Remember the time BLM protesters disrupted Bernie’s primary rally in 2015?

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/black-lives-matter-protesters-shut-down-bernie-sanders-rally/

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot

And just categorically saying any alternative must be just as bad is just a non-sequitur, there’s no reason that should be true. Cookware is a good example, cast iron works just as well, is not as bad, the only downside compared to teflon is weight. But it’s not like sending us back to the stone age or anything…

You can have your own opinion here, but anything which performs like PFAS compounds, in the variety of uses that PFAS is used, will almost certainly be bad. In general when you make new compounds and materials which are more complex their potential health impacts are worse. PFAS is already an extremely complex material and while broad sweeping statements might not be 100% accurate, I wouldn’t bet that it’s replacement would be better for people.

It’s another thing altogether if you are recommending going backward in the development chain, cookware is a good example here but it’s limited case underlies the ubiquity of PFAS. Hell, PFAS is a major component in computer part manufacturing and is part of the reason computing technology has progressed as it has.

Um, no it doesn’t… maybe you’re confusing micrograms for nanograms?

I don’t have a lot of thoughts on the matter, I know a good bit about PFAS, not microplastics. Grams vs Nanograms is a huge difference, but I don’t know if that’s detrimental or not. Looking over the link you provided the study provides it’s own description of limitations which may or may not be trivial.

You can’t have it needed in some stuff and critically dangerous if it’s a bio-accumulating chemical that virtually never breaks down. To reduce it enough to not be a hazard world wide you would functionally have to stop using it everywhere.

I haven’t seen any definitive results on dangerous health levels, 4.4 ng/kg might be it, but then other studies show people with mg/L of blood concentration. Overall the effects of exposure seem to depend on more than just the concentration, such as health status, exposure duration, magnitude of exposure, and how lucky you got with the genetic lottery. Even then we are fairly certain it is bad, we just don’t know what or how specifically. I would also throw caution at any study using ng as a serious measurement here, especially over prolonged exposure. The problem with measuring on such a low level is that you have far too much uncertainty to claim any true accuracy, at best these studies are guessing when they throw out numbers. Hell, the EPA just came out with a standardized method for analyzing PFAS last year.

At those levels of exposure you’re probably getting it just from eating commercially grown fruits and vegetables, because it can bio-accumulate in those as well.

In reality no one can say for certain, but a lot of research is pointing to long term exposure being bad. The problem is that the research to determine how bad will take decades (and has been going on for decades at this point). Right now it’s being used as the boogeyman for every sort of ill from causing cancer, infertility, issues with lactation, liver failure, high cholesterol, thyroid disease, and auto-immune disorders. Basically the preliminary research says that it at least in part impacts all of these things, we just don’t know how much.

On the flip side bacon also causes cancer and high cholesterol at some level. That’s not to make light of the situation, but it does give some credence to your earlier statement.

The thing people are missing in these discussions is what are they willing to live without if we don’t use these chemicals. Going without non-stick cookware is literally the tip of the iceberg. How do we feel about cars, furniture, and mattresses being more flammable because they don’t have the fire retarding forever chemicals? How do we feel about stain resistance, oil resistance, water resistance, and slip resistance in everything including shoes, umbrellas, clothes, oven mitts, jackets, and more? How do we feel about needing to clean everything including clothes, appliances, and floors more often. How about in industry where it’s used as a fume suppressant so smelly chemicals don’t waft as far or fire fighting foams the next time an electric car catches on fire? This stuff is even in the wrapping of your food so the it doesn’t go through the packaging and cause a mess as easily.

Dupont coined the phrase “Better Living Through Chemistry” and that chemistry is PFAS. It’s in your clothes when you buy them, it’s in your detergent when you clean them, it’s in the cleaner that you wipe your washer off with, it’s in the floor sealant of the laundry room that washer is in, it’s in the gloves you wear while cleaning that laundry room, it’s in the carpet in the room next to the laundry room, and the list goes on and on.

Dropping PFAS chemicals fully would probably send us back to the 1960’s or we’ll end up replacing it with something just as bad that we don’t know the effects of yet.

Yo, we’re in Trump land now, Fascism already won my dudes. Biden is just seeing the writing on the wall and adapting to the change. Trump already pardoned Jared Kushner’s criminal dad, so why not pardon your own son now? The game is changed and if you’re still holding on to ethical ideals you’re a fool. At the very least Biden is making sure they can’t chase his son as part of a witch hunt next year.

People voted for Trump or failed to turn out for Kamila, either way everyone now needs to get used to the new norm.

EDIT: The irony of blasting Biden for going against his word in his son’s best interest while Trump is about to become president is the most laughable hypocrisy I’ve ever seen. If this group is actually just a bunch of super leftist and not foreign manipulation then I look forward to watching y’all eat crow as Israel wipes out Palestine, the US leaves NATO, and western democracy collapses.

From the mind behind the design of the Cybertruck and naming his website X. God that’s going to be some grade A cringe.

Omg you are a legend!

Oh wow, that cheating bit is interesting and something I would not have thought of. The games I play are prominently online, do you know if this is an issue with them?

I’m preparing for a new computer build and I have some questions. I’m feeling really scorned by Windows 11 and its incompatibility with my current hardware as well as the overall sense of that my privacy is being invaded. I’m not super familiar with linux, but I have messed around with various distros.

The build I’m planning to put together will likely use an AMD processor, but I’m uncertain about the GPU (definitely AMD or Nvidia). With my current build, RX 480 and i5-6500 I have found that in recent years I get massive artifacts in relatively old games such as Planetside 2 and Path of Exile (I also play Magic Arena quite a bit, but haven’t experienced any issues there). I even get screen tearing when watching youtube or amazon prime. It’s possible that my card is just dying, but considering that I don’t consistently see these issues across multiple applications I feel like it might be a driver issue.

I’d really like feedback and to know more about Linux gaming (especially with the games mentioned) as well as experience with AMD, Nvidia, and Intel hardware.

Thanks to anyone who responds.

And then he’ll either walk away glad he dodged a bullet or slip drugs into her drink and probably not face any real consequences. People don’t seem to understand how the Rogan/Musk/Tate loving Trump supports think. Just a reminder, a higher percentage of women voted for Trump in this election than last so I don’t think the political right is going to be significantly impacted by this.

Eh, I’ll concede that she wasn’t screaming her ideals as loud as possible, but that goes back to my original point. The political left is a fickle voter base. Kamala had good ideas, she had policies, she had been part of the successes made under Biden, but she put most of her focus into attacking Trump. It sounds like the argument being made is that uninformed voters weren’t encouraged enough to vote and more liberal disenfranchised voters didn’t turn out because they didn’t like her policies. If this is the case which makes more sense:

1.) Making some policy changes so they can get people who don’t historically come out to vote to do so or,

2.) Making some policy changes so that people who historically come out to vote will vote for them.

Someone threatening not to vote, when they historically don’t anyways, isn’t much of a threat or motivation.

I don’t know, at this point I’m starting to ask myself if it’s the Democrats fault if the majority of the people agree with the opposition? If she had won the popular vote and lost the electoral college I might have believed that it was simply appealing more to the Democratic base or appealing to less enfranchised liberals, but she lost the popular vote by a long shot. Not only did she lose, but she lost after the other guy has had 4 years of public attack, federal crimes, rape convictions, Project 2025, and basically promising that Palestinians and Ukrainians will get fucked. Hell, the percentage of women that voted for Trump went up in this election.

If people didn’t turn out because Democrats aren’t appealing to leftist ideals enough I fear the message heard by the DNC isn’t to appeal to even more progressive or socialist ideals, but to adopt even more moderate policies. Just facing the facts, but the political left is an unreliable voter group and it’s extremely entitled. Instead of trying to be a foil to Republican ideals Democrats are more likely to try more moderate options. Think of it as creating an alternative instead of being an opposite, Coke and Pepsi instead of Coke and Sprite. It feels like the needle of America’s social equilibrium has permanently moved to be more conservative.

It’s kinda hard to call that a threat. It’s more accurate to say it’s an accusation that the guy is a terrorist.

I think arguments about who has a claim aren’t the real question here. Recency vs historic rights to a region aren’t enough and really never have been. The whole argument comes down to who has the power to hold the region and any arguments to the contrary are naive. Israel has the power, Palestinian’s didn’t want to play ball, so Israel took the ball home. A large part of Israel being able to hold the region has come down to geopolitics and capitalism. A lot of companies have headquarters and branches in Israel which makes a lot of money. Hamas, like the Taliban, are not expected to be good for big business. On top of that, Israel is friendly and cooperative with western allies and is one of the few such in the region. The west is not going to trade a friendly but harshly conservative Israel for an unfriendly and even more conservative Hamas.

You can talk all day about who deserves what, who has rights to what, and what the moral thing to do is. At the end of the day the world is going to follow the Golden Rule, “He who has the gold makes the rules.”

It’s kinda hard to call that a threat. It’s more accurate to say it’s an accusation that the guy is a terrorist.

I don’t have a novel idea, I’m not trying to change the two party system that exists. The fact that the current two party system has been in existence since 1932 and the overall structure has existed since 1854 is what gives it weight and value. It’s continued existence is what proves the model. The burden of proof is on those who wish to change the system, not on those participating in the current one.

People have wanted to end the two party system basically from it’s inception, yet despite that there has never been significant enough traction to make that happen. At best detractors have replaced one of the two parties, but the overall number of parties and their operation has remained the same.

My view has as much weight as yours

This is literally what conspiracy theorists and nut jobs say as well. You are entitled to have your own opinion and to say what you want, but that doesn’t make it equal. What is different between the current system and your view is that the current system has actually been in place and working for more than a hundred years. Until you can come up with a way to get from the inception of your idea to a completed system then your view has no weight. You want to wail against the system, but you want other people to figure out how to make your view work. As I said in my initial comment to you, that’s just idealism.

Well I disagree that my view isnt possible.

Your disagreement has about as much weight and value as a flat earther disagreeing that the world is round.

Other than that we would have to convince politicians to give away power, which is very unlikely.

Which is why your disagreement doesn’t matter.

And I already voted for Kamala but she wasnt the best choice for me by much, and I’m not saying trump was second. But that has more to do with the state I’m in than anything. If I was a county over I would have voted for a third party.

Hey that’s totally fair, I’m not saying she should be everyone’s preferred choice, but people are going around in circles saying that they won’t vote for Kamala like they don’t understand the ramifications of that. We have a two party system, those parties aren’t vague ideas but private corporate entities with tax benefits and assets. After Bernie lost in 2016 there was a lawsuit that alleged that the DNC had committed fraud by making certain efforts to ensure Hillary won the primary. The result of the case was that they found the proof and the DNC chair persons admitted it in court. The result was that the case was dismissed, nothing illegal was done, donating to the party or voting in the primaries makes no promise that a candidate you pick will win the primary. The judge basically said that the parties private entities that are allowed to conduct their party business the way they want.

The system that exists is built to keep it two parties and benefits those two parties.

If you’re in a county or state where your vote won’t matter than do what you want. My state lets you vote in either primary so I voted in the Republican Primary because we will go Republican and I at least wanted to have a say on who would be getting state positions.

Amen, I was so freaking mad in 2016 because I was a big Bernie supporter and I remember reading an article where some college kids had been polled. The kid in question said he wasn’t really fond of Hillary and was thinking of not voting for her. The interviewer asked who he liked to which he said he really preferred Bernie Sanders and was upset he didn’t win the primary. The interviewer then asked if he had voted in the primary and the kid said he had forgotten to go vote.