scarabic @ scarabic @lemmy.world

Posts

9

Comments

2,767

Joined

2 yr. ago

He’s nothing more than a performer now. Ask yourself every time: who is he performing for right now that he believes will increase his political power? I’m not sure why he wants power. He wouldn’t know what to do with it.

“The mice in fact are tyrannical oppressors for not opening the door to listen to what the fox has to say!” - JD Vance

Nope, mister G.O.Pudge, we do not have to include Nazis.

Oh the last resort of he with no other leg to stand on: the hurt feelings bullshit. I’m not bald and my feelings are not hurt. I do care about quality writing though and this is not that. Your gyrations of justification have ceased being fun to watch. You believe you’re laying out some kind of hard logic progression but it amounts to: if one accepts a long string of assumptions, then naturally the word makes perfect sense. But that is not the tidy “if / then” mathematical proof you think it is but a bald declaration of your cultural values. I’m sorry that you think people suffering from diseases are bad. I’m not surprised to hear that you have eugenics notions in your head.

Tech companies used to think that they were only limited by their ability to hire talented people. They went crazy competing for talent. That has changed. Obviously they no longer consider talent to be vital. Their businesses are more mature now and have network effects and lock-in. It’s kind of inevitable that tech companies would eventually reach that point. But I think it’s only true for the largest companies. Big tech souring on its employees is probably great news for a huge galaxy of small and midsize companies who’ve had no hope of attracting top talent for many years now. It really was impossible to compete with the pay, perks, and developer experience at a place like Meta. And that’s too bad because there are software business opportunities everywhere, still. Maybe this will be a good thing in the long run.

Nothing to apologize for - thank you for elaborating.

You are confusing me with other person. Read the names.

It’s judgmental language and totally unnecessary.

If scientists came up with a new treatment for multiple sclerosis, and an article mentioned “bad genetics” as one of the reasons people develop MS, that would be shitty, wouldn’t it? How is this different? Obviously in the context of that MS article, it’s “bad” to have MS and we want to cure it. But you wouldn’t shit on people who suffer from it by saying they have “bad genetics.” So how is it any different? It seems just as unnecessary and disrespectful here as it does there.

So it’s less of vibrating and more about smashing around into things?

This is easier to envision with a gas: like a chamber of balks all ricocheting like mad. It’s harder to envision for a solid. But I guess a molecule will be up smack against its neighbors, getting repelled, not so much bounding freely?

Canada is the number 9 economy in the world and Mexico is number 15. This would be a significant body. They could add in Cuba and REALLY piss off the US.

It even says in the article 40 watts. I’m not going to say this affects literally nothing, but it is not a significant enough amount of power to meaningfully affect the locomotion of a car. It might make more sense in much more scaled up helicopters and planes where fuel economy is a far bigger problem. But thermoelectric has never been a very potent method.

Also, you’ve got some nerve calling someone a fool for not assuming we will retrofit every motor on earth with this technology. There are a lot of things that would be nice to retrofit the entire installed base of the world with. But that is an enormous barrier that only…. fools ignore.

What we call heat is, technically, the kinetic energy of molecules vibrating around

I’ve wondered about this. If this is so, and heat is molecules moving back and forth, how do the molecules stop, change direction, and then accelerate in the other direction, stop, change directions again, and go back, over and over and over?

We will see what happens when Trump pulls US support out of Ukraine.

I sincerely hope you are right and Europe marshalls an effective defense. If you do, you’ll do so at great cost in blood and treasure. If you don’t you’ll watch Russia nibble away at Europe for the next several decades. Neither of those is anything to “lol” about.

You’re going to tell me that people are applying Rogaine so they don’t have to apply sunscreen? Hm yeah that is a well thought out argument when Rogaine is 10x more expensive.

No. The male hair loss remedy industry is entirely built around cosmetic vanity, not keeping warm.

I can sit here and tell you how hair can be host to different parasites or impair your vision while driving or get caught and pulled into power tools and is therefore a bad survival trait.

But let’s not be absolute morons.

Yes if you 100% swallow the cultural requirement to have a full head of hair, then not having one is bad. But I don’t expect a journalist or academician to write from such a culturally specific point of view.

When the scientific discoveries drop in about 50 years, you can expect another 20 years of development, approval, and commercialization. So if you are 10yo now, you will be 80yo taking your first pill. Hopefully that will not be too late for you. Stay in school and don’t do drugs, there, champ!

Yeah that’s a you forgetting your hat issue. Poor memory due to bad genetics. Damn you have all kinds of problems.

Dude, if this upsets you, consider that there are promising signs we may be able to significantly slow or even reverse aging itself within the next 50 years.

This means that it will have taken humanity 10 or 20 thousand generations, since our origins, to achieve immortality. But you, me, and everyone reading this is going to miss out on that by about 2.

Hair loss is caused by a multitude of factors, including aging, stress, hormonal imbalances and bad genetics.

“Bad” genetics?! Damn, that’s a little fucking judgmental for what is ultimately just a cosmetic issue.

Hair loss remedies are always criticized on the grounds that you need to continue using them to continue seeing the benefits.

I don’t know why this complaint surfaces for hair loss medications in particular, when a lot of things are like this. Insulin. Depression drugs. All supplements. Etc.