Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)SP
Посты
0
Комментарии
104
Joined
7 mo. ago

  • I mean nothing about the methodology is even close to representing normal tea brewing behavior.

    For starters, a typical cup of tea is around 300-350ml, not 2ml and certainly not 1, so the low end is already down to 23,371 particles even before accounting for the brewing technique.

    Secondly, nobody holds their tea at an active boil while stirring it at 750 rpm. That’s virtually blending it. There isn’t a meaningful way to compare that to typical tea brewing behavior but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it produced 10,000x more particles.

  • No it doesn’t. This study is unscientific garbage and should be retracted.

    Their “simulation” of making tea involved 300 teabags boiled in 600ml of water at 95 C while being stirred at 750rpm for an unspecified amount of time. They then took counts using undiluted samples of that liquid.

    It isn’t clear why they chose such an absurd methodology, but it is absolutely spurious to draw conclusions from this about teabags used under normal conditions.

  • Permanently Deleted

    Прыгнуть
  • It’s almost too absurd to believe.

    There’s a conversation to be had about microplastic contamination, but this study feels and sounds like bad faith argument.

  • This study is unscientific garbage and should be retracted.

    Their “simulation” of making tea involved 300 teabags boiled in 600ml of water at 95 C while being stirred at 750rpm for an unspecified amount of time. They then took counts using undiluted samples of that liquid.

    It isn’t clear why they chose such an absurd methodology, but it is absolutely spurious to draw conclusions from this about teabags used under normal conditions.

  • Permanently Deleted

    Прыгнуть
  • This study is such bullshit. They took 300 teabags and boiled them in 600ml of water while stirring at 750rpm for an unspecified amount of time, and claim their method to be an accurate simulation of making a cup of tea.

  • I don’t know that your comparison to Facebook holds water. Firstly, Meta’s employees are spread over three divisions: Apps, Platforms/Infrastructure, and Product Services (ads, strategy etc), where Facebook itself is just one part of the Apps division. Even assuming that Facebook occupies 50% of Meta’s total workforce (likely a massive overestimate), that brings us to around 30k employees for 3billion users, or 100k users per employee. That gives you about 0.5 FTE for your instance.

    More importantly though, the job of administering a mastodon instance isn’t really comparable to the job of engineering a social network, so taking a Facebook’s salary or user numbers doesn’t really give us much actionable data. We don’t know how many Meta employees are directly involved in administration of Facebook, or how much they’re compensated.

    Ultimately, it’s about what your users are willing to pay. If you can persuade all 10k of your MAUs that $9/month is worth the value they get from your instance, then go ahead. However, I suspect that you’ll be lucky to get even 1/10 of that.

  • I don’t know man. It feels like pigeonholing somebody’s sexual preferences based on the style of their clothing might not be accurate.

    Take a look at this photo of Mötley Crue from back in the day, and those guys were renowned for their heterosexuality.

  • I see what you’re getting at and your position is reasonable, but I think misses the point of the initial comment, viz. The Economist is known for objective reporting (neutrality in bias), in part because they are open about their editorial slant (non-neutrality of opinion).

    For example: “Ukraine is winning the economic war. This is a good thing.” - Economist reporting vs. “Ukraine is winning the economic war. This is a bad thing.” - Converse-Economist vs. “Ukraine is losing the economic war.” - Pro-Russian bias

  • The US ranks below many nations not considered developed as well. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

    I cited two metrics, not one: maternal mortality and life expectancy. The US is also in the bottom 60 for income inequality.

  • How is it better? Several people have pointed out that standards of living in the United States are well below most developed nations. There US ranks 48th in the world in life expectancy, and 66th in the world in maternal mortality, behind Egypt, Ukraine, Lebanon, Romania, and… the Gaza Strip.