toshk

It's pretty widely accepted in the medical community that pesticides are correlated to Parkinson's. It seems to be connected to exposure over time, not necessarily build up in the body.

You are right that a so-called natural pesticide like rotenone seems to be even worse. They were able to induce parkinson with it in rats in just a few weeks. But also Glyphosate is looked at with a lot of suspicion.

Take this case study, they refer to several cases and epidemiologic research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30799335/

Considering the medical attention and research it gets, I see no reason to be as sure as you are. Especially your believe that "it's completely harmless" seems to have no solid reasoning behind it.

Water in Netherlands next to pastures and farmlands often had high levels of toxicity, meaning it was treated as chemical waste. Because of strict regulations got better. Still happens to certain rivers. Had natural parc next to river where I get my meat call back meat because of too high levels of toxicity just last year.

Certain factories here also still allowed to dump chemicals which in other countries are not allowed etc.

Next to that, in certain areas here residential areas and fruit trees mix. So even with limited spraying and limited wind, you are sitting in the garden while tractor is spraying the trees a few meters from you.

My point being "working on" isn't really good enough when the health consequences for people are severe.

Take dupont, took decades. Now same is happening for pesticides. Many we use now simply will be forbidden in decades. Yet for now they will continue to be used and cause harm.

I happened to have grown up between we fruit trees and close people are paying the price. Residential areas and fruit trees mix here. Meaning the tractor with pesticides en herbicides are passing 5 to 10 meters from you while you are relaxing in the garden. Which hopefully in many countries is not the case.

Thank you for trying.

It saddens me how easy it still is for companies how easy it is to dump toxics in the air, water and land.

The proof often falls upon the "people" to prove chemicals used by companies are toxic instead of companies profiting from releasing them in to the environment providing extensive research that doing so is actually safe. Often years, if not decades before enough research is done before the harm is proven and legislation is made. It needs to be the other way around.

In the meanwhile the individual suffering caused is immense. Of course Dupont is a famous relatively recent example. Related to this project the link between pesticides and neurological diseases, like Parkinson, is strong but still needs a lot research before actual changes will be made.

The Dutch government debt stems from the Napoleon wars. So for some European countries it's more like a 300+ year loan.

I don't mean that.

I mean it's fine to have those pages. Google also ranks them for those keywords.

But I can understand why a company won't allow someone to specifically run ads on those keywords. Like the above comment about ebay talks about.

I'm not sure whether that happened in this case or not, but that was my question

If you are trying to sell a dictionary I see no reason why a company should allow you to advertise on the word "rape" to do so.

I get you have pages for those words since you are running a dictionary, but do I understand you were running ads for pages with those words specific?

Took a close family 3 months to really recover. Only after starting a daily workout regime she recovered.

I think part of the reason it's so stressful for teenagers is that there actual repercussions for their group position.

Okay if that's the case wouldn't you see similar result if kids watch at a sunny window. Light wise that's pretty similar.

From Amsterdam, dev and founder before, looking into setting up Saas, would love to have coffee

It's just a hypothetical I don't think it will come to it, but wondering why that would that lead to antitrust case? My knowledge of law is non-existent. I thought antitrust suits are because of getting into a monopoly position. Are you arguing that such an action would leave them open to claims of monopoly? Forfeiting services might be seen as a form of abuse, but isn't it sort of opposite of an antitrust by forfeiting your monopoly / strong market position?

What if they take it further and also pull other google products like gmail, chrome, maps? That would cause some serious trouble.

In the Netherlands many of the musea are semi public, and especially the Rijks get a lot of tax money and also a lot of donations. The Rijksmusem is actually the national museum, Rijk is another word for State or maybe closer to empire. It's entire collection is the heritage of the Dutch state. So in this case it's not a bad argument to make that it shouldn't be hidden in a basement but shared with the public. Although since the nineties the Rijks is officially an independent foundation.

Standard electric fences are also not enough to keep horses in if they see a reason to get out. They often jump or demolish fences.

Blue zones are pretty cherry picked to fit the narrative of the authors.

Yes right. Apologies.

I work for a few a cities in Europe, and happen to know one of the cities had a site with an sql injection issue. An external person found and let the city know but didn't want to reveal the specifics before getting money. The city has no bounty program and for some people in the City it came across as if the guy was distorting them. The guy probably felt like he didn't get money for his work. Probably both have a point. In the end it got resolved.

I feel like the biggest value is a hybrid version: the standard curriculum online and smaller classes offline.

The large group lectures I've always felt were a waste of time. The lecturers just explain what's in the book anyway and most of them, except for a few natural talents, are boring as hell. And I always felt I read faster then they speak.

Most university lecturers hardly get educated in how to teach, and most of them also don't care, the consider it the duty of the student to pay attention. A lot of time and money could be saved to move many of the standard curriculum to a online video / textbook course.

I feel like the true value is in the smaller work groups where one gets direct feedback on your work. This is something that the online universities are not able to recreate. And of course making friends, discussing, building a network, having time to think, sports, hanging out.

So a hybrid might improve the quality of the courses while giving a chance to optimize the offline experience.

I enjoy the pomodoro technique and use it often. But one of my biggest pains of the pomodoro technique is if I'm just very deep in a complicated task and I'm supposed to stop for a break, how do you normally address this?

There are a few treatments that work well but are just to expensive to be viable. For instance a few decades there was a gene therapy developed for people with a gene deficiency that blocks them from digesting fats. If I remember correctly it was developed in Canada. Even though it cured the people, it was and is too expensive for it to be used at the moment.

I think you think to highly of Spanish government and culture. This is purely a pressure mechanism. They are a very young democracy and their authoritarian instincts are still very fresh. For instance their first lockdown was extremely rigid and enforced with heavy policing and also neighbors were eager to enforce it on each other. Experiencing the first days there and then going back to my home in the north of Europe, the difference was night and day.

A common believe among my non developer friends is that apple does it on purpose so their users need to keep buying new hardware. I don't know if they do, but at least their incentive is not very big to keep old devices running smooth.

It seems we like to put mental models of things we easily understand and can control on our complex human body which we don't understand. The brain like a computer, the body has a budget. If only biology was so simple, or well maybe it's better, it seems a lot more robust and dynamic then our straightforward human creations. Anyway moral of the story if you are tired or stressed take some rest.

Radio in the Netherlands didn't dive into the details, just saying why use this vaccine if Pfizer is better.

Maybe. But it's also time to compete and current headlines are not working. If the public opinion is that it's far less effective then the other 2, what is happening now, you are putting the politicians in a difficult position that want to buy your vaccine. If you dig deeper you will find results for all vaccins are pretty similar. For instance even though one of the trials with Oxford vaccine had more people with Covid sypmtoms they had no severe cases, compared to one severe case with the Pfizer trial. And the total for both are too low to make definite conclusions.

Did it at https://www.yourlabs.nl/, current price is 189. But you are right, hormones is a seperate test

Did it at https://www.yourlabs.nl/, current price is 189. But you are right, hormones is a seperate test

The press release is interesting. Not the best way to present their data. Immediate conclusion of many newspapers is "oxford vaccine is less effective then...".