Growth doesn’t mean revenue over cost anymore, it just means number go up. The easiest way to create growth from nothing is marketing tulips to venture capital and retail investors.

I think you mean to say, my “feels” are based on justification!

Is English your second language?

Btw abortions rock, I’m responsible for my fair share,

I dont think that’s the brag you seem to think it is?

but I think using clickbaiting as a weapon is bad, even when it’s for good causes

You haven’t explained how you think this is click bait… Something doesn’t automatically become click bait, just because you think it’s over an excitable topic. That would make all headlines click bait, based on the subjectivity of the observer.

“something (such as a headline) designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest”

There’s a reason we have the Jenova Convention, after all

Lol, it’s like I’m talking to an AI that’s done way too many whippits.

The geneva convention, is an agreement pertaining to how soldiers interact with civilians during times of conflict. It has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.

But your “justification” is based on feels…

The article goes into great detail supporting the substance of the title, meaning it’s not click bait or manipulation.

You are the one attempting to manipulate people by claiming that the title is something it’s not.

Lol, you can’t confirm it’s click bait unless you read the article…

None of your critiques are valid, as the substance of the article is congruent with the messaging in the title.

You’re just being lazy.

Yeah, I could, but it’s a perfectly valid line of conversation to critique a post’s title.

I don’t think laziness is a valid line of criticism. I also find it strange to critique a title separate from its intended context.

we have the saying, “Always judge a book by its cover, and judge a response by it’s grammar”

I don’t think that’s a very common idiom. It seems to imply that pedantry is more important than substance.

You could always read the article…

don’t think Batman makes Nolan any less prestigious.

I don’t either, but the critics that love art house movies prob do.

The reception of it appears to be, but prob only because Coppola is seen as more prestigious by critics because he never made a batman movie.

The professional reviews are hilariously mixed, I’m pretty sure Coppola unwittingly made a movie that also serves as a litmus test to see how pretentious and up your own ass you are.

The honest reviews are basically, this made no sense, I don’t know what he was thinking. The positive reviews can be boiled down to “if you have to ask, you’re not sophisticated enough to understand”.

Command Senior Chief

The person who came up with the scheme is also the most senior NCO on the ship. All the enlisted people in charge of monitoring that activity knew, they just knew not to ask questions.You would be surprised how much pull an E-8 or E-9 has in the military.

Yeah… This is a bit sketchy. Pharmaceuticals aren’t just something that an amateur can make by following step by step instructions. Even something as simple as baking a cake requires some basic experience to know when things are going right or wrong.

Even maintaining the calibration on a CLR requires some background experience, let alone building and programming one all on your own. With your actual reactor being as small as a mason jar, it means the margin for error is going to be small as well.

This is neat for people with a background in chemistry, but I don’t really see it as anything but dangerous for the general public. They also are fudging their math a bit to make things seem a lot cheaper. Reagents can be really cheap at bulk prices, but you have to spend the time looking for them, and they aren’t equating the cost of a trained chemist making these medications.

seems today’s pattern in general. Such projects go for something hardly achievable, don’t achieve it, give us all that feeling of passive frustration, and divert attention.

I think it’s kinda a byproduct of venture capital funding. With the Fed prioritizing low interest rates for the last decade, investors are a lot more willing to stick their money in yolo financial schemes.

There are plenty of places on the planet which could use additional electricity, water, wired connectivity, normal roads.

Pssh, why build physical things when you can just gamble on things like virtual currency, virtual intellect, or even virtual reality… /s

Or, say, security from armed apes with UN membership, like Azerbaijan.

Lesser Armenia has really flown off the handle lately. I don’t really know why they have UN membership, Azerbaijan is basically “what if the Saudi tried to build Singapore on the Caspian sea”.

Just what Comcast needs, a fleet of very slow cruise missiles.

Can’t wait for them to park their buoyant IED router above my house if I don’t upgrade to the game day package.

Oh yeah, let’s build our infrastructure project based on tech that requires a large amount of helium. You know, that element that is extremely hard to store and transport. Yes, the one that’s already scarce and is required for vastly more important technologies.

I don’t see what the problem is, it’s not like helium production is a byproduct of an energy sector were trying to rapidly divest from…

Dude complaining about a dude complaining about apple being proprietary in 2024, when apple has built their entire business from day one by being the most draconian closed loop proprietary hardware/software model since personal computers were invented…

You just made the same argument, but in an aggressively dumb way.

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?

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.