Youtube comments of roidroid (@roidroid).
-
7800
-
601
-
256
-
222
-
211
-
198
-
147
-
93
-
85
-
73
-
63
-
61
-
56
-
44
-
41
-
41
-
39
-
35
-
34
-
33
-
31
-
30
-
+Locutus D'Borg Indeed. To quote Douglas Adams:
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, may have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. We all know that at some point in the future the Universe will come to an end and at some other point, considerably in advance from that but still not immediately pressing, the sun will explode. We feel there's plenty of time to worry about that, but on the other hand that's a very dangerous thing to say.
30
-
29
-
28
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
Just chemistry. Really complex & cool chemistry.
This sort of single-cellular death is happening inside U to a part of you at all times, but the greater "you" goes on. And even when we die too, the greater them continues on, society/culture, species, ecosystems. There so much greater that we too are just a part & process within, which continues on after we redissolved back into our surroundings too.
It's just real weird how our chemical bodies form memories tho, seems kinda pointless if the memories just erase again & again everytime the chemical body dies, but I guess it makes the chemical selves more effective during each life. It's like a beautiful natural artwork that gets destroyed every life, then the next thing replaces it with a new artwork. I guess nature has no real need to preserve beauty, it still makes it tho, just over & over & over again like it's nothing 😅
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
justgivemethetruth No offense, but the same can be said of you, ie: how do we know you're really "understanding" anything? This is the base problem related to the Turing test, if you say that a computer doesn't do a specific thing and is therefore different to a human - you must have a way of testing to prove that humans indeed DO that thing (as you claim they do).Are you sure that human learning is anything more than "a consolidation of statistics with rules applied to them"?ps: there was an interesting A.I. program a few years ago which was being fed a stream of data from a real-world inverse pendulum physical experiment. From analyzing the data on it's own it was able to FROM SCRATCH deduce various mathematical laws of physics concerning gravitation, inertia, friction, air resistance etc to explain the movement it was seeing (and predict future movement). It came up with these equations on it's own, continually refining them until they were passably accurate, using evolutionary methods. It even seemed to discover some new mathematical equations to explain aspects of the inverse pendulum movement, equations which we didn't recognize and yet gave eerily accurate results. This was pretty amazing, the system not only reproduced thousands of years of human thought and science in mere minutes, it actually went further and hinted at surpassing human knowledge.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
***** If we could devise a test to identify good vs bad voters, then we wouldn't need democratic processes at all, as the test would also identify good and bad policies. Obviously such a test is impossible. It's as rediculous as having comedians pass a test of "what is and isn't funny", it's completely subjective, always dynamic with the culture, changing constantly, it simply can't be done. Also those who control/write/maintain/etc the test would become the defacto rulers of society, so the test itself would become the primary target for those who wish to exert political influence, it's just moved the goalposts. Democracy's advantage is that it can change as fast as popular opinion can, the government is never outof line with it's voters for longer than 1 election cycle (generally less). As society changes, nothing in democracy has to be re-designed to adapt, it adapts itself.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
He's looking at the types of MicroRNA (miRNA) in the blood.
It's kindof like searching through the local landfill, analyzing people's thrown-out paperwork and reciepts, to get an idea of how many people are (for example) actively committing tax fraud. Every activity has a specific signature. If you find a lot of receipts for paints and paper, you may conclude that there's a lot of artists in the area. If you find a lot of receipts for bullets and bombs, maybe you've got a military situation on your hands.
MicroRNA is like the thrown-out paperwork. By analyzing it, you can figure out what the cells in the body are doing. Different types of cells emit specific signatures or patterns of MicroRNA, and cells with cancer also have specific signatures.
The various vials in his device each contain a unique mix of chemicals which only react with specific types of MicroRNA, if you add that MicroRNA into the vial it will glow, how fast and how bright it glows can tell you how much of the MicroRNA is in the vial. The camera then looks at the vials, in a controlled lighting environment (that's why it's in a closed box). This allows the speed and brightness information of the vials to be converted into simple data, which can be graphed. The graph is like a signature, which tells you if you have cancer, and what type it is.
Over time, we'll discover more signatures, and be able to identify more cancers.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
This does a disservice to evolution education >:(
Bees don't decide anything, it's in their genes, it's instinctive. As bees (like all life) reproduce there is variation in each offspring, like a bit of experimentation. If the new bee's slightly different instincts make it build a hive which is slightly stronger and better, then the bee will survive better, and this means it will reproduce better - it's kids will carry the genes to build the better hives.
Whereas if the variation gave the bee the instincts to build a worse hive, then it will survive worse, it might die without having any kids at all, so the genes will not be passed on. Thus bad experiments get eliminated and good experiments become the next generation, so each generation is slightly better at building hives than the last was. Bees that can't build good hives DIE, and the only ones left are the ones who build good hives, that's the bees we're seeing - the ones who were lucky enough to be born with the right instincts, everyone else is dead.
The bees don't think about it or decide anything, they're just born with a slightly experimental variation in their instincts which either helps them live or die. DEATH is the one making the decisions, not the bee :(
5
-
1:45 >"i decided i try to print an entire fashion collection from my home. The problem was that i barely knew anything about 3D printing".
facepalm
Something that's confused me for a while is why we even refer to these artists as "professionals". If i decide to make something, that i have absolutely no idea howto do, then i'm described as a "layman". But this artist does the same thing, she has the exact same lack of necessary skillsets, and she's called a "designer".
I mean, an architect knows their material and howto make buildings from them. A mechanical engineer knows their material and howto make machines outof them.
If you have been trained in a profession where you know nothing about your chosen medium (lol how do i 3d print things?!), then of what use was your training? How would your results be of a higher quality than that of any other layman hired off the street?
Maybe that came out as more negative than i intended. I'm just confused why we elevate these people to a class label like "Artist", put them on stages, listen intently to what they have to say, when they clearly deserve no more respect nor attention than any other layman. Why is it a thing? Don't get me wrong - what she's doing is indeed quite cool & interesting, but it's no more interesting than what any other maker is doing *, why has she been elevated to a higher status class?
*infact less so, because other makers tend to know their mediums and thus more often are really pushing the boundaries of what's possible. All this artist is doing is buying off-the-shelf 3d printers & flexible filaments and repeating what others have already done, why does she bother? But more importantly - if this is so banal and derivative, why do we bother listening? Shouldn't our time be better spent listening to those who know their medium and are truly pushing the limits?
TL;DR: TED your entire stage is broken.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
People are just automatically downvoting because "Social Justice" is in the title. It really shows you the state of dialouge going on in America at the moment: there is none, everyone's just screaming names and hurling bricks from the other side of a fence. "She's a Social Justice type, our family hates them, ya'll in the wrong neighbourhood, LETS GET HER BOYS!"
If this video was posted in the 1930s, it would be titled "Why your doctor should care about N__gers". And it would get the exact same amount of hatred, for the exact same reasons as it is now. American culture will never grow up, it just changes it's insults.
I mean listen to conservative radio, they use the word "Liberal" as an insult, tone of voice dripping in hatred, exactly like a 1930s conservative talking about those damned "N__ger Lovers". Now it's those damned "Feminists" and "Social Justice types". Nothing changes in conservative America, just keep attacking and insulting like your parents taught you, no dialouge.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
vanarcken113 Sadly what i said is indeed true. Algae farming (& biofuels in general) and solar power are competing interests of mine, a few years back i was closely following a fair few algae projects (as my old videos attest to), and i still occasionally tinker with algae-tech ideas to this day.
Algae is the fastest growing plant on the planet, it's the best, but photosynthesis isn't particularly efficient compared to man-made tech. It's great for producing liquid fuels though (ie: for vehicles), very simple. That's why there's so much buzz about algae, exciting stuff. But everything has it's limitations. It's more than just great for fuel, but also for food, and even carbon sequestration. This stuff has a lot of uses, but it doesn't do everything.
If you search for Algae Thermodynamics there's a fair few articles which will catch you up.
But as a quick explanation: Think of how much land is required to produce X amount of biofuel for combustion cars (wikipedia has some good biofuel yeild numbers, algae is the best). Then compare to the same land-area covered in solar panels charging electric cars. It's almost no comparison, the electric cars come out way in front, mostly because the thermodynamic limitations of photosynthesis just can't be routed around :(. You can easily charge your own electric car from the solar panels on your roof, but to grow enough biofuel to fuel your own car takes a relatively gigantic amount of land (i'd have to dig through my old notes to give you the exact land-size required), the yields are super low.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Troy Milton errr, well the paraphrased answer is: because Science.
A slightly longer answer might be: Via various observations & iterative experiments in biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Gradually increasing our knowledge until we get to the level of understanding & confidence that we enjoy today.
Your question is very vague, it's sortof like a "To make an apple pie, one must first create the universe" thing. In Science, any new knowledge generally builds on existing knowledge, so to answer your question i'd need to know what you already believe - so i can build on that. I'd rather not explain the whole universe to you from first principles, it might take a while. So what do you already believe?
ie: Are you asking how we know that evolution exists?
or how we know that enzymes exist?
or how we know that cells exist?
or how we know that organs exist?
or how we know that the material world exists?
etc etc
To answer the question all the way back, would be to study the history of science & philosophy (ie: logic, rhetoric, etc).
2
-
+Troy Milton one way is that they can first have an number of ideas of how it might work, and then they devise relevant experiments to test the ideas individually. For instance, they can introduce a specially shaped molecule* which they imagine should block or interact with one of the processes. If it has absolutely no effect on the cell in an experiment, then it would heavily imply that their ideas on how that process works were wrong. They can keep doing this until they find things which do have effects, then they analyse all of these things to build up a picture of what could (or definitely couldn't) be happening inside the cell.
Over many experiments and testing of ideas, the picture becomes clearer. It's sortof like being in the dark, trying to figure out what an object is by repeatedly poking it with a stick from different angles, and keeping notes of when you hit something and when you don't. It can take a while, but over time this data paints an increasingly clear picture of the shape of what you're poking. It's like a game of connect the dots, each experiment gives you more dots, and marks some other places as "definitely no dots here".
Every time they do an experiment and get more dots, and more "no dots here" areas (i think i'll call these "anti-dots"), they then can have another round of brainstorming to try to figure out what the picture could be. They take the best ideas from this brainstorming, and then devise new experiments to test the ideas, ie: "if this idea is correct, then there MUST be dots right around here and here." Even if the experiment fails to reveal dots there, it will instead reveal a "no dots here" area, and this data will still add to their picture. So even if an experiment fails to prove a hypothesis, it's still a win win situation.
I guess the boardgame of "Battleship" is another which can be used as a metaphor. Each single shot you take gives you very little data, but over time it builds an increasingly clearer picture of things you couldn't previously see. It only takes a very little experiment, repeated slightly differently time & time again, to build up great amounts of knowledge.
*Thesedays we have such a huge amount of knowledge about chemistry, that we use computer simulations to model what we know. This makes it easy to find new things we can experiment with, because it's sortof like "the computer simulation shows that the shape of this molecule should effect this thing", and then we test it in the real world to see if it's true. Remember all the poking with a stick we've previously done, by now we have a really good idea of the shape of various things, we even have a whole bag of specially shaped poking sticks to speed up the process. Thesedays we're super confident about the shape of most things, we only really poke specific areas we're not sure about.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Jesse Steck Since communication is a 2 person process, it's incorrect to assume that your inability to understand someone would be solely their fault (why not your fault? Why automatically assume you're in the correct position by default?).
You should look at people's differences in talking as the same as people who speak entirely different languages. You're going to have to be immersed in their culture for some time, to properly understand the nuances of what is being communicated. I very regularly have the sensation while listening to people from other cultures, where i can understand the words but i can also tell that there's something important that i'm missing out on. i don't assume i'm listening to idiots, what i assume is that i havn't been around this person or their culture enough to be able to pick up on the nuances, what they're really saying. It's not their fault per-se, since they're not a part of my culture either, they likely don't know all the nuances of my culture just as i don't know theirs.
Neither of us are speaking the universal default language/grammar, we both just have our own languages - i wouldn't want them to think i was an idiot because of how i talked, so why would i do that to them. Lets not let our first reactions be shallow, this is a real actual person infront of me, they have depth.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Hey does anyone know if there's any websites out there that i can put my medical info, so that it can be used by students and projects just like this? In the past, i've been scared that my info is either going to be locked down and proprietary, or will be shared with marketers and other assholes i don't want to help.
i'm diabetic (etc), and for a variety of years i have been tracking my medications, alcohol intake, exercise, weight, sleep patterns, mood, etc. But i have no-where useful to put this data.
I heard about websites like this in a past TED talk iirc, but that was a while ago. Maybe by now the landscape is more mature and the choice is more obvious. Anyone heard of anything?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Cayden Normanton I can understand your reaction, but we live in a world where there are a lot of people trying to pull a fast one on you. Science is a huge target for this, there's countless people trying to pass their work off as legit unbiased science when it's not, trying to pretend they are an authority they're really not. This is one of those "if it sounds too good to be true" situations where it's best to assume the worst.
There's enough scientific work being done that DOESN'T have red flags like this, so it's best to prioritize the work that has no red-flags, and ignore everything questionable. I agree it's a sad state of affairs where some scientific work can get ignored just because it's not PERFECT, but we're spoiled for choice and shortstaffed.
When bad science makes it's way into the media (and it very often does), it's often stuff which was riddled with red-flags from the get-go. So if you put the bar so high that no questionable red-flag science gets through, you cut out a disproportionate amount of bad science in the media as well.
re: your Water-Tap example: If none of the taps in my house ever had a problem in 40 years, i would be amazed. It would be strange, even though my taps are of high quality - i still would have honestly expected at least some normal problems like a leaky seal here or there, i wouldn't expect a 100% success rate over 40 years.
Sometimes a farm crop gets wiped out by a flood, or locust plague, or some sortof blight. There are countless outside forces which can effect crop trials, which is why they have to do a lot of them to average out the results. If results are PERFECT 100% success rate it's very very suspicious. Over 40 years, with so many farms, you would have to have some failures.
1
-
+Cayden Normanton My breathing record is not 100%. i have had congestive illnesses, coughing fits, momentary choking hazards, mistakes in the surf, etc.
I'm not saying stop trying, i'm saying try harder. Improve the design & quality of your trials, improve your methodology, seek criticism, iterate & eliminate problems. Error-check your results, get your peers to do likewise, look for suspicious activity that may indicate a problem (ding ding ding!). You can do better, step it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Instead of remembering all of the names for sugars, just go straight to the Nutritional facts table.
0:52 See the table to the left of the ingredients list. That's what you're interested in.
All sugars are carbohydrates, and if you're avoiding sugar then you're probably doing it for weight loss purposes, and thus you're really trying to avoiding all carbohydrates (not just sugar). Carbs are like slow release sugars, but you still get the same amount of calories - just slow release - you still get fat.
So you look at that table, you see how much carbohydrates it has per 100grams # and you basically treat that as percent sugar. If it's 90grams per 100 grams carb, then it's effectively 90% sugar.
Simple.
As a diabetic, when i compare foods i'm primarily concerned with the percent carb, percent fat, percent protein, and the glycemic index (ie: how fast the carbs are absorbed).
Even if you're not diabetic, it's handy to get a feel for this stuff beacuse it can remind you of why particular foods are so addictive (they generally have a lot of carbs and fat). It's good to be aware of where your feelings are comming from, coz if a food is actually really healthy for you AND yet you still really love eating it - you're onto a winner! Fill up your fridge with it!
# the table in this video doesn't actually show carbs per 100grams, but afaik most labels in the real world do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6:45 this graph is a little silly. Wild Fish is the only non-farmed thing on the graph, so obviously it's the cheapest - farms clearly cost money to run.
How about you compare it to maintaining natural stocks of wild Buffalo, wild Antelope (ie: Deer, Moose, Kudu, etc), wild Rabbits, wild Birds, wild Boars, wild Zebra, wild Kangaroos, etcetc. I'm sure these are all cheap options just like the wild fish, maybe even better.
Kangaroos are an especially exciting option, they eat very little as they are quite efficient animals. They are being seriously considered as an alternative to Beef farming.
1
-
1
-
+Osman Oglu USA's prison industrial complex makes a lot of money and free labour is a part of that. They make much more than just plates, they make all sorts of shit, which is then sold for profit by the prison.
Google it, check this shit out:
"All told, nearly a million prisoners are now making office furniture, working in call centers, fabricating body armor, taking hotel reservations, working in slaughterhouses, or manufacturing textiles, shoes, and clothing, while getting paid somewhere between 93 cents and $4.73 per day,"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Brandan09997 i scoff when i look at a shiny 3D rendering of a futuristic phone, with a caption reading "This amazing phone's charge could last for 100 years and be powered by unicorn farts, kitten giggles, & quantum woowoo", yes.
Any designer can render & write whatever fictional story they want to go with the artwork for their fictional devices, but actually constructing a device that will function under the known laws of physics is another story. Sadly, designers often aren't trained too well in this.
It's easy to design a (effective & competitive) hand-held laser pistol, low power prototypes already exist, hell you can watch real videos here on youtube of people's DIY pulsing laser blasters, it's known tech. What's hard though is powering it (to a sufficient level) with known battery tech, that's typically the limitation in the real world: the density of energy storage. Another one is the economics of actually constructing the device (It's common to see designs for all sorts of things that stipulate ridiculously expensive materials, or construction techniques which are still barely being understood in universities - let alone in use in industry right now).
Most of these things are "what if". But sadly the media reports on them as if they're just around the corner. This serves both the design firms and the media well, they're generally more interested in page views and SEO exposure ratings than any sort of accuracy in reporting.
To answer OP's question directly: TBH the reason we don't all have exoskeletal power armour is because we're civilians and have little need for armour. But the reason we don't have exoskeletal suits is because they're a relatively new tech. Exoskeletal suits already exist right now in a primitive (still mostly prototype, unaffordable) form, but it's good enough to predict that they'll be cheap and commonplace tech perhaps within 10 years, we'll get there with slow incremental improvements alone. No exotic materials needed, OP is in luck, we just need time.
I'm glad OP didn't ask for (useful) personal jetpacks tho, that's a much harder nut to crack. Sorry, no flying Ironman suits for a while yet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AFAIK The amount of sugar in your blood would be more like 2-3 teaspoons, as this would be literally the amount of sucrose required to raise your blood sugar by 4-6 mmol/DL (which would be the normal range for your Blood Sugar Levels). If you only had 1 teaspoon of sugar in your blood, your BSLs (Blood Sugar Levels) would be around 2mmol/DL, you wouldn't feel very well as you'd be hypoglycemic.
2:55 It should be noted that your body actually does convert a significant amount of the protein you eat into glucose, something not mentioned in the video (but hey it's only 5 mins long). Eating cheese, meat and eggs does raise your BSL. From personal experience, i'd say the effect is about 1/3 or 1/2 that of eating the equivalent weight of complex carbohydrate.
Insulin sensitivity is something important even for type-1 diabetics, because if your sensitivity is high then you can take less insulin. I typically exercise at least once a week to keep my sensitivity up, and if i skip a few weeks i can tell because i have to raise the amount of insulin i give myself. If i then exercise again, my sensitivity goes up again immediately, literally WITHIN MINUTES, it's like flicking a light switch. Exercise: highly recommended, for everyone, diabetic or not (everyone has insulin).
Don't even think of it as burning calories, you're doing it to bump your insulin sensitivity up, and improve your mental state.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Destro7000 These "feminists" you're describing, who aren't striving towards equality, are what we call "Strawman Feminists", because they mostly only exist in people's heads and not in reality. You're not railing against feminism, you're railing against something else, something that doesn't even exist. A fake target.
Well i shouldn't say they don't exist at all, the world is pretty diverse and i've met some crazy people. But they are very rare, and certainly not what mainstream feminism is about. The thing is though, that most people who are anti-feminism like to argue against feminism by painting it as exactly what you described, they paint a weird picture of what feminism isn't - claim that this is actually what feminism is - and then use it to justify their stance against feminism. But really they are attacking something else, they're attacking a fake "Strawman".
I mean, if you're for egalitarianism and gender equality - then you may find that your viewpoints could be quite inline with feminism, and you're merely calling yourself something else. But on the other hand, if you get annoyed when people talk about gender issues, and think it's all dumb "feminist talk" instead of just normal human talk about important and highly relevant issues in our lives, then yeah you're probably not a feminist.
To me, it sounds like someone in 1700s America saying something like "Wow all this anti-slavery talk is so annoying, i wish people would just shut up about it." The fact that you don't think this is important weirds me out, but TBH it's a feeling that most feminists are pretty used to :(
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Detroit is kindof suffering because of the loss of it's automobile manufacturing sector, right? And that industry failed because it wasn't sustainable, it was a toxic culture that resisted change so much that it inevitably killed itself - was outcompeted by foreign companies who gave ppl the more sustainable cars they wanted.
Soooo, what this really is - is a burst bubble. If the Detroit automobile industry was never really sustainable, then Detroit's downfall was always inevitable.
It's sad, sure, but bubbles burst all the time. I don't really understand why people think Detroit's bursting bubble is any more tragic than any other bubble.
I guess it's more tragic than the dot-com bubble, because the tech industry adapts VERY fast and recovered almost instantly - i mean look at how strong silicon valley still is, is it even dented?
The American auto industry needs to change it's culture. Ok who am i kidding - it won't change anywhere near fast enough, the American auto-industry needs to just die so that the room becomes available for something better to replace it. It's too fucked up.
I say it's replacement needs "room", in the sense that while the auto-industry is still alive it has proven time and time again that it will mercilessly attack anything new that threatens it. So for things to get better, this crazy dog needs to die.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
nitwndr The battery continues to (try to) supply power (somewhere between 2.5V and 4.2V) to the phone at the same time as the charger is supplying 4.2V to both the battery and the phone, the 2 sources are connected in parallel, so the phone only ever sees 4.2V like usual. It's all connected to the same single terminal: the positive of the phone, positive of the battery, and positive of the charger.
A fully charged battery will supply 4.2V to the phone, an almost discharged battery will supply maybe 2.5-3V. When the battery is being charged - the charger supplies 4.2V positive to the battery's positive terminal (ie: it's in parallel). So as far as the phone is concerned it just sees 4.2V positive on it's positive terminal, just like usual, all that's changed is that there's slightly more amperage at it's disposal (comming straight from the charger).
Inside the battery though is where things are different, it's suddenly seeing voltage at it's positive terminal (from the charger) which is comparitively MORE POSITIVE than it's own positive 2.5V. You have to remember that voltage is a relative thing. This means that to the battery - if it's charging it's own positive terminal to 2.5V positive, but there's an outside positive voltage of 4.2V, then what it's actually experiencing inside itself on it's positive terminal is 1.7V of NEGATIVE charge. The battery's own residual 2.5V positive is cancelling out 2.5V positive of the incomming 4.2V, (it experiences that 4.2V positive as relative to the 2.5V positive that the terminal already had) thus leaving a RELATIVE voltage difference of 1.7V in the other direction (ie: negative).
So yeah, while charging there is indeed a reversal of voltage going on, but it's only the inside of the battery itself that is experiencing it. :)
It's like having a bucket that is pouring it's water out onto the ground slowly, and you're occasionally topping up that bucket with a glass of water. The water pouring out from the bucket never stops, and the level in the bucket is normally going down. But when the glass is topping up the bucket - the water level in the bucket suddenly starts going up (this is like the internal reversal of voltage the battery is experiencing, the weird experience of it's water level going BACKWARDS is only experienced by the bucket itself and no-one else), even though the water pouring outof the bucket isn't effected and just keeping going during the whole process. My point is that when you are recharging that bucket, it doesn't effect the pouring out of the bucket's water onto the ground, it certainly doesn't make the pouring go in reverse. The only reversals that are happening are within the water-currents of the bucket itself. I hope that helps :)
1
-
The rest of the talk was ok, but the first 1/3rd of the talk (ie: before snowden was brought up) was so outof touch with people's concerns.
Covering the whole planet with Google's balloons? It was so stupid to talk about that. We are all incredibly concerned with privacy and governments ability to co-opt any tool they wish to, just like they co-opted Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc and use it for whatever evil purpose they want to.
I mean, it's like dropping crates of guns into a despotic area - thinking it will help the civilians protect themselves from the government. Is it really any surprise when the local government will receive all of those guns and use them to further subjugate the populace.
You need to design protections into the systems themselves.
Google's data should have all been anonymized and encrypted to protect everyone from NSA spying, from the beginning, it should never have been possible for anyone to steal your (more like OUR) data without your consent.
If you drop balloons all over the world, what do you think's going to happen? The NSA is going to come along and say "here's a secret court order, all of this is ours now, thanks a bunch for building a geostationary global spy network for us". Your corporate policies on user data protection are so piss-poor you may as well just think of yourself as a contractor building infrastructure literally FOR the spy agencies, since they have the legal (and/or brute-force technological) power to just take it and all of the data you've stored.
To talk of creating this balloon network, with no mention at all of safeguards. Wow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My password for her quiz is probably going to be "quiz", because i'm not giving her any information worth protecting. If the quiz asks for sensitive information, i'd refuse, the reward isn't high enough. But if the quiz was able to con me into giving up sensitive information, then congrats to the quiz for using social engineering to hack me, but also congrats on opening your faculty up to fraud charges (whoops).
My advice: If you want a secure password, use huge sentence phrases. Don't use just 4 words, use more than 10 words, write a whole sentence.
You should see the length of my wifi passwords, goddamn. My only hint to you is that they're 64 characters or less.
Any service with a password meter which blocks easy passwords, and also refuses to let you use long passwords, is fucking ridiculous.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You can imagine how it'd be useful for a filter-feeder to sieve water until it had concentrated a lot of nutrients into a storage location. It's water still - but now more concentrated with nutrients. Sortof like how a humpback whale filters water krill through it's mouth until it has a mouth full of highly concentrated krill water (then it finally swallows).
A filter feeder (like coral polyps) might do this too, concentrating it's collected nutrients into a protected area. It could also use this area to store all kinds of things, like important chemicals that it doesn't have room to store in the polyp but are too important to permanently disard, coz they'll likely want them again later and it's handy to not have to waste all that time & energy to filter for them in the ocean all over again.
I can see how this could easily evolve into a circulatory system. Also, it's sortof a way for filter feeders to evolve an anus. Normally they only have 1 hole, but with a circulatory system the polyps can specialise and become a multicellular system - all sharing the same circulatory system, all dependant on it and all evolving to defend the collective "environment" that is now the collective body of a multicellular organism. So some polyps can specialise on filtering from the ocean (mouth cells), and others can specialise in maintaining the health of the blood (liver, kidney, pancreatic cells etc). As the body gets bigger, they'll need cells that can move the circulatory system around more. They'll also need a way to remove waste from the circulatory system. You can't just flush the whole thing out, you'll lose all your collected nutrients, so you must filter the waste out and dump it. Congratulations it's an anus. :D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
re: The Q&A at the end. Just want to correct something: Evolution does not at all suggest that life out there in the universe would be using DNA with 4 or 6 letters. This is not a new thing. When TED owner Chris walks onstage to ask this question after the talk, he seems to think this is some kinda change to how we understand life & evolution. IT'S NOT. This is not a change. Infact, science already had a robust understanding of evolution long before we had even discovered Chromosomes or DNA (let alone that it has 4 letters).
All that evolution suggests on the matter is that if there's other naturally occuring life out there in the universe, it must have evolved, and to be able to evolve it must have some form of data storage . It likely won't be DNA like ours, it might not even be stored inside cells, it just has to be some way to store/edit/copy information . That's it.
And the very end Floyd suggests that we may find life out there that doesn't even have DNA (by which i think he means it won't have a way of storing data at all). That's pretty dubious, if we ever found something like that then we probably wouldn't categorize it as "life". There are many things on earth that already fit that bill, many chemical reactions (eg: sped-up footage of metals rusting) do look & act very much like they're alive in some way, but they aren't. The main reason we know they're not alive is because there is no data storage at play, there is thus no way for it to evolve. At it's base level, "life" is really just a specific sub-category of chemistry, it's chemistry that has a way of storing/editing/copying data . All chemistry isn't life. If chemistry doesn't do this - it's not life. That's not to say it's automatically unimportant & not worthy of protection & respect. It might be it's own new category of chemistry.
(ps: "DNA" is just shorthand for the chemical name Deoxyribonucleic Acid, the chemical our biology uses to store our genetic information. But since alien biology would likely store it's genetic information using other chemicals, we wouldn't call it "DNA", it'll have a different name)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yeah how can kids concentrate with all of these arbitrary activities in their lives, like eating, breathing, pooping, sleeping, showering, dressing, talking, balancing, and walking. I once saw a kid riding a bicycle, do you know how complex that is? The thermodynamics alone, that kid must have been so mentally taxed trying to keep his body from overheating, mentally commanding each individual sweat gland to pump out a pre-mixed cooling solution so that the correct amount may evaporate. Yikes!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1