Classic bayesian error. The population in question here isn’t the globe, but rather people who have already died from caffeine related causes. Naturally the rate of increased caffeine sensitivity amongst those folks will be different from the population at large.
The cooldown period built into HN is there for a reason: taking time to reflect on messages and do any necessary background research makes for better discussions than impulsively saying whatever is top of mind. I suggest you use this time to understand what an LD50 actually is and how the concept generalizes.
(cc @dang, seeing this growing trend of people misunderstanding the missing reply button and evading the timer via edits, perhaps UI affordances could be developed to better introduce folks to the feature?)
That’s not what I was implying at all I have no clue how you arrived at that. I’m saying an LD1 does exist – it’s the dose that would be fatal to 1% of a population (and further a LD0.1 and 0.0001 exist). These doses are lower than the LD50, fatal to millions, and approach what some would consider normal. For instance: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna759716
1 cup filter coffee can be 170mg or more. And LD50 isn’t really relevant here, even LD1 levels are deadly to hundreds of millions of people. It’s entirely possible for what some might consider a “normal” amount of coffee to be deadly to many. See other comment for espresso calculations.
LD50 for espresso is roughly 1 gallon per 50kg body mass. I wouldn’t want to, but I could drink 2 gallons of water without significant issue. If we accept that some people will naturally have a lower tolerance (and that espresso isn’t the strongest drink in the world), it’s not hard to see a caffeine overdose itself being fatal.
(based on 36ml espresso having 110mg caffeine, LD50 caffeine is 150-200mg/kg)
Teflon is known to not interact when it is in its stable long polymer state. But if we accept that it is breaking away from that state, we know it is not stable, and is potentially reactive.
Personally, a touch of avocado oil in a coast iron is much (much) lower risk (and price) than taking bets on whether this particular PFAS matrix will see the same fate as all the prior (now banned) ones or if we have somehow finally solved PFAS once and for all.
Not to mention all the known-bad environmental PFAS’s the manufacture and disposal of these 2 year pans creates.
How do you actually get it back? Friend of mine has a portfolio website in their name they’ve been maintaining for well over a decade, they missed one payment and some scoundrel bought it up and is demanding thousands of bucks for it.
He’ll head the Department of Health and Human Services soon, little use debating what his position is here when we will see it play out soon.
I do recommend you read his book, https://lfpl.overdrive.com/media/6093658, it seems you are of the misconception that a paper being retracted is a statement that it is false. In reality, it’s a statement that state officials (sponsored by big pharma) have threatened the livelihood of the author and/or publisher. It’s extortion, not science.
In that case, you should read the book RFK Jr. published with Dr. Brian Hooker that provides a treatise on the topic, referencing 100+ published, peer reviewed studies on the topic. A free sample of the first few chapters is a available here: https://lfpl.overdrive.com/media/6093658
Yes, Florida for instance recently had their first documented cases of malaria in decades - immediately following the launch of a GMO mosquito manufacturing and distribution lab.
Not to worry: the scientists at lab promised the two events were totally unrelated.
Right, the issue comes when a trusted writer is logging data that is sourced from an untrusted party.
Imagine a transaction log being a blob per-customer with many lines corresponding to price, sku, etc, that additionally have some “memo” field provided by the customer. A trusted distributed worker process is responsible for taking incoming requests by the user, pulling their blob down, appending the line based on the request, and CAS’ing it back in (retrying on failure). With enough effort, a particularly devious user could issue many requests with ‘memo’s engineered to not alter the MD5 of their log. This would cause some lines to be lost. An audit of their account transaction log would be unable to accurately reflect the requests they made to the service, and the failure would be invisible.
This is obviously a bit contrived – I’ll be the first to admit. But if the incentives were to exist for this to be worth someone’s time for some system, I think it would be likely to see it come up eventually.