kulahan

The care quality of all major healthcare providers in the US is some pretty available data, and I've never heard anyone of being suspicious of Kaiser, of all companies. They're specifically known for having really good outcomes. It's like asking for a source that McDonald's sells the most burgers in America. It might not be true - maybe technically it's someone selling sliders or whatever, but it's so close it's probably not worth arguing over anyways.

"You can't ask people because the experience is so universally terrible they'll just tell you it's terrible" isn't really an argument against surveys, it just means you need more specific questions they'll be fired up to answer

Yep. I'm sure there are a few exceptions, but they'd be very rare overall.

I guess it just seems extremely obvious to me that people who live a predictable-enough life to sleep and wake at the same time every day are less likely to face mortality than people with schedules so chaotic they sleep at different times regularly. It’s still good science to do, but without a solid cause or two, I don’t think anything helpful is actually being revealed by this study, at least from a layman’s perspective.

I don’t think wax paper is the dividing line between climate change and a happy planet, if I’m being honest

I’m not sure that simply replacing one type of crude oil byproduct with something else does much on its own, since they still need all the other products produced before and after plastics are made.

This is true for almost every issue, for what it’s worth.

Almost.

Probably some legal question that won’t get answered until there is a strong pressure to do so.

Society flourished without lots of stuff we have today. It just flourished less.

And people aren’t failing to migrate away from plastic because “somebody would make less money”, they’re using plastic because everything else basically sucks in comparison. It’s tough, cheap, light, stable, easy to shape, doesn’t often break dangerously, can have all of its basic properties modified, and more. Nothing else is THAT good.

Edit: Not to mention, it’s not as simple as “don’t use plastic packaging anymore”. We pull oil into a machine and cook it off at various stages to produce various things. Turning cooking stage 8 of 12 into a worthless pile of garbage to be discarded doesn’t stop us from pulling in that oil for the other 11 uses.

Cavitation can be another “out” for that energy.

Yeah, I said "fun" not "good" :)

Our brains evolved in the former environment, and is very good at filtering it out. I've got pretty extreme ADHD, and if I'm in a room and something on the wall is flittering about, I absolutely must look at it. If I'm in a field and a tree is full of leaves billowing in the wind, it's a nice background thing. I guess my monkey brain is too busy looking for tiger faces to be distracted by flickering leaves, flowing grass, and flying bugs for more than a half second.

I dunno if I agree with their arguments in the paper (there seem to be some pretty big questions unanswered yet, which the authors acknowledge), but there's definitely something to the idea that natural environments aren't as stressful for us, even if they're objectively "busier".

You don't need to live a consumerist lifestyle to have a home that's properly outfitted (curtains), comfy (rugs, chairs), and quiet (walls/divisions).

Also for a fun large-scale argument: we're relatively sheltered from global depressions. All we really have to do is convince Americans to keep spending money and it kinda works out, because the whole economy is structured around that anyways.

That's also why the economy is in the dumper right now (not counting tech companies), and why the consumer confidence index is so important to our various economists.

There is significant pollution created while digging up the rare earth materials which are needed to make solar panels, and batteries are some of the dirtiest things we make.

There is virtually zero pollution in a generator which does not typically run. The only waste is the need to occasionally change out the fuel. It’s a rounding error at worst.

This is also ignoring how much safer nuclear is than any other form of power generation, and pollution concerns are ostensibly, at least in part, about improving health and lives of humans.

Bro come on lol.

oh dear, the stakes are so high

You should ask the person I replied to - they already posted soccer field sizes.

Oh, thought this was a noodle fight. A full-on slam down in flavor town. An absolute buffet brawl.

Barilla is fine and I will fight you

Those are crushing power, and while they use bad terms for it, they are referring to tensile strength specifically, which is totally different. I don’t know why the hell they chose a spaghetti strand though.

OP is talking about a football field, not a soccer field. It’s a common joke in America that things have to be measured in football terms.

In the “for what it’s worth” department, Brits called it soccer too. I have no idea why they swapped to football recently.

Your question answers exactly how enforceable it is. It’s directly linked to your population size and how much it can hurt the wallet of the company.

Edit: but also, who cares? Literally no solution to anything on earth works for EVERYONE

How could you possibly know the cost and pollution levels of batteries not-yet invented? The pollution from a nuclear power plant is one 55-gallon barrel of waste per reactor per year, and ZERO batteries are that clean. Like, what are you even thinking here?

Because our battery tech sucks shit. The entire solar industry is predicated on the idea that we will invent a magical battery MANY MANY times better than what currently exists, without being dirtier than everything north of coal.

Come on, I’m begging you to come up with an actual argument rather than one answered millions of times already.

Why do people create this false narrative that renewables and nuclear somehow aren’t the same thing? Why do people pretend that nuclear is not a solution to our energy needs? Why do they seem addicted to pretending the absolute worst alternatives, like solar and wind, are going to be the solution?

The only forms of power generation worth a shit are hydro, geothermal, and nuclear. Geothermal and hydro are geographically bound to certain locations.

Solar sucks dick unless you magically invent a new battery (and if you think we haven’t been trying, you’re crazy). I mean, MAYBE we’ll have a major scientific breakthrough and it’ll be possible to utilize them, but relying largely on an energy source most scarce when you need it most is obviously dumb.

Wind is completely unpredictable and once again, if it’s not, it’s geographically bound.

At least have an argument that doesn’t look stupid as shit. “This thing we haven’t been investing in for 50 years is ESSPENSIV!! Also what’s fusion idk prolly dumb stuff guyz”

Seems about as complex as time zones - that is to say, it requires far more thought than any of us realistically put in.

Apparently the Japanese just… chose family names at some point in the late 1800s. They all had to, basically overnight as far as these things are considered.

It doesn’t really matter if, at the end of the day, our current usage is too high and consumers see EVs as a pro-social purchase. I don’t really think they’re a problem, personally, but it IS the topic of this comment thread, so it’s an appropriate place to complain about this particular issue.

Edit: also, the problem with charging vehicles isn’t really home owner cars, it’s tractor-trailers.

I wonder how public works funding would look if 90% of the nation wasn’t painfully far behind in maintenance.

But also, AI data centers have been around for like 3 years. It’s not surprising they haven’t reached a high level of efficiency yet.

IMO they are not an argument against excessive power use (I know this is not your argument, just a common one), but rather and argument FOR better (read: nuclear) power generation.

I can never tell if these comments are jokes or not because I unironically thought this was a spreadsheet game my whole life.

For anyone as ignorant as I was, it’s actually a video game. You do fly around in open space, chase or run from ships, and top-level combat is surprisingly difficult to perform. Once you get the hang of flying itself, there’s a whole dance of turning systems on and off to be most efficient with fuel, overheating of ship modules to eke out a bit more performance, and more. Or you can chill out in a high security region, auto-orbit some random asteroid belt, mindlessly mining away with a group of friends while you chat or play magic on Tabletop Sim, or something else equally distracting.

I can’t gush enough about the game. The learning curve is huge, but if you’ve got a couple of buddies you like playing games with, this is basically perfect to explore together. They just released a new starter zone, too.

Dolos are neither the first nor best ocean… rock… shape, apparently.

It’s safe to default to America. Anyways, an SUV is not a sign of wealth in a crowded city. It’s typically the opposite - they can’t afford a car for the city, so they use the one they already have. If you really want to use that idea, you’d default to trucks. 90% are $100,000 pavement princesses.