3 ms·

> My task was made even harder because chemical one has so many alternative names which mean the same thing including: Acticide MBS / MBR, Algucid CH50, Amersta

> My task was made even harder because chemical one has so many alternative names which mean the same thing including: Acticide MBS / MBR, Algucid CH50, Amerstat 250, Euxyl K 100, Fennosan IT 21, Grotan K / TK2, Isocil(R) PC, Kathon CG / LX / WT, Lonzaserve(R) PC, Mergal K7, Metatin GT, Mitco CC 31/32 L, Neolone CapG / 950 / MxP, Optiphen, Parmetol A / DF / K ,Piror P109, Promex Alpha / BM, Proxel AQ / PL / XL2, Salicat MM / MI-10 / K100 / K145, Salimix MCI, Sharomix MI / , T / MCI, and Special Mx 323! These are all brand names for methylisothiazolinone (or 5-Chloro-2-Methyl-4-Isothiazolin-3-One). I wish there was a clear labelling standard for these kind of things, similar to the "E numbers" for food additives in the EU. Something like "E531" is a lot easier to identify and remember than a long list of brand names, or even methylisothiazolinone. Even just using the CAS number would be better (although CAS 26172-55-4 isn't particularly easy to remember either, at least it's not a list of 37 synonyms).

daniel-cussen 5y ago
Yeah the edit distance of the names on that list tells you they're out to fuck the public. They're as different as they can possibly be, obviously on purpose. They want people to have no idea what the chemical is, not be able to look it up freely, and then...I'm divining right now...like tell them they got rid of it and put it back in again under a different name pretending it's not the same shit? Yeah so I read the article a bit, and it's a poison, makes perfect sense. So this allows like employee-prostitutes of the chemical company pretend they don't know what the customer is talking about, play dumb, total plausible deniability. Normally they would have to pretend to mishear you, over and over, and then flat out lie in an absolute black-is-white capacity that can be proven in court with no margin of error, in fact. The closest second place to how guilty-mindedly deceptive those names are are the endless different names for terrorist organizations according to the CIA world factbook. Distant second place, though. Like there's no real comparison, I bet if I heard someone talk about Al Qaeda as "the Sunni-only real Muslim club" I'd just know. They don't have focus groups and psychologists testing what is the most deceptive synonym possible. Let's hope terrorists don't get any ideas from the chemical industry, knock on wood. With these names in fact the guy can't rely on words, or thought, or documents, like he can only find out by getting poisoned by it first. The only sense he can detect it with is touch. He's a human canary.
- devb 5y ago
  Are you ok?
  - daniel-cussen 5y ago
    Convince me you care about the answer. This is a Turing Test. EDIT: You're doing pretty well so far, your delay is quite human. On the other hand, leetcodesucks replied to you quoting you as saying “Who hurt you” did you post and edit it out? You actually need to speak on your own behalf there, accusations in response to accusations are like questions in response to questions. I'm thinking of ways to flag you for human review, get the operator on the line. You can call that the Cussen Test, can a human reach the human behind the bot. It involves judging correctly if there is a human behind the bot, and giving up if there isn't. Bots are a myth, if you write with code it's not a bot writing, it's still a human, the man behind the curtain. Automated slander is still slander. We're both flunking our tests.
    - devb 5y ago
      How about this: That stuff is bad for your heart and you should stop taking it.
      - daniel-cussen 5y ago
        Could you quote what you're replying to? Context. What stuff is bad for my heart? EDIT: I loved this reply. I'll take any outcome except a tie. We're both farther away from neutrality. So for one you said I have a heart, OK I can't be polite enough to respect that, you fucked up, you know I'm a person because bots don't have hearts. I passed the Turing Test. And you are looking at my whole comment history it seems, the recent parts, because sure yeah I do talk about taking stuff in other threads, and I do say you can judge anything as you see fit, but your reply doesn't fit nicely into the conversation. So I as a matter of fact have a doctor already, maybe you should keep your insults to yourself instead of masquerading them as advice? Medical advice, at that. And the main concern with these stimulants is heart health. But in my case it does not, I took the medicine during a heart exam, no signs of problems. No heart pain. So that's odd, you are replying to my questions with answers to new questions, or medical advice, are you a psychiatrist perchance? Because you say I should stop taking it, aren't you going to ask my opinion in the matter of my psychiatric health, which I spend more money on than food? Surely I have say in the treatment, and also? Your medical advice was totally unsolicited. I never said, So secondly, I might have gotten an operator on the line, so there's times I just don't know who's behind the characters in a string, no probability either way I just don't know. I may just have passed the Cussen Test. Well I passed your Turing Test, at least. Maybe the Cussen Test is harder. So also, may I ask on what grounds you're giving me medical advice?

daniel-cussen 5y ago

Yeah the edit distance of the names on that list tells you they're out to fuck the public. They're as different as they can possibly be, obviously on purpose. They want people to have no idea what the chemical is, not be able to look it up freely, and then...I'm divining right now...like tell them they got rid of it and put it back in again under a different name pretending it's not the same shit? Yeah so I read the article a bit, and it's a poison, makes perfect sense. So this allows like employee-prostitutes of the chemical company pretend they don't know what the customer is talking about, play dumb, total plausible deniability. Normally they would have to pretend to mishear you, over and over, and then flat out lie in an absolute black-is-white capacity that can be proven in court with no margin of error, in fact. The closest second place to how guilty-mindedly deceptive those names are are the endless different names for terrorist organizations according to the CIA world factbook. Distant second place, though. Like there's no real comparison, I bet if I heard someone talk about Al Qaeda as "the Sunni-only real Muslim club" I'd just know. They don't have focus groups and psychologists testing what is the most deceptive synonym possible. Let's hope terrorists don't get any ideas from the chemical industry, knock on wood. With these names in fact the guy can't rely on words, or thought, or documents, like he can only find out by getting poisoned by it first. The only sense he can detect it with is touch. He's a human canary.

devb 5y ago
Are you ok?
- daniel-cussen 5y ago
  Convince me you care about the answer. This is a Turing Test. EDIT: You're doing pretty well so far, your delay is quite human. On the other hand, leetcodesucks replied to you quoting you as saying “Who hurt you” did you post and edit it out? You actually need to speak on your own behalf there, accusations in response to accusations are like questions in response to questions. I'm thinking of ways to flag you for human review, get the operator on the line. You can call that the Cussen Test, can a human reach the human behind the bot. It involves judging correctly if there is a human behind the bot, and giving up if there isn't. Bots are a myth, if you write with code it's not a bot writing, it's still a human, the man behind the curtain. Automated slander is still slander. We're both flunking our tests.
  - devb 5y ago
    How about this: That stuff is bad for your heart and you should stop taking it.
    - daniel-cussen 5y ago
      Could you quote what you're replying to? Context. What stuff is bad for my heart? EDIT: I loved this reply. I'll take any outcome except a tie. We're both farther away from neutrality. So for one you said I have a heart, OK I can't be polite enough to respect that, you fucked up, you know I'm a person because bots don't have hearts. I passed the Turing Test. And you are looking at my whole comment history it seems, the recent parts, because sure yeah I do talk about taking stuff in other threads, and I do say you can judge anything as you see fit, but your reply doesn't fit nicely into the conversation. So I as a matter of fact have a doctor already, maybe you should keep your insults to yourself instead of masquerading them as advice? Medical advice, at that. And the main concern with these stimulants is heart health. But in my case it does not, I took the medicine during a heart exam, no signs of problems. No heart pain. So that's odd, you are replying to my questions with answers to new questions, or medical advice, are you a psychiatrist perchance? Because you say I should stop taking it, aren't you going to ask my opinion in the matter of my psychiatric health, which I spend more money on than food? Surely I have say in the treatment, and also? Your medical advice was totally unsolicited. I never said, So secondly, I might have gotten an operator on the line, so there's times I just don't know who's behind the characters in a string, no probability either way I just don't know. I may just have passed the Cussen Test. Well I passed your Turing Test, at least. Maybe the Cussen Test is harder. So also, may I ask on what grounds you're giving me medical advice?