[–] 2 points 4 months ago

One convenience of gendered nouns is that you can use shortened pronouns and the listener immediately knows what you are talking about. "Sit on him!" means sit on the chair and not the sofa, for example, because the sofa is neuter. So it's not a matter of chair being more "masculine" so much as having three different forms of "it" pronoun. Still not enough convenience to make it worth it to learn from scratch, IMO.

My nemesis are the words "chose/choose lose/loose". I always have to go through a quick tonguetwister in my head whenever I have to write one down to make sure I pick the correct one.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    The way I see it is they are doing inference, not transfiring bank account balances. I'd be curious to see some actual experimental data, but I'd expect LLMs to skip past bit flips same way you shrug and move on from spelling errors. At worst you can do your critical calculation in triplicate on your 6nm nodes (with redo upon dissensus) and reduce your bit error from 4/year (or 4000/year or whatever have you in orbit) to (4/year)^3

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] -1 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    You misunderstand the idea of cost per calorie. The expectation is that you start with something nutritionally-complete, like these soylents, the frozen rice+vegs+chicken dinners, or even the frozen apple pies (how ever nonconventional these may be), or if that is not possible then a combination of several foods in a ratio that makes them nutritionally complete, and then scale up to hit that 1500cals/day target. A single item or known ratio of items so I don't have to think about this ever again. If I didn't care about nutrition I'd just be chugging high fructose corn syrup (<$1/day) which you never saw me say. My daily meal ends up being rice and beans drenched in olive oil with some raw vegetables-of-the-day on the side, since I can't afford the soylents.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] -2 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    I hate the amount of time it takes to cook and eat things every day. 😆 The microwavable frozen foods section would have been my first choice, there is usually enough selection to find something suitable, but the dollars-per-calorie cost is way too high, on order of $20-$30 per day. This pie is $15 and has enough calories for 2 days and takes zero work. Sugar and fat are already two of the three main ingredients I need. Also protein, but the wheat in the crust has some. Apples are a fruit, they have vitamins and shit. Looks good to me!

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 2 points 4 months ago* (3 children)

    The authors do not note any conflicts of interest

    The scientists are from Nigeria, one of the largest producers of palm oil, so it could be in their nationalistic interest to dismiss palm oil health concerns to promote their international exports. It's like reading an article about how ICE cars are better for the environment than electric cars written by an American.

    They themselves admit in the opening abstract that "Most of the information in mainstream literature is targeted at consumers and food companies with a view to discourage the consumption of palm oil." I'll stick with doing what the mainstream tells me until and unless the mainstream changes.

    Some of the links in the paper are more interesting though because they include actual randomized experiments, like the one where people were randomly assigned to switch to palm olein oil or olive oil for cooking, and both were about as good for their cholesterol levels. Palm olein is the liquid fraction of fractionated palm oil, high in oleic acid. I am actually open to the idea that palm olein could be better than some of the other cooking oils like soybean oil or corn oil, which I also avoid at all cost, or lard. However whether palm olein is a better substitute for soybean oil is a separate question from whether the solid palm oil is a better substitute for butter, which the Nigerian paper just lumps all in the same category. It's the highly-saturated fatty acids in the solid fraction, the same ones that make palm oil butter-like, that are the problem for my pie search.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    Palm oil is a butter substitute. Every baked product at the grocery store that used to be made with butter is now made with palm oil, because it is cheaper. Palm oil is made up of long highly-saturated fatty acids that cause it to be solid at room temperature, giving it physical properties very similar to butter, making it suitable as a substitute. However saturated fatty acids are bad for your health. Butter is also saturated fat and is also somewhat bad, but palm oil is much worse because the varieties of fatty acids it contains are much different from animal fat fatty acids and the human body metabolizes them differently, so they have a much higher impact. Similar physical properties but worse health properties!

    It is nearly impossible to find frozen baked goods that are still made with butter. This pie claims to be made with healthy ingredients, and specifically touts its butter content, but it conveniently omits mentioning palm oil entirely. Since palm oil appears first on the ingredients list before butter, that means there is more of it. Possibly almost the entire "butter-like" fraction of the pie consists of palm oil.

    This pie alone contains 400% daily value saturated fat, which is terrible for long-term health. I love apple pies and I was planning to eat this pie as my sole food over the course of 2 days for my One-Meal-A-Day (OMAD), but I'm not willing to risk eating palm oil. Thanks for nothing for getting my hopes up, pie box!

    • traditional wholesome German ingredients like palm oil
    • palm oil - just the way grandma used to make at home
    • contains memories of butter

    I'm sure someone below will mention how palm oil is also bad for the environment and bad for the farmers and bad for the economy. I will only be answering questions about the film Rampart.

    [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    An aged account is not even a panacea. I had a reddit account of many years that I haven't logged into for the last two. I check online, it still exists, in good standing. I login one time, post one helpful comment (through a VPN of course, same as I always did), try to log in the next day to check replies - login error. Check through a third party - account page no longer even exists. All comments completely wiped. Thanks reddit! Saved me the trouble of deleting my account manually.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, the water perfectly removes everything and does not splash. I refused to believe it myself. TMI warning: for the first year in my disbelief I would test it personally, for science, by sticking a finger in for "first-hand" comparison. When using paper, no matter how much you wipe, afterwards, even if the finger looks clean, it still has a whiff of ass. Only a full shower after use would remove the whiff entirely. But after using the bidet, the finger looks clean and smells clean, so much so as if there isn't even a need to wash the finger afterwards (though of course I did anyway). In summary: paper = never fully clean, bidet = fully clean.

    I think the difference in our bidet experiences is the water pressure. Mine is plugged directly into the water supply, and I have good water pressure, so the pressurized stream coming out is tight and powerful like a water pik. It took some getting used to. But it's easy now and it scours everything. I fear a gabo-style bidet that pours instead of powerwashes (or a spraybottle like the one linked in this thread) would not be as thorough and might indeed require a follow-up wipe. But mine doesn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    No, money at rest does not create inflation. It is the consumption of goods and services through use of money that does. Trump could mint a one hundred trillion dollar coin and put it on display in the White House, and this would have no effect on prices, even though he is now richer than all Americans put together... as long as the coin stays on display. But the moment he tries to deposit the coin at a bank and start spending its value to pay for goods and services, all prices will skyrocket, because now there are more dollars competing to buy the same amount of food, the same number of houses, the same number of services, that existed/was being produced before, the same that you are trying to buy.

    Remember those news articles last year how the wealthiest 10% of Americans drive 50% of consumer spending? That's how the rich influence prices. Not hoarding - consumption. The poorest 90% (those earning less than $250k/year, namely you) only have access to 50% of food and consumer goods and such. One person from top 10% consumes 9x more than one person from bottom 90%. If wealth inequality did not exist and the 10% consumed as much per person as the 90%, then you would literally be able to buy 1.8x as much stuff as you can now, with no other changes in productivity required.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (10 children)

    You'd think so! right? But instead it is the idea of smearing shit on your ass with your fingers and a piece of paper that now sounds uncomfortable to me. This is the "completely changed your life" element of it. I've been using paper for decades no problem, but now I hate pooping outside of home because there is no bidet there. Beware!

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    inspired by https://lemmy.world/post/39777765

    Unruh effect should work for any acceleration, including centripetal acceleration of a James Bond-style killer centrifuge/amusement ride. The "thermal bath" experienced by such an observer is composed mainly of photons, but also some elementary particles, in proportion to quantum field coupling strengths or something, coming in as a "particle shower" from the direction of the Rindler event horizon - namely down. The accelerated observer can capture these particles for use later. Did I get it all correct?

     

    Bring your bike and join up with Social Cycling NYC (@socialcyclingnyc on instagram: https://imginn.com/p/DNhbKgMMXRf/) to support DOT redesign of Astoria 31st Street to improve safety and cycling accessibility (catchup on the news: https://piefed.ca/post/151967). Meet at Columbus Circle, Thursday 8/21 7pm, head for Astoria at 7:30pm.

     

    Based on the product title, the design of the bottle, the product description, and even the brand logo, you'd think vitamin D is vegan. Every marketing design decision on these store pages lures you into such a conclusion. But it's not! Vitamin D/cholecalciferol is a molecule that is exclusively made in animals. Almost all vitamin D in production is extracted from lanolin, the waxy secretions in sheep's wool. In theory, lanolin could be called a vegetarian product, since wool is something sheep are sheared for and not something sheep are made of. In practice, almost all lanolin is extracted from the wool waste byproduct of dead sheep slaughtered for meat. If a company doesn't claim a specific non-kill source for its lanolin on the bottle, the lanolin came from dead animals. It is up to debate whether a product that is the side product of animal slaughter that would have happened anyway is vegetarian or not. Vegan it is certainly not.

    There is vitamin D for sale from vegan sources, extracted from lichen. It also costs at least 20x more. These bottles are not it! The vegan-sourced product pages go to great length to emphasize their cholecalciferol does not come from lanolin. These pages just list "cholecalciferol" in the ingredients list with no specific source. Technically, none of the language on these pages is a lie! "Veggie capsules" refers to the cellulose the pill walls are made of. If you "somehow" end up believing that the whole pill is made of vegetables, that's your own fault! If you see a brand name like "forest leaf" and think its products are made from leaves, nobody can help you! The company is blameless! The only outright lie in these screenshots is the "vegan friendly" label. Curiously, that claim only appears in the product image, and not in the text searchable description of the product itself.

    Ok then, you'd say, that's innocent marketing speak, nobody would be mislead by it, we all know about cholecalciferol. Yet half of all customer comments on the "vegan friendly"-in-image-only product praise it for its vegan content! (Thanks AI summary!) Many of them bought this product because they thought it was vegan. Tsk tsk! And what is vegan-"friendly" anyway? Am I vegan friendly because I am a friend of vegans? Is that a legally-enforceable phrase?

    My opinion is that while the amount of lanolin in vitamin D pills is tiny and comes from waste products, these pills are still not vegan and not vegetarian. A pure vegan lifestyle would not condone them. Yet these companies say everything short of a lie (and sometimes literally lie) to make consumes falsely think their products are vegan. And vegan consumers let them! And even praise them for it.

    I would be fine if vegans/vegetarians accepted that a negligible amount of animal product to supply a vital ingredient that could not be acquired in any other way (until a few years ago when lichen cholecalciferol became available) where sun exposure alone is not sufficient for modern climates and lifestyles is acceptable. But in the meantime, these companies are exploiting the naivete and well-wishes of consumers for profit by greenwashing their products, spreading misinformation rather than knowledge. The customer reviews is proof that misinformation is happening, even if no single phrase describing the product is legally a lie. We should not allow ourselves be exploited!

    Shoutout to the "kosher" and "no shellfish" labels.

    Chasing goose meme: Vitamin D3; Veggie capsules; Vegetarian friendly; Vegan friendly; Goose: What's inside the capsules!?
    view more: next ›