't agree with their positions, but come on, an emergency alert to the whole city for some women with signs?

Interesting.

I recently ran across research that showed nicotine consumers had reduced Parkinson's symptoms and incidence.

It's good to see they're learning more about this devastating illness.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4430096/#:~:tex....

Only in places that can afford to replace them. Liquid fuels are well understood and supported in the developing world because ICEs are relatively cheap and liquid fuels have amazing energy density.

A village with a tank of diesel can be amazingly self sufficient in the developing world while their grid central power are not reliable.

I understand the urgency of climate change, but doing something obviously unproductive like pretending the developing world is going to eagerly spend money they don't have to preserve the climate 75 years from now, isn't going to help anything.

This solves so many problems. It's great.

Tell me you don't have children without telling me.

When a child makes it to a top tier of media attention parents are always involved. Children do not have the drive or capability necessary to do such things on their own. Of course the parents say it was all the child's doing, because the real story is not inspiring and actually somewhat ugly.

There's still a couple billion people there who need energy to survive and progress and don't care about the climate increasing a couple of degrees by 2100.

It was just so obviously stupid. I don't have time to wade through German government websites finding the trail.

Modern civilization, like in Germany, requires a certain per capita level of energy resources. If you increase the cost of energy without a matching increase in economic resources you lose functionality in your infrastructure.

Germany willfully chose to cut domestic energy production and increase its own costs. Now its core manufacturing is crumbling. BASF, for example, is relocating to China[0]. They claim they're using 100% renewable energy there, but such claims are easy to make in China and hard to verify.

The Western sustainable energy policy is like watching a man hit himself repeatedly in the head with a hammer and then wonder why he has a headache.

[0]https://www.basf.com/cn/en/media/news-releases/cn/2022/09/BA...

There is no reason at all for anyone but the Head of Household to vote, who's ever paying the bills and keeping it together.

Democracy becomes less stable as voting increases and individual equity falls. It becomes a race by politicians to dumb down the population and elections a race to see who can offer the public the most free stuff from "the government."

Most people live in dream worlds and do not understand cause and effect relationships, especially young people. Getting more and more uninvested people to vote is not a magic alchemical process. If so the biggest corporations would use the model to gain even more power.

But they don't. You need to own shares in companies to vote. That's how they align their decisions with their future needs.

Yes, and if we all go burn our houses down the GDP increases became we create more economic activity. The point being the statistics don't necessarily mean what you'd think they mean, and they do redefine/game them when they want.

Doesn't matter. They'll still happily buy the fossil fuels the West leaves on the market.

Same people are writing the energy policy here. Germany just was further along.

Climate change mitigation doesn't work if the fossil fuels just make it cheaper for other countries to use them. Russia and the Middle East aren't walking away from trillions of dollars in oil reserves and the BRICS aren't going to stop developing to keep the world from getting a couple degrees hotter in a hundred years.

If they really wanted to do something about climate change they'd be pushing next gen nuclear energy to the forefront, make clean electricity super cheap, and drive electrification by outcompeting fossils.

The energy policy we have now in the West was designed by scammers and morons.

T. Energy Policy PhD

I know a lot. Her parents are quite well connected and used their child because it works well in the media.

Children want to please their parents and mimic their views. It's not a great idea to push young children into the media spotlight. It rarely turns out well for the child.

What could possibly go wrong?

It's a good way to game performance reviews.

Flag the code and unit tests for multiple petty issues and then forget to review your change requests. Eventually accept them weeks later without comment after multiple prompts from the developer.

The incentives of science are often orthogonal to making a career in science.

There are ao many reasons that comparison does not work.

I can see from my Oura ring data that late night eating is hard on the body and the harm is correlated with the how heavy the meal was.

The issue is that it takes work to digest food. Your body does not get to rest as well when you eat late at night. You see it in your heart rate / hrv. Small amounts of carbs don't seem to matter much. A big protein meal is the worst.

It's rooted in the sexist idea that women are not capable of making decisions about their sexuality.

There's a weird double standard around "love is love" for women. No one is concerned if an adult male has sex with a substantially older partner or engages in sex work, but if a young (adult) woman dates an older man or decides she wants to be a sex worker it's considered fraught.

This is a relic of the patriarchal order that many feminists still cling to.

Putting aside the cases of coercion and rape, is there something fundamentally degrading about sex to a woman that demands special legal protection?

Providing good sex is a skill, whether it's paid or not. There is no reason to stop a woman. or anyone, who freely chooses to sell their sexual skills from doing so. The notion that a woman needs to be protected from her own choices is patronizing.

I say this as a lifelong Democrat: Kamala Harris is the worst sort of useless political moron.

I wonder what the break down is on over 50 doing dumb shit/not dumb shit?

I remember how fun riding was after a few beers when I was young, and that's why I don't do that now, but biker gang culture, which is older doesn't care.

Motorcyclist here. A lot of the danger of motorcycles is the rider. The level of danger to a 20 year old man on a sports bike is orders of magnitude higher than that of a 50 year old on touring bike.

Same story with guns: the danger of guns is entirely correlated with demographics. People outside of certain demographics and locales face very little risk from guns.

Given that "love is love" , why can't sex workers be deemed "money-sexuals", i.e. people who's sexual calling is to have sex for money because that's just what they're into - born that way.

Then we can separate out the innocent money-sexuals from those who actually are being forced into it?

Every meaningful action carries some risk to ourselves and others.

In and of itself it is not an excuse to curtail freedoms because nothing would get done. There needs to be an acceptable risk level for things. We need to talk about "unreasonable risks" that are based on evidence and not what might or could happen.

A lot of car bloat is response to regulatory measures. Every time we add more safety features to a car, whether for drivers or those the car might collide with, they get bigger and more expensive.

"leading"

The implications of this ruling are mind boggling. Simply doing business with someone who is committing a crime, even if you didn't know, is a crime by this logic. By extension any business using Salesforce is also now engaged with a criminal enterprise and thus criminals too.

Interestingly enough the BackPage prosecution was headed up by Kamala Harris to make it look like she was doing something about sex trafficking. I wonder if her finger is on the scale. It's all so stupid. She's good at that.

The immune system, let alone the body, is a highly complex system. We really don't have any way to know what hacking the immune system with a vaccine does. It may help us avoid condition A but opens up to conditions B,C,D.

The dilemma is that there is a huge profit motive for addressing A, while B,C,D is a cost borne by the individual and their family/support system.

Ironically, if you care about vaccines, the best thing you can do is create a strong and trusted regulatory framework around them so the profit motive accruing to private parties does not overtake them and destroy public trust, as is happening now.

My scientific methods professor taught that "correlation is not causation BUT when you find it you have to explain it, because correlation is a foundational indicator for science."