shlant

10 ms·

121.
by shlant 1y ago
your slippery slope argument is not very convincing. What do you suggest be done (that isn't already) about people who regularly speed, putting themselves and those around them in danger?
122.
by shlant 1y ago
yea there are some wild hypotheticals being thrown around in the comments with one of my favorites being "what if you're drinking and you have to speed to escape a wildfire but have a breathalyzer in your car?". Jeeze I guess
123.
by shlant 1y ago
> Taking someone's license away for getting caught doing 5 over a few too many times on the freeway where literally everyone is always doing 5 over and you are more of a danger by not going the speed of traffic doesn't in any w
124.
by shlant 1y ago
> monitoring everyone all the time and eliminating the ability to move from Point A to Point B privately is totally fine and no problem whatsoever. Is that what the bill proposes? everyone's vehicle is now monitored all the time?
125.
by shlant 1y ago
lol I had shared the original article to a group with the comment "rare republican policy win" and then had to immediately retract that after reading your comment
126.
by shlant 2y ago
this is exactly what I do because mongo and TLS is enough of a headache. I am not dealing with rotating certificates regularly on top of that for endpoints not exposed to the internet.
127.
by shlant 2y ago
> with no deleterious health effects Is that actually the case? do we have long term data on these people? or are we just going off of "I feel fine on 5 hours of sleep" stories? Or are you only referring to day to day health e
128.
by shlant 2y ago
I'm sure this'll be the last month that happens for a while
129.
by shlant 2y ago
You see more reasons for low alcohol because we are finally waking up to the fact (and the science is confirming) that it's a poison ... at essentially any dose. You see more reasons for low carb/keto because it's the current
130.
by shlant 2y ago
> I would think it unlikely they can secure an updraft from this to keep the house. What's the plan for that? They tried to steal an election already - it's pretty easy to understand why they are making decisions as if they do
131.
by shlant 2y ago
I suggest you avoid using words that you do now know that meaning of if you want to be able to add anything meaningful to a discussion
132.
by shlant 2y ago
wow what are the odds? You have great taste in beautiful music, internet stranger
133.
by shlant 2y ago
> It's a ritual of mine to play Eno's Discreet Music during takeoff. Mine is Giegling Mix 07. Less ambient and more 4/4 + breakbeat but beautifully emotive. Even better during sunset
134.
by shlant 2y ago
the original refutation was "fluoride in the drinking water concentrations is proven safe and it doesn't affect brains". Your study does not show that IQ is effected at concentrations that are being added to water supplies. J
135.
by shlant 2y ago
seeing the results of what other people doing is different from making decisions just because other people are doing it.
136.
by shlant 2y ago
> Also: fluoride works topically, not when ingested. wrong[1] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/data-research/facts-stats/fa...
137.
by shlant 2y ago
you're just lying https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/data-research/facts-stats/fa...
138.
by shlant 2y ago
your study has been heavily criticized where you already posted it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43523900 I can only assume once you see those very valid criticisms, you will update your references
139.
by shlant 2y ago
> The risk of cavities is reduced by using toothpaste or mouth washes with fluoride, not by drinking fluoridated water. it always surprises me how willing people are to just make something up and be confident in doing so. We've know
140.
by shlant 2y ago
> We can never be sure who funded the studies and whether or not the results can be trusted. Studies have shown that studies cannot be trusted the growing prevalence of anti science thinking like this has been a disaster for humanity. Th
141.
by shlant 2y ago
this is a red herring. Who cares what other people are doing - we should look at the evidence and make decisions based on that.
142.
by shlant 2y ago
D&D has been around for so long that you can easily play without giving a cent to Wizards of the Coast. However, I still definitely think having people try more options is good.
143.
by shlant 2y ago
> nature is very efficient by design, so it would be quite hard to even come close to this efficiency. Do you think that the evolutionary goal for animals is "make the most edible mass possible"? > All the anti-meat anti-ani
144.
by shlant 2y ago
nothing is less convincing in the face of real problems than handwaving everything with "other things also use water" and "don't worry, everything will just become more efficient"
145.
by shlant 2y ago
not sure why you are being downvoted. Beat-matching is the most straightforward and least interesting part of being/experiencing a DJ. I think every DJ needs to know how to do it but IMO most of the overemphasis on beat-matching comes
146.
by shlant 2y ago
the vast majority of DJs are not producers so no
147.
by shlant 2y ago
> If that is the case, I don't know a single DJs who cares about their craft. Makes you think. Yea when that sentence started I was ready to agree until they made a point which seems more relevant to producers than DJs
148.
by shlant 2y ago
> In fact, we have improved the efficiency of cows and that process is accelerating. Care to share some data on that?
149.
by shlant 2y ago
> I don't see what's unsustainable about it You think 11-20% of GHG emissions[1] coming from livestock and the insanely high water footprint of meat[2] is sustainable? [1] https://thebreakthrough.org/issues&#x2F
150.
by shlant 2y ago
not sure why you thought you were addressing my point about "small scale" with an example of a guy with 2000ha... There wasn't even any mention about how much meat his approach produces per hectare.

More ›