esailija

12 ms·

121.
by esailija 7y ago
> Each side must maintain standards, rather than just choosing the cheapest options. People don't have infinite money. In fact 4.5 billion people don't make enough money not to be in qualitative extreme poverty[1] let alone eno
122.
by esailija 7y ago
Every "wallet voter" is in a kind of "prisoner's dilemma" with each other where it won't do anything if they stop unless everyone else stops too. But if everyone else stops then they can continue. Everoyne is a
123.
by esailija 7y ago
There is no evidence that markets reflect what people want. It's just religiously taken for granted. Even though I shouldn't try to disprove anyhting that hasn't been proven in the first place. Think about this: When anyone p
124.
by esailija 7y ago
Nice job dehumanising anyone who is not well-off enough to afford risky investments. Vast majority of people who participate in this system will never be able to own shares by design . So 80-90% of people are not the public?
125.
by esailija 7y ago
It is misleading (actually a total lie...), here's the list: https://sfoconnect.com/sites/default/files/SFO%20Approved%20... As you see, it is not about flavored water or brands, it's just about pla
126.
by esailija 7y ago
How would you argue for it then? Let's take a similar "defense" in some unrelated scenario that we have some distance from. Let's say someone demonstrated that they are a xenophobe, inevitably someone will call them &quo
127.
by esailija 7y ago
Yes in a vacuum and out of context, those are vastly different words with different meanings. That's how the original commentator is trying to fool you who stop at that without considering the actual implications. For this context in r
128.
by esailija 7y ago
Actually he probably meant that 100 million are being used to redirect efforts and resources destructively. Your argument can be used just as well to defend an "investment" of 100m into efforts to dig up aluminium, turn it into du
129.
by esailija 7y ago
If "good choices are likely to lift you out of poverty" like OP claims, it logically follows that "you are unlikely to be poor if you make good choices". "There will be cases where it doesn't work" let&#x2
130.
by esailija 7y ago
You say there is a "big difference" but logically they are exactly the same claim. Also, no need to "recommend" making "good choices" any more than you need to recommend breathing.
131.
by esailija 7y ago
Having your ear wax not removed quickly will not cause permanent tinnitus, that's ridiculous. If tinnitus is caused by ear wax it will be gone after removal. It is the removal process that can cause permanent tinnitus[1], like ear irri
132.
by esailija 7y ago
This is some seriously ridiculous mental gymnastics (continuum fallacy). Someone who never flies is now responsible for the environmental impact of those who fly, because specifically their lack of flying is not canceling any flights (or pr
133.
by esailija 7y ago
They do but 500 times slower.
134.
by esailija 7y ago
Ok, of the carbs in white bread here there is 0.6% sugar. That's completely negligible and now what I'm referring to at all. I am talking about added sugar where it will be 10-20% of the carbs in the white "bread" (I con
135.
by esailija 7y ago
Sugar is 50% glucose 50% fructose while white bread is only long chains of glucose, unless sugar was added to it too (only a thing in the US AFAIK).
136.
by esailija 7y ago
I cannot find any mention of youtube in the link, it seems to be about facebook.
137.
by esailija 7y ago
The view that free speech should protect you even from the most trivial consequences like being banned from a private platform is completely unreasonable and ridiculous. Doesn't matter that there are people that hold that opinion, that
138.
by esailija 7y ago
One is about creating violence and hate against certain races, other is about reducing violence and hate against a race. They couldn't be more dissimilar.
139.
by esailija 7y ago
Setting impossible standards only keeps you believing what you want to believe and what you already believe. It's logically equivalent to blind faith, you believe what you want to believe rather than what has most (even if imperfect) e
140.
by esailija 7y ago
Even if a fossil fuel company did the right thing, unfortunately all it takes is another fossil fuel company doing the wrong thing so that the end result is the same. The only difference is that the companies who did the right thing just ge
141.
by esailija 7y ago
The scientific consensus is that climate change is happening and that it is human caused. Being "skeptic" about this is like being a flat earther. Baseless skepticism is not any better than blind faith.
142.
by esailija 7y ago
Well, everything you said is false: "Among the most-cited is a 2013 study of nearly 12,000 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers on climate science published since 1990, of which just over 4,000 papers expressed an opinion on the cause of
143.
by esailija 8y ago
I didn't say low standard of evidence has higher odds than high standard of evidence. Low standard has higher odds than no standard of evidence or no research at all. High > low > zero. By what logic could you claim that low = ze
144.
by esailija 8y ago
Yes, it is? Science does not guarantee knowledge in any field, it's only supposed to increase the odds. Are the odds of getting true knowledge in this field increased compared to the alternatives (I.E. people just arbitrarily claiming
145.
by esailija 8y ago
Chronic reflux, constipation, nocturnal urination etc also make these diets unsustainable. As buff vegan the proportion of buff vegans among vegans is probably the same as proportion of buff non-vegans among non-vegans. You have to be brain
146.
by esailija 8y ago
That doesn't include the needed protein, fats, vitamins and so on. And it is even completely wrong unit, it is the calories in food that matters not its weight.
147.
by esailija 8y ago
Yes stopped reading there as everyone going vegan would actually plummet the demand for industrial crops because eating them directly is order of magnitude more efficient than eating them through inefficient proxy like meat. Any time one ea
148.
by esailija 8y ago
I used keto diet for first 1.5 years after diagnosis. It only suits sedentary lifestyle, what you can eat is very limited and I got a lot of issues like severe constipation and acid reflux. Blood glucose was virtually always in normal range
149.
by esailija 8y ago
Metabolic processes create unavoidable waste heat so the wet bulb temperature doesn't even need to reach 37. It starts to get dangerous already at 30 and 35 will kill any healthy person after a few hours even if they don't move at
150.
by esailija 8y ago
That cannot be even kind of right. You need to grow and ship 10x more food energy and protein in the form of plants ("vegetables"?) just to have the necessary feed. That's just to make feed (ignoring water and raising altoget

More ›