But, as with anything, it’s about nuance. You can read through the ingredients here[0] and tell me what you’d like in your body.
The earliest tattoos, from my understanding, were done by incision and rubbing carbon into the wound. Regardless if you use old or new inks/techniques, it’s not really cut and dry to say “this is bad/good” because the size of the particulates matter. For a tattoo shop that uses high quality ink, and is diligent in its sterilization, most inks are fine. The large molecules are “trapped” by your immune system to just stay there[1], making them not dangerous.
There is a ton of research on PubMed about tattoos, most being negative. However, I suspect it’s because the authors had a predisposition to be negative from the start based on how the research is conducted and what they focus on. But I could be wrong and you should make up your own mind.
Bottom line: if you get tattoos, pay the premium and go to a good shop. The hygiene and good products are worth it, if that’s your thing.
If space is “empty”, then how come we can measure the temperature of the microwave background radiation?
Think about it…any direction we point an apparatus, we will get a reading — the static of a radio IS the CMB, and if you could take that radio into space, and have the ability to travel anywhere, that radio would still have static. As such, space cannot be “empty”, it’s filled with photons, electrons, and quarks, amongst other things.
To reach 0 Kelvin would take an infinite amount of energy (infinite is not exactly accurate but might as well be), hence “stupid expensive”. It would also create holes in the CMB. CMB has no holes, as such, there is stuff everywhere.
Wait, why would the temperature at any finite point will always be zero? Because I’m quite confident it would be non zero as emptying space is stupid expensive.
And there is temperature inside a neutron, since it’s not a fundamental particle but composed of quarks: The neutron temperature T, on the Kelvin scale, is given by T = 2E/3k, where E is average neutron energy and k the Boltzmann constant.
Usually hydrogen peroxide[0] (when sliced) but if you are referring to what chemicals a farm uses, that would be really, really hard to provide. I believe Chipotle tried to do a farm to store supply chain doc and gave up and went with a distributor. However, they still are trying w/ robotics and other initiatives.[1]
At the end of the day, how do you really know what chemicals are used on the farm? The cost of tracking anything is astronomical. I.E. cost of a bolt in airline industry.
Lastly, at least for food: producers, distributors, end-users (stores), and everyone else uses different software with proprietary protocols and the margins don't really incentivize anyone from switching.
Only issue is that you cannot get a bundled price. For example, you know what a colonoscopy costs but only the procedure and not all the addition care that may come with it.
Predominantly, from my understanding, it’s because:
1. Bitcoin was classified as “currency” by Clayton.
2. It’s the closest to being decentralized so no “organization will benefit from the work of others”.
3. Growth of Bitcoin wasn’t initially speculative but as a use of currency, which is different from whatever token you fork as its goal would be for speculative trading, failing the Howey test.
When the massacre at Bucha was discovered, my now ex-wife told me: Why do you care, your family isn't there...
So I guess, who cares?
P.S. I grew up in a bad place...they targeted rich folks like you for home invasions and their opinions were similar to yours...who cares about those people? They're rich. Just remember that when your family is targeted, you should forgive those people because who cares about some random statistic.
Maybe there are researchers who want to study the discrepancies of static electricity but if they don’t get funding, then they won’t be paid and have to take other priorities.
Seeming to demand these problems are resolved is a road to cynicism, in my opinion.
> So, still very much misunderstood. There is an experiment showing the dominant mechanism (so still only explaining a part!) between solid-solid and a generic model proposed that can be used to explain other interactions (solid-liquid, liquid-liquid, etc).
This seems like a very large part, no?
I mean, we know it works, we get the majority of it, and it doesn’t seem super necessary to spend a lot of dollars and brain power to satisfy an internet debate on a theory of rubbing a balloon on one’s head.
At first glance you seem to be comparing events that have to be witnessed vs database entries that are centralized, heavily audited, and very accurate.
It’s a lot easier to match patterns in a db vs. real life crime.
First, thank you for actually discussing this because I’m interested in this topic and appreciate your point of view.
I do not know if any animal is “happy” but this[0] is the paper (and there are quite a few that are similar in nature) that have empirical evidence that “happy chemicals” aren’t only there for happiness.
Another point is that the “happiest” and longest living pockets of civilization are actually farmers[1]. Costa Rica and CA should be discounted as there is a 20 year average age discrepancy between Japan/Italy/Greece(90s) and CA/Costa Rica (70s).
In my opinion, I would say that happiness is evolutionary and it is driven by desire to get better/explore, etc. This fits your thesis but I fork at the notion that it’s a driver. My hunch is that happiness is kinda like candy or weekends — intended in small doses as reward for survival. Since “happy chemicals” are responsible for such a large swath of human bodily functions[2], a high release can have detrimental effects (dopamine is responsible for movement and memory, for example, in addition to motivation).
Basically, I agree with the video that we’re not suppose to be always happy and our search is actually a by product of understanding “happiness”. Kinda how pigs will purposefully knock apples to the ground and eat them a week or two later to get drunk[3].
SEC, that prosecutes insider trading, is a civil regulatory body and cannot send people to jail, which the article mentions for some odd reason. And I’d put the odds at 100:1 that any prosecutor in the SEC would love to go after a Congress person to further their career.
Lastly, not sure most are aware, insider trading is usually spotted by SECs internal AI/algo that is connected to all brokers, clearing houses, etc. they are very good at finding folks.
Edit: another thing that is missing from this discussion is the SEC awards a portion of the proceeds to the whistleblower of any case. I just can’t believe no one ratted out a Congress member for retirement money and all members are security masterminds.
Just a shower thought.