Grumble4681's recent activity
-
Comment on ‘Worst-case scenario’: when needed most, New Orleans bollards were missing in action in ~design
-
Comment on Pornhub is now blocked in almost all of the US South in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentThat's an extreme mischaracterization of what I said considering that I even led that statement with "Presumably if", I didn't even make a statement that started with an inherent assumption that..."They're not here to answer your question so they obviously exist."
That's an extreme mischaracterization of what I said considering that I even led that statement with "Presumably if", I didn't even make a statement that started with an inherent assumption that they existed but instead started with not assuming they exist but if they did exist, would we expect to see them here? That's far more reasonable than what you started with, where you asked a question in such a way as though it would be confirmation what you thought was true if no one responded affirming they existed even though there are other reasons why you may not get a response and could leave your belief to be untrue.
So if we're going to stretch our characterization of what was said, you basically said god doesn't exist unless god responds to my comment.
-
Comment on Most adults will gain half a kilo this year – and every year. Here’s how to stop ‘weight creep’. in ~health
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentMy perception is similar to yours, it seemed a fairly mild response. Additionally my perception is that this issue seems to be one that gets complicated because there's more to health than...My perception is similar to yours, it seemed a fairly mild response. Additionally my perception is that this issue seems to be one that gets complicated because there's more to health than physical health and more to physical health than just weight. I'm not trying to speak for anyone by saying that, but that seems to be where if you start at that base, focusing on weight loss in particular can become contentious.
Being healthy is good, but optimal health isn't always an option for anyone at any given point in their life, and thus there's always some potential trade off for that. Personally, if I were to try to have a healthier diet than I have right now, it would make my life worse and consequently my health worse in other aspects. I didn't come away with the impression from the initial reply that it was suggesting that I sacrifice other aspects of health for better weight. I mean it might up to a point, but not to the point of being aggressive or dangerous about it.
So the way I see it is, optimal health isn't an option for everyone, probably everyone balances different health tradeoffs and perhaps focusing on weight loss more than others seems problematic or not being able to visually see other health effects since they aren't all outwardly observable like weight can be contentious. I think the balancing act is that trying to convey that health encompasses more than weight results in messages that come across as though weight isn't important for health and then trying to correct that comes across as though weight is worth so much of your health that you should prioritize it as number one. I don't think that's what was conveyed in that reply though.
If we recognize health is multifaceted and we're all making tradeoffs and some are more visible than others, as long as we're not pretending like we're not making those tradeoffs then we're not misinforming people. I'm currently a little overweight and I know I'm making that tradeoff and I know that it means I have increased risk factors for various issues, just like I know that not making that tradeoff entails various issues in other ways. Let me be clear on that last statement, I'm not intentionally choosing to be overweight, I'm just pushing away the highly intense negative feelings of hunger or avoiding certain foods by eating more than I need to or should for lack of a better alternative. I didn't come away with the impression that the reply in question was telling me I need to prioritize suffering through other issues in order to lose weight.
-
Comment on Pornhub is now blocked in almost all of the US South in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentWhat is a statewide porn block going to do at a friends house that knows how to use a VPN? Nothing. There is no solution that will be perfect, but making a statewide block that invades privacy and...What is a statewide porn block going to do at a friends house that knows how to use a VPN? Nothing. There is no solution that will be perfect, but making a statewide block that invades privacy and forces insecurity on people's privacy and personal information is way worse of an imperfection than the solution proposed in the comment you replied to.
-
Comment on Pornhub is now blocked in almost all of the US South in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentPresumably if there are parents that fit that criteria, they aren't likely to be posting on Tildes. If they don't have both time and money and struggle with parental responsibilities, I doubt...Presumably if there are parents that fit that criteria, they aren't likely to be posting on Tildes. If they don't have both time and money and struggle with parental responsibilities, I doubt they're thinking much about browsing/using Tildes.
-
Comment on Amazon One Medical telehealth provider sued for US patient death in ~health
Grumble4681 Link ParentThis is the part that sinks Amazon, the healthcare professional not directing someone to seek more appropriate care. From what I had seen a few months ago when I was looking up these online...However the onus is still on the healthcare professional for not immediately directing this man to do that and instead telling him to purchase an inhaler. I don’t know everything about this guy’s life and I can’t just make assumptions about his mental state or his ability to safely get to an urgent care or a hospital. What I may have done in that situation may not have been feasible for him for any number of reasons.
This is the part that sinks Amazon, the healthcare professional not directing someone to seek more appropriate care. From what I had seen a few months ago when I was looking up these online telehealth services and what not, I think all of them I had looked at had specifically said on the website that it only covered certain conditions and if you had anything more serious you would need to seek other care elsewhere.
With healthcare as fucked up as it is, someone trying to use telehealth services for such a serious condition doesn't surprise me that much. An emergency room visit could be a 4+ hour wait depending on what your condition is and your location etc. and it's easy to reason yourself into hoping that whatever is happening to you might not be that serious because if it is serious then you're fucked anyhow. There's also the possibility that people might go to it hoping that the professional can tell them that there is actually a simple solution and it works and prevents a more expensive ER visit, but they probably expect that the healthcare professional on the telehealth services will tell them it's too serious for them to help if it actually is.
-
Comment on Facebook planning to flood platform with AI-powered users in ~tech
Grumble4681 LinkSeems like the vision is to make it so it becomes a personality platform and AI friend platform. I've been hearing a lot about character.ai but that seems like small potatoes compared to Facebook...Seems like the vision is to make it so it becomes a personality platform and AI friend platform. I've been hearing a lot about character.ai but that seems like small potatoes compared to Facebook doing something like this if they push the integration hard. Presumably the audience demands might be a bit different, but I could see some people finding appeal in being friends with celebrities and wouldn't be surprised if there's some kind of AI romance elements in it as well. It's pretty dystopian but what isn't these days.
-
Comment on Is it just me or has advertising lost the plot entirely? in ~life
Grumble4681 LinkWith regards to targeted advertising, I believe that some of that is up to the advertiser right? I'm not big into advertising and I block much of it myself and I've never had a reason to run ads...With regards to targeted advertising, I believe that some of that is up to the advertiser right? I'm not big into advertising and I block much of it myself and I've never had a reason to run ads so I don't know first hand, but my understanding of the business model is that targeting is an upsell. You pay more to get more, in theory anyhow. Youtube or any other service surely has a lot of dynamics factoring into ad slots, I don't know if they always have targeted ads ready to serve up and then only fall back to general ads when they don't have any targeted ads. I mean presumably even in these scenarios Youtube wants the figures to work out that you are more likely to be interested in the ad, because advertisers demand would drop if it didn't, so there is an incentive for them to not just let advertisers throw their money away on advertising that doesn't hit the right audience, at least in terms of getting the right value out of what they paid to place the ads.
I can’t help but wonder if the teams working on them were full of privileged white guys who are saying “yeah, this is what Mexicans are really like” or if there are also rich Hispanics on board who thinks this is something that people really do.
I find it kinda odd to think that only privileged white guys can be out of touch or for that to be the first stereotype imagined when something seems out of touch.
https://www.comparably.com/companies/doordash/executive-team
Not sure how accurate that site is, but looking at that and other sites, it appears DoorDash executive teams are anything but full of privileged white guys. Granted that doesn't mean all of those people have anything to do with what advertising they run, but even in that scenario it's likely indicative that their advertising team isn't full of privileged white guys either.
-
Comment on The return of non-PC language in the US mainstream in ~talk
Grumble4681 Link ParentI mean, trust is not really a factor to me. I think it is a matter of time and resources rather than decision making and knowing the person who is making the decisions. What he has shared about...So, ultimately, I think it just comes down to trust; Either you trust Deimos to make sound decisions to the best his ability, or you don't. I do, largely because I know what a good person he is in real life, and have seen how deftly he has handled moderation going all the way back to his /r/Games days, and even all throughout his time as a reddit admin. But not everyone has that sort of connection to him, and YMMV.
I mean, trust is not really a factor to me. I think it is a matter of time and resources rather than decision making and knowing the person who is making the decisions. What he has shared about his life is enough to recognize that he does not have the same free time others have. If I had to prioritize the same things he did, I'd probably do the same. I wouldn't spend all my time getting into the nitty gritty details of every comment written on a site I host and the terms of which are that everything happens at my sole discretion. I would not be beholden to anyone or owe anyone anything, I'd have a personal stake in doing what I think is fair/right/best for any given circumstance but I wouldn't sacrifice sleep over it or any other personal priorities. So when I put myself in that position, I see someone not as untrustworthy for their personal ethics or anything, but I see someone who has more going on in life than what moderation happens on a small personal project website on the internet.
It's not a lack of trust that leads me to believe the development of the site came to a standstill, it's the realities of life and earning an income and having a family etc. and I think the lack of development of the site is inherently related to the moderation as well. So if I can visibly see one has drastically been affected by it (development), why would I assume that moderation isn't also impacted by it?
-
Comment on The return of non-PC language in the US mainstream in ~talk
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentI'll put my name to it, I think Deimos would do that and I also don't view it as a direct criticism or challenge to Deimos either and think it's just an inherent limitation to a site owned and...I'll put my name to it, I think Deimos would do that and I also don't view it as a direct criticism or challenge to Deimos either and think it's just an inherent limitation to a site owned and 'controlled' for lack of a better word, by one person. I don't think it's incredibly common and I'm not saying he never gives any consideration for context to any reported comments/posts, but I do think there are times where it does and has happened.
I recall seeing some comments deleted that I personally didn't understand why they warranted being deleted and in a few cases I believe I may have clicked on a user's name to find them banned along similar lines, and while my own sensibilities on that don't mean much to anyone else, it does reflect why my perspective would be that I don't think full context is actually given to all cases. I am definitely aware there could be more things to any particular situation or user that I wouldn't be aware of that Deimos would, but without any other disclosure I can only rely on what I have observed.
Because this site isn't run openly and democratically there's no point in saving specific incidents to pull them up later to argue over them or try to get it changed, I don't have a problem with that, I accept that it operates the way it does and that it won't change and I'm fine with it not changing to that extent. I don't think the disagreements I could possibly have over certain moderation decisions are a result of ill-intent and I recognize that they come from a more complex problem where a site like this has had trouble existing sustainably on its own and required personal investment of a single individual to create it and keep it running, among a myriad of other problems that interface with that leading to the way it operates now and how some moderation occurs that is less than ideal. So while I don't have any significant problem with that to the point of trying to change it, I do think it's worth contrasting to other opinions or perspectives that I think falsely portray how it works sometimes.
-
Comment on Pornhub to block access in thirteen states as age-verification laws expand across US in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentThe scale of it is completely different. Giving my ID over to a person in real life exposes my information to that one person who has ephemeral access to the ID within my vision so I can see what...If they also have to provide ID (or by virtue of being looking sufficiently old enough which can subjective of course and cause lapses if you had a minor dedicated enough to try to dress up for it) in real life for viewing this content or in real life/online when buying alcohol it's no different accessing pornography online.
The scale of it is completely different. Giving my ID over to a person in real life exposes my information to that one person who has ephemeral access to the ID within my vision so I can see what they do and don't do with it aside from what happens in their brain and whether they attempt to memorize information on the ID. At least historically this was the predominant context in which this whole system began and was operated under. Modern surveillance and digitization and scanning of IDs does happen in person sometimes these days, and those may also prove to be breaking the dynamic under which IDs were originally designed for.
Giving my ID over the internet exposes my information to billions of people for eternity and they can do whatever they want with it and I have no clue who has seen it or what they might try to do with it.
With how much money sites like PornHub make they can afford to invest in their security to secure users data for whatever time frame is deemed appropriate.
This is just naive. Huge organizations with tons of resources get hacked all the time. Yes there are also some that have designed systems that so far have not necessarily been compromised completely, but as a matter of principle it is safer to assume it is only a matter of time, because of the nature of how security works. PornHub is not on the level of Apple or Google etc. with regards to what one would expect for security, and even those companies have had their lapses in some context or another.
Minors shouldn't be viewing pornographic content.
Based on what? Evidence that overwhelmingly says it leads to disastrous outcomes? On your own sensibilities? I'm not advocating that minors should have access, but I would advocate that parents should have a greater role in that unless evidence overwhelmingly suggests that no parental guidance can overcome detrimental effects. Laws should be in place to help empower parents in technical ways that they may not be able to accomplish on their own because you can't expect everyone to be an expert with computing devices, but by doing this it mitigates the impact on adults who aren't parents while enabling adults who are parents to be able to better influence their child's development. In theory a 'free market' should provide solutions for this without regulation but we all know that we rarely ever have a 'free market' and sometimes regulations are necessary to compel businesses to develop standards that allow them to work together to create solutions that they couldn't otherwise make if they have to compete against each other.
-
Comment on Pornhub to block access in thirteen states as age-verification laws expand across US in ~tech
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentToo bad statista paywalls their supposed sources, and I've seen very questionable stats on statista for other subject matters. Those are less serious things but I was more knowledgeable about them...Too bad statista paywalls their supposed sources, and I've seen very questionable stats on statista for other subject matters. Those are less serious things but I was more knowledgeable about them and knew there to be stats that were incorrect or misrepresented. In any case, I question the accuracy of statista as a general rule because they frequently show up in search results but it almost feels like they automate generation of pages without proper consideration for what stats are presented or how the data was acquired in order to appear on search results for those inquiries. I could be wrong, but that's just my impression.
In any case, those are also flat numbers not accounting for population growth, and while the original statement didn't specify based on percentage of population or such, that would be the fairer way to assess the matter.
Wikipedia has a page with some sources and graphs to perhaps more easily see trends over time and these are not just flat numbers but based on rates per a defined amount of the population. As we all know with Wikipedia, it's not really to be taken as gospel and is more of a jumping off point, where I see some of the information referenced in there is sourced from the DOJ. A lot of the information on that page is not updated to the last decade or so from what I saw, so there's also that, but prior to that it is supposedly the case that rapes were declining.
However useless Google search was, which I'm sure was partly my fault for not using the best search terms, I managed to use one of my limited 100 trial searches on Kagi to find the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics. The other problem with this is how sexual assaults have been defined over time and what methodology is used to track and classify this data.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/list?series_filter=Criminal%20Victimization
This shows yearly reports of criminal victimization surveys and all the details of how they come up with that and broken down by different types of crimes.
https://ncvs.bjs.ojp.gov/quick-graphics#quickgraphicstop
This shows some quick graphics over time, which shows overall violent crime is supposedly down, and then there is a graphic on sexual assault which isn't as clear a picture depending on what time frames you are comparing. If you go back far enough, it's definitely down, but depends on how far back you go. I also don't know if the methodology changed at points between there or how that is conveyed in the graphics.
If you want an example of what is detailed in the full yearly reports, here's a link to one for 2023, but you can find the others in the previous link.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/cv23.pdf
Also here's the dashboard that leads to one of the graphics linked above as well as other ways to show or access the data
-
Comment on Pornhub to block access in thirteen states as age-verification laws expand across US in ~tech
Grumble4681 Link ParentYou don't see a negative in people being required to give over personally identifiable information and private information for it to be stored in unknown databases online? My drivers license is...You don't see a negative in people being required to give over personally identifiable information and private information for it to be stored in unknown databases online?
My drivers license is one of the few things that I rarely ever have to give out or put what exclusive information is on it (mostly the drivers license number) into online databases. I of course don't know what the DMV/BMV does with it on the other end in my state, and there's been cases of states who have been compromised and that data has come out, yet many of these laws are forcing people to fork over an image of their drivers license or some other identification to prove their age. Now is the drivers license number really private or significant? Probably not, but it could be if we weren't so cavalier about things and forced to submit all of this information in the least secure ways possible which inevitably results in someone in the chain not doing their job to secure the information and then gets compromised and spread everywhere.
This is all true for porn sites or any other scenario where this age gating is going to end up spreading too if we don't pressure legislators to better alternative solutions. They might use middle-men websites to do the identity verification and so while it might not be Pornhub that gets hacked, it might be IdentaMidMan LLC they contracted who records my information and then gets hacked.
It's bullshit and these decrepit 70 year old legislators need to stop passing laws that force people to give up security of their personal and private information in order to participate in ordinary activities, which I'd qualify a porn website to be fairly ordinary. There's better technical ways to solve these problems.
-
Comment on A liar who always lies says “All my hats are green.” in ~science
Grumble4681 Link ParentI don't understand how it can be considered a vacuous truth to have no hats. I understand the logic of the other examples given, like "I have read all the books on my shelf", while having no books...I don't understand how it can be considered a vacuous truth to have no hats. I understand the logic of the other examples given, like "I have read all the books on my shelf", while having no books on the shelf, because the status of what you have read can be nothing through something. So it can be possible to have read all the books on the shelf and not have any books on the shelf, because it means you read nothing, which is a possible status. The status of nothing cannot be the color green however. The status of having no hats cannot be that all your hats are green or that they have any properties at all. Sure maybe if you get into some kind of quantum level or something you can argue about states of existence but without that context mentioned that wouldn't be an obvious interpretation of what is otherwise plain language to me.
-
Comment on Man suspected of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO is ordered held without bail after brief court appearance in Pennsylvania in ~news
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentThere's rarely ever any problem that is truly 'solved', so your statement might be true in this case, but I don't think you can look at many significant events in history and say violence isn't a...- Exemplary
The truth is that violence rarely; I won't say never, but really exceedingly rarely solves problems.
There's rarely ever any problem that is truly 'solved', so your statement might be true in this case, but I don't think you can look at many significant events in history and say violence isn't a major factor in causing change. I'm not saying change is always a good thing, or that it always results in a problem being solved, but if the status quo is broken enough, then to many it doesn't matter what changes or how because you may not be able to break something more than it already is.
I don't think violence alone can make a bad situation good or better, there has to be a non-violent alternative for people to turn to, but violence is often the driver behind allowing a compromise on that non-violent alternative to the status quo. Without violence, you have nothing to sway the status quo because the status quo are people who have what they want and need at the expense of others. If they have nothing to fear, they have no reason to change.
Sometimes it doesn't even come down to violence itself, but rather the threat of violence that alters behaviors. We're all subjected to this on a daily basis. Anything you do that might violate the law has an implicit threat of violence behind it, because you could be taken against your will and imprisoned by any physical means necessary, including being killed if you resist. You cannot tell me violence does not work to alter behaviors when its the foundation of law enforcement itself, and it's the only way to get people to stop doing things you don't want them to do when they refuse to compromise or cooperate in any manner.
That doesn't mean anyone can just go around killing people or hurting people, because most people lack a clue about what is going on or who has any sort of real complicity in the bad things that happen or to what degree. And it won't and shouldn't go unpunished, the only time it ever really does is when those who take violent action win the fight. That's not a moral or ethical win, it's just what happens when you hold enough power to dictate the outcomes of your circumstances beyond anyone else's power or will to overcome yours.
Sure it's likely that rich people won't learn a lesson from this, and they'll just get more security, but even Donald Trump was almost assassinated with Secret Service protection. Granted it's seemingly the case they mismanaged the security and others recognized that it could have been done better to prevent that situation from being as close of a call as it was, but it's not necessarily the case that security will guarantee safety. They can choose to not learn a thing and get more security, but if things get worse and people get more desperate, that security may not save them more than if they had changed courses.
The reality is that no individual CEO or such is wholly responsible or even has much of a say in what happens nationally or globally. They are part of a system, if they buck the system, they will likely lose their position because the system does not reward people for doing the right things, it rewards people for doing the greediest things. Then someone else will simply take their place to greed it up. Of course if CEOs are being assassinated at any kind of pace, they might actually start collectively pushing for the system to change while still playing within the system, but that's pretty speculative to say the least. It could also be miscalculated to think this collective of people alone would have the influence to change the system. That's the problem with a growing society, government, policy and business sector, it becomes so nebulous where the power resides that people don't know for sure who to blame for any specific things that are happening. But it's also not hard to realize that money = power in our system, at that point it just becomes about identifying who is using their money against the public's interests.
-
Comment on Donald Trump may cancel US Postal Service electric mail truck contract, sources say in ~society
Grumble4681 Link ParentI think Elon already said he was good with it. He got what he needed from that program already and at this point he's fine with losing it so long as no competition gets to have it either. Tesla is...I think Elon already said he was good with it. He got what he needed from that program already and at this point he's fine with losing it so long as no competition gets to have it either. Tesla is probably the first brand people think of for electric cars and for the longest time had one of the largest shares of the electric vehicle market. Elon supporting this is basically him pulling up the ladder behind him and hurting electric car competition against Tesla.
-
Comment on New industries come from crazy people in ~humanities.history
Grumble4681 (edited )Link ParentThe last part of this writing is an important part of this discussion. Yes, there's an implicit argument being made that these people with problematic behaviors are necessary for innovation in one...I think we should question whether innovation really requires this kind of trade-off. Or, if this framing simply and unfairly normalizes a "necessary evil" mindset that doesn’t hold these individuals accountable. I mean, modern governance and ethics standards do exist for a reason, they were not drafted up just because someone felt like it but because they have been necessary.
The last part of this writing is an important part of this discussion.
Tolerant institutions and culture have been a necessary component of industrial supremacy since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. America was not always the only country that permitted breakthrough industrialists to build unproven new industries and upend the economic order, but it is today. If any other society wishes to match or outpace America in this regard, it will have to do the same.
Yes, there's an implicit argument being made that these people with problematic behaviors are necessary for innovation in one reading, the way it seems to me is that it's a race, and the people who are willing to break the rules and take risks that others wouldn't take are the ones leading the pack, and it happens that America happens to be more tolerant of these people than other societies and thus they are saying that is how the US is the leader in innovation. Now I don't know if that claim is true that the US is the leader in innovation, it's perhaps broad and also vague enough to fit different criteria, but my point is the claim doesn't seem to be saying it's necessary for innovation period, rather than it's necessary to innovate faster than others.
From a societal or national standpoint, you can argue that there is a lot of gain from innovation happening first within your society or within your borders, and to me this is pervasive in all aspects of our governing structure. Many of the things we allow to happen are basically "if we don't do it, then someone else will". If we don't let all our US companies merge together into vertical stacks within their primary industries until they have an outsized influence over society and little to no competition, which allows them to exert influence US culture and influence globally as well, then some other country will do it. If we don't exert influence in global affairs and play world police, someone else might, and they will be the one that gets to dictate terms that favor them instead of us.
It's an insidious approach to collective organizing of people in our society, because there's perhaps an element of truth to it. It's a bit of projection, we thought about doing it and then considered that if we thought about doing it, surely others are too, so we need to do it first, but is there actually anything unique about the people in the US that says we'd have been the only ones to capitalize on this? No, meaning if the US hadn't done it, there's every reason to believe another country would have. Is the world better off because the US did it instead of some other country? Not necessarily, despite that the US probably has tried to portray it this way for so long. Is the US better off because the US did it instead of some other country? In the short term, it seems most likely yes. In the long term, maybe still yes, maybe not. No country or government lasts forever, how do you know what the ceiling is until you hit it? I think we're at the stage where it is going to destabilize our government and country because these few corporations and wealthy people have such extreme outsized influence over the country that what is good for the country and the people are of less relevance compared to what is good for the wealthy and those corporations. It's not the people that are worried about TikTok etc. influencing the American public so much as it is the wealthy elite in the US that are worried that they lose influence and their ability to maintain control over the institutions of this country by influencing what the public thinks, allowing for the illusion of democracy to continue while they still hold the reins.
To me it's a race to the bottom, and I don't know the solution, because it's an uphill climb first so it's a race to the top initially, but it's a long fall down once you get there. That's what it is about to me, innovation and business is just another form of an arms race that a collective of people don't want to lose to another collective of people, and the willingness to tolerate increasingly bad behavior from select individuals in order to win that race, because the other collective of people is also likely willing to turn a blind eye to select individuals in order to win that race.
It makes sense to me that if you break rules, don't care about consequences or harming people, that you can innovate faster, so if that's the implicit argument in this post, then I believe it. I don't think it's necessary to have innovation at all, I just think it's necessary to innovate faster than someone else who is willing to do those things.
-
Comment on Reusing plastic water bottles, to-go containers? Scientists say that’s a bad idea. in ~health
Grumble4681 Link ParentI'm not trying to be argumentative and I'm certainly not an expert on the matter, but in the US, copper pipes used to be fairly common and it seems the EPA advises (though does not enforce) that...I'm not trying to be argumentative and I'm certainly not an expert on the matter, but in the US, copper pipes used to be fairly common and it seems the EPA advises (though does not enforce) that tap water should fall in the 6.5-8.5ph range which could be slightly acidic though it seems more likely that water will be slightly alkaline rather than acidic if advisement is followed. It seems partly to be the case that metal piping is a consideration in why that ph range is advised, to not leech metal into the water. I'm not saying that if water is safe to go through copper pipes its also safe to use as a water bottle, as there could be a myriad of other factors coming into play, just noting that from what I've found it seems unlikely for tap water to be acidic in part because they do need to consider how it impacts existing plumbing infrastructure.
Looking this up also reminded me how the US and probably other countries as well have in many cases moved to PEX/PVC pipes so the water is delivered through plastic tubes in our buildings. Yes these types of plastics are not the same as single-use plastic in terms of how they're constructed/made but does make me realize the extent of how difficult it might be to avoid microplastics.
-
Comment on US President Joe Biden pardons son in ~society
Grumble4681 Link ParentI figured it was a matter of the election and trying to hold as much ground in the election as he could. If he wins the election, he could do whatever he wants after that, if he loses, he can do...Re the pardon, I think it was dumb for Biden to officially say that he wouldn't pardon Hunter. I don't know what he hoped to gain.
I figured it was a matter of the election and trying to hold as much ground in the election as he could. If he wins the election, he could do whatever he wants after that, if he loses, he can do whatever he wants before someone else takes office. But he and advisers probably thought that it mattered to at least some small percentage of voters that he not pardon Hunter. Of course even after he dropped out and handed the election off to Kamala he still was operating under similar constraints.
I am waiting to see whether Biden uses the pardon power to protect journalists or politicians or FBI staff or the attorneys who worked on Trump's cases. Trump has signaled that there will be prosecutions and legal risk for all of these groups of people.
I think it could be useful to do that. It might in some minds support that the Trump cases were partisan, but in the end I'm not sure that really matters because the people who think that way likely aren't going to behave any differently regardless. The fact that they claimed they were partisan before there was any rational basis to claim it means that even if there happens to be some slight case for it later means reality never really had any bearing on what they were going to do anyhow.
-
Comment on Reusing plastic water bottles, to-go containers? Scientists say that’s a bad idea. in ~health
Grumble4681 Link ParentI don't drink anything acidic, I only drink water. I don't drink anything else but water when I'm home at least. The only time I would drink anything other than water is when I'm not at home, and...I don't drink anything acidic, I only drink water. I don't drink anything else but water when I'm home at least.
The only time I would drink anything other than water is when I'm not at home, and typically at restaurants I order water. I only drink something else if it costs me the same as what it would cost me to drink water and if the social friction of trying to get water instead of something else is higher.
I'm not even sure I'd get a copper water cup or bottle but it is good that you mentioned that significant issue with it. I just saw it mentioned in a comment in this thread and did a brief search and it seemed possibly viable (and I did see that you can't use it with anything acidic, but that in particular didn't raise any concerns for me since I only drink water). Though it's far from being in my shopping cart at the moment so if I were actually seriously going to buy one I'd probably do more reading about it anyhow.
I may have been reading too much into it just based on what they published in this article, it sounded like a case of people knowledgeable and familiar with a system move onto other opportunities and new people take over who lack the experience and knowledge to understand the importance of measures that were previously taken and why they are necessary or lack the knowledge that they even possessed these measures.
It starts with presenting us with the perspective of the former New Orleans Homeland Security Director and from there paints a picture of someone who clearly recognized the importance of the measures taken and made a clear plan to prevent such attacks, then eventually mentions how he moves onto another job and other positions in the city change hands and mentions how many of these measures that were previously implemented had potentially fallen into disrepair or were forgotten about by poorly managed institutions.
So the police superintendent acknowledges that she didn't even know that her agency had them.
It's not entirely clear if it just happened to be a coincidence that the bollards were in need of repair recently or if they were poorly maintained. The article mentions this
Though it's not clear when that most recently happened, if it was a frequently occurring issue after parades and if it was then what really was the uptime of these bollards? Perhaps it was flawed from even when the old guard had put them in place.
The remark from the police superintendent, that just struck me as something that I see or hear in so many places. What should be institutional knowledge gets lost between the shuffle, sometimes the shuffle happens so quickly and haphazardly from greed or mismanagement or perhaps other factors at play.