shlant

seeing the results of what other people doing is different from making decisions just because other people are doing it.

> Also: fluoride works topically, not when ingested.

wrong[1]

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/data-research/facts-stats/fa...

you're just lying

https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/data-research/facts-stats/fa...

your study has been heavily criticized where you already posted it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43523900

I can only assume once you see those very valid criticisms, you will update your references

> The risk of cavities is reduced by using toothpaste or mouth washes with fluoride, not by drinking fluoridated water.

it always surprises me how willing people are to just make something up and be confident in doing so. We've know for almost 75 years that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay[1] and yet here you are straight up denying that.

Do you just not care if you are correct? or do you know you aren't but are driven by the beliefs you already hold?

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/data-research/facts-stats/fa...

> We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted. Studies have shown that studies cannot be trusted

the growing prevalence of anti science thinking like this has been a disaster for humanity. There's so much time and good faith effort put into trying to better understand our reality then people like you come along and handwave it all away because "well can we really know anything"

this is a red herring. Who cares what other people are doing - we should look at the evidence and make decisions based on that.

D&D has been around for so long that you can easily play without giving a cent to Wizards of the Coast. However, I still definitely think having people try more options is good.

> nature is very efficient by design, so it would be quite hard to even come close to this efficiency.

Do you think that the evolutionary goal for animals is "make the most edible mass possible"?

> All the anti-meat anti-animals' thing is just a new kind of religion that is based on the morals of a few alternative types who want to appear more virtuous than anyone else, in a desperate attempt at faux competition (race to the bottom).

What an incredibly shallow reading of an idea that has been around for thousands of years. Clearly a strawman to avoid engaging with important questions.

nothing is less convincing in the face of real problems than handwaving everything with "other things also use water" and "don't worry, everything will just become more efficient"

not sure why you are being downvoted. Beat-matching is the most straightforward and least interesting part of being/experiencing a DJ. I think every DJ needs to know how to do it but IMO most of the overemphasis on beat-matching comes from cringe gatekeeping. To me, it's akin to thinking an actor remembering their lines is the focus of acting.

Mixing vinyl well is definitely an impressive skill but I (and I suspect the vast majority of people) don't care at all about how people are mixing tracks (until it's to the detriment of the music). Most people care about what makes them dance and/or feel something.

the vast majority of DJs are not producers so no

> If that is the case, I don't know a single DJs who cares about their craft. Makes you think.

Yea when that sentence started I was ready to agree until they made a point which seems more relevant to producers than DJs

> In fact, we have improved the efficiency of cows and that process is accelerating.

Care to share some data on that?

> I don't see what's unsustainable about it

You think 11-20% of GHG emissions[1] coming from livestock and the insanely high water footprint of meat[2] is sustainable?

[1] https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environm...

[2] https://waterfootprint.org/resources/Report-48-WaterFootprin...

not sure why you thought you were addressing my point about "small scale" with an example of a guy with 2000ha... There wasn't even any mention about how much meat his approach produces per hectare.

I think the comparison of an industry of solar panels and batteries to one of the harvesting of living animals is not a very valuable one. Just as one example: you can improve the efficiency of solar panel and/or battery technology and the manufacturing processes but you can't do the same with cows. You could however move away from the breeding of living animals and instead improve something like lab grown meat which might have more overlap with technologies like solar panels.

You have to recognize that the scale of demand for meat REQUIRES the conditions you find in factory farms. You do not get to keep the same demand while having it all come from Happy Healthy Farm™ for a wide variety of reasons.

> make something like cattle farming effectively carbon-negative

The situations in which this is the case (which are oversimplified by the doc) are so specific and small scale that to think they will address the environmental impact without acknowledging the insane, unsustainable demand for meat is magical thinking. People love to point to ideas like this and stuff like feeding cows seaweed to avoid the reality of the dire need for significant shifts in our consumption behaviors.

> but a properly-managed ranch should have happy, healthy animals.

again - the percentage of meat that comes from these conditions is so small as to be virtually irrelevant in the context of the animal agriculture industry

> At least with sugar the risks are somewhat understood.

Aspartame has been studied for 50 years. The risks are very well understood. This single study on mice does not shift that.

> Aspartame has always been under a cloud of doubt

But this is almost entirely due to alarmists who were never using good science to justify their perspectives (just like with MSG). The reality is that aspartame is one of the most studied substances in history and it's effect on humans is very clear.

a good rule of thumb is to not make significant changes based on single studies - especially on mice, ESPECIALLY in regards to controversial subjects. Robust science is not built on single studies.

my most uncomfortable salvia experience definitely felt like my whole body was being unzipped and folded back in on itself

I remember 2C-T7 giving me and my buddy very uncomfortable body load.

I wish I could try a more visual-only psychedelic. They are too heady for me these days so I have avoided them all for over a decade.

> i think one of my records is something like 12 hours after dosage to start feeling the effects.

ugh that would suuuuck. Can't imagine waking up for work on a Monday after a seemingly failed trip the Sunday before lol

that story still sticks in my brain to this day. The human brain is wild

> "When I last looked up the literature"

Responded to with

> anecdote

I'm happy you have found something that works for you but the diet tribalism on this site is getting old. At least it's good to see the initial Keto comment getting downvoted to oblivion.

> "we are better than China, we are more free"

Anyone who disagrees with this is either not being honest or is not aware of what extent China restricts it's citizens.

> Literally same arguments used by Iran.

All governments/nations have some level of self-interest. That doesn't mean they are all equal in their motivations or approaches.

China is literally controlling the narrative through TikTok. Why shouldn't the US respond to that?

yea I don't think people are grasping how different places like Myspace or forums or online games are compared to modern social media.