@Bombadil's banner p

Bombadil


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2025 September 09 02:55:55 UTC

				

User ID: 3942

Bombadil


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2025 September 09 02:55:55 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 3942

One wonders how one could advocate for workers' rights and treating employees fairly, and yet also support the importation of a workforce to be exploited by employers for the sole purpose of reducing costs.

Traditionally, I believe communists were against mass immigration for this very reason. By all means spread the revolution to the rest of the world, but do not import cheap labor as it only benefits the business owners. Supporting immigration is a relatively new thing, and one that is mostly rooted in the belief that rich countries have a duty to help poor people, whereever they may be. It is the drowning child thought experiment brought to its logical conclusion. If someone is suffering and we can do something to help, it becomes a moral duty. If it requires sacrifice then so be it. Especially when people are literally drowning trying to reach our shores.

This could potentially mark the beginning of the end of the freedom of movement between EU countries. Right wing politicians are already pouncing on this, and no one wants to spend resources on welfare programs for people who didn't earn it. Even the left struggles with justifying this, with their main fallback being that the immigrants will start contributing more than they consume eventually. A way of thinking that can be true, but has been proven wrong enough times that it has lost much of its power.

I am of the opinion that violence for the sake of teaching should be reserved for very rare moments, and that making it illegal has largely been good for the education system, as other methods generally get you there without risk of traumatizing the student.

As an occasional lump myself, I have an alternative suggestion: Confiscate anything with access to the internet. Easy, no friction access to mental stimulation really is the culprit here. It doesn't even have to be completely effective. Just making it significantly harder to access the internet should prove effective.

I understand why large LLM developers are against distillation. It is essentially patent infringement, basically a way to copy their weights. It destroys their business model when someone can just wait until they finish the expensive training process and copy their results. But seeing as these corporations did not care about the intellectual property concerns regarding the data they used for training, I have a hard time seeing that they really have a patent to infringe upon. They neither produced nor owned the data they used for training. It follows then that they also don't really have a claim to their weights.

That seems counterproductive to doing experiments. You would want your solvents to be as uniform as possible, to ensure that your study conditions can be replicated and verified by others.

We are talking about replacing your daily water intake entirely. I agree that the claim seems unlikely when you consider it seriously though. The more relevant question is why would you want to distill your drinking water in the first place?

I got it from chemistry teachers and people working in labs. It might just be something they say to keep people from drinking it. Just like the story that the lab ethanol is treated with something that makes you puke, so that students won't steal it for their parties.

Why are you doing reverse osmosis on your water? It sounds like an expensive way to treat it with no obvious benefit.

The intuition for why distilled water is bad, is that it will leech out minerals from your cells through osmosis. Obviously, there are no human trials to prove this, as is pointed out below (do note that the paper cited in that comment is not peer reviewed, and only "published " on researchgate, so take it with a grain of salt). It is entirely possible that this is a story made up by chemistry teachers to keep students from drinking it. This has historically not been studied, as distilled water is expensive and there is no obvious reason for drinking it instead of tap/bottled water.

I would say "ask your doctor", but frankly your dietary choices seem speculative enough that there won't be significant amount of research done on them, and so no real authoritative evidence in any direction.

I think you need to face that you are running a dietary experiment here. You are going to have to be the expert.

What happened to Neuralink? I recall them moving to human trials a few years back, but there have been no news since. Did it turn out to be harmful to the patients?