• 0 Posts
  • 318 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle
  • Pretty hard to argue against radically different biological design between our brains.

    I don’t really see the argument… For one, all mammals share fairly similar brain structures, with the main difference being the over or under development of particular regions of the brain.

    However, even if we accept the claim that they are “radically different”. A mere difference in brain structure does not preclude the ability to have complex emotions.

    Yes, humans can be psychopaths and sociopaths.

    I’m not sure if that’s really relevant, sociopathy and psychopathy are defined by the subjects inability to conform to social mores. These terms cannot definitionally be applied to animals. However, there are plenty of examples of animals being shunned by their social groups, or animals who choose to stray from their social norms.

    I’m not claiming animals share the same emotional capabilities as humans, but it’s unscientific to claim that they are incapable of complex emotions based on the evidence presumed in this thread.

    Imo there’s been a bit of an overcorrection in science when it comes to trying to curb anthropomorphizing. And a lot of that is due to people like Thomas Nagel, who have a vested interest in stripping animals of terms like consciousness.



  • Pretty sure every human who understands the concept of death are stressed about it at some point in their life.

    Right, but how does one express their anxiety over the concept of death? And if someone does not express their anxiety in a perceivable way, does that mean they do not experience it?

    If we took away a person’s ability to vocalize their grievances, what kind of behavior of theirs would we attribute to an existential crisis? And how would we determine that type of anxiety from normal interaction with the external environment?


  • I mean, that could just be a fault in observation. The same line of thinking was utilized by people like Thomas Jefferson to validate his own use of slavery.

    The language we use to describe intellect and emotions are inseparable from biased interpretation by humans. Can all humans “stress about theoretical concepts”? If a human lacks the ability to do so, do they become less human, or more animalistic?


  • If however a country would be prepared to cut through the red tape and have a standard design developed for say 10 plants at the same time, the price and construction time would be decreased greatly.

    That’s a pretty big ask for a democratic government where half of the politicians are actively sabotaging climate initiatives…

    The only countries where this is really feasible are places where federal powers can supersede the authority of local governments. A nuclear based power grid in America would require a complete reorganization of state and federal authority.

    The only way anyone thinks nuclear energy is a viable option in the states is if they completely ignore the political realities of American government.

    For example, is it physically possible for us to build a proper deep storage facility for nuclear waste? Yes, of course. Have we attempted to build said deep storage facility? Yes, since 1987. Are we any closer to finishing the site after +30 years…no.


  • No, it won’t. That’s the point of the misconception. You even get to it later then dismiss. We aren’t taking about overall health. We aren’t talking about the 'betes.

    I mean, whenever you are talking about health you always consider total outcomes. The articles you are linking are talking about a very specific type of dehydration.

    None of those things will dehydrate you more despite people saying differently. Not soda, not milk, even beer under 2% beer will be better. You will be rehydrated, there WILL be a net gain of water in your body. There is no net loss of water no matter how much people say sugar or caffeine will lower the net gain.

    “Beverages with more concentrated sugars, such as fruit juices or colas, are not necessarily as hydrating as their lower-sugar cousins. They may spend a little more time in the stomach and empty more slowly compared to plain water, but once these beverages enter the small intestine their high concentration of sugars gets diluted during a physiological process called osmosis. This process in effect “pulls” water from the body into the small intestine to dilute the sugars these beverages contain. And technically, anything inside the intestine is outside your body. Juice and soda are not only less hydrating, but offer extra sugars and calories that won’t fill us up as much as solid foods, explained Majumdar. If the choice is between soda and water for hydration, go with water every time. After all, our kidneys and liver depend on water to get rid of toxins in our bodies”

    From your own article…

    If you’re dehydrated, you’re lacking salt. There’s a reason why physically demanding companies provide free drink packets to their crews. They don’t want road crews dying by the side of the road because they slammed water and had no salt on a 100 degree day working next to a machine shooting out molten tar and rock. We aren’t pumping people’s blood full of sterile water. Saline bags are .9% salt for a reason.

    Again, you are talking about a specific type of dehydration… hyponatremia is exceedingly rare and is usually a sign of an undiagnosed kidney disease. Your nephrons will usually regulate your thirst in conjunction to the available salts in the body.

    Dehydration is not just a lack of salt, it’s an imbalance of salt. Meaning that you can just be low on fluid with too much salt available.

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/when-replenishing-fluids-does-milk-beat-water-202211142849

    "Unsurprisingly, the ad is sponsored by the milk industry. And while I’d never heard this claim before, the studies behind the idea aren’t particularly new or compelling. "

    Finally, the main benefit of water is that it’s neutral. The reason why people don’t tell you to slam a glass of milk or soda if you’re dehydrated is because it can upset your stomach. When concentrated amounts of sugars or fats enter the intestine the dilution process can go overboard and cause diarrhea, which can dangerously dehydrate you further.

    Hydration is more complicated than what you are alluding too. Simply stating everything but piss and liquor is better than water is just ridiculous and misleading. In specific scenarios other liquids may provide some advantages, but it’s highly reductive to make that claim so broadly. Especially considering it requires you to separate hydration from kidney health, you know the things that control your thirst in the first place.


  • Wikileaks was never really a beacon of free speech its always been more of a platform where people can leak information about goverments and other powerful individuals or organizations doing bunch of shady or downright evil stuff behind our back. These often offer rare glimpse behind the scenes allowing us to be little less blind when voting during whather elections comes next.

    When WikiLeaks first came about it’s original goal was aimed at leaking information about authoritarian governments, primarily China and some countries in the Middle East. It was pretty big news at the time because assange had wrangled together a team of some pretty high profile Journalist and privacy tech people.

    However, most of those people were never really involved in the organization, and were mainly utilized as a marketing scheme. The rest slowly left the organization as works in their fields within WikiLeaks stagnated, or left over security and leadership concerns.

    Imo Assange has always been a duplicitous attention seeker. However, if that were illegal, pretty much everyone involved in media would be thrown in a cell. I think his biggest failures that should tarnish his public image is his handling of the leaks. Him rushing to release information against the advise of his security experts, information that hadn’t been properly vetted to protect the whistle blowers from prosecution.

    Multiple people have had their lives ruined because he didn’t take the time and effort to protect his sources. And not because they didn’t have the ability to, or lacked the proper protocols, but because Julian didn’t care so long as his name got air time.


  • You know what’s better than water when you need water? Nearly everything that isn’t alcohol or literal piss.

    I mean it really depends on the person and their current condition. The article you linked kinda has an abstract definition of hydration that doesn’t take into account things normally associated with dehydration.

    If you are working hard outside and are mildly dehydrated I wouldn’t recommend slamming down a sugary soda with caffeine. Excessive sugar is diluted in the intestines which can cause further dehydration, and caffeine is a diuretic.

    Normally this wouldn’t really matter, but if you’re already dehydrated it can make the situation worse.

    Water is great, it may not be the most effective hydrator in the world as it doesn’t have the electrolytes and sugars that something like Gatorade has. However, it’s the best thing for your overall kidney and liver health which is what really matters. Most Americans already have an excess of salt, fat, and sugar in their diets, so even after working outside and sweating your ass off you are probably better off just having some water.













  • Fair enough. I think then it’s important to distinguish between what subsidies are worth tariffing and what subsidies are not. If Germany rezones an area to allow car factories to be built, is that a subsidy worth tariffing?

    Eh, I don’t really have a strong opinion on tariffing. Tbh I don’t really have strong opinions about subsidizing private equity, other than they really shouldn’t really exist.

    Under “free market” capitalism subsidies nor tariffs should exist by definition. And under socialism or communism, I would much prefer that the state employ the workers to do the work of the state. Subsidizing private equity just moves the people’s money into the pockets of middle men.

    I think the current global regression back to an odd stage of mercantilism is the product of the moneyed class in China and the west attempting to goad political leaders into abandoning their economic principles for greater profit margins.

    I mean, in this case it’s more that the developers lost money and the government gained assets sold below book value… That’s pretty good return imo. The developers’ investors got fucked, yes, but have you looked at, say, Evergrande’s ownership? Not all Chinese developers are state-owned. In fact, the distressed ones are not.

    Right, but the developers are way over leveraged meaning that it’s not really their money but the banks. The banks/government is making the best out of a bad situation, but they are still loosing substantial amounts of capital. One of the reasons this kicked off in the first place was the government trying to get a handle on private equity borrowing more than their company is worth. That’s not really not criticism on the government action, it’s best to pull that bandaid off as soon as possible, but it still hurts. I think it’s mainly the fault of local banks who have probably been either careless or fraudulent in their reporting to the central bank.

    Do you know how China imputes rent for their GDP calculations? It’s the construction cost depreciated linearly over the life of the building. Think about that for a second, then come back to me. I can explain it to you, but when I realized what it meant it shook me to the core so maybe it’ll have the same effect on you lol. For reference, the US imputes rent by asking “what would the homeowner have paid if they had to rent.”

    Again, this just isn’t something I really care about much. GDP and how it’s calculated is mostly legal fiction, utilized primarily for international bragging rights and as a way to lull investments from foreign capital.

    It sounds like China utilizes user cost approach, and the west utilizes the comparison approach. China’s approach makes sense for a more centralized lending apparatus, as it can help prevent the boom and bust cycle so common in western real estate market. But it’s still susceptible to market collapse if you miscalculated building cost or depreciation values, and makes it harder to sustain value in real estate investments unless you are constantly building more and more.

    I think in the end it just creates two different types of problems. In the west the comparison approach provides less motivation for developers to build an adequate amount of housing. In China, it creates too much incentive for developers to overdevelop housing to the point where it devalues the very concept of individual investments in housing.

    I think a better solution would be to consider affordable housing development to be a natural monopoly that is provided by the government without the input of private capital. But that would be a blow to GDP for both systems, and I think we both know how the capital class of both China and the west would respond to that.