Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)P

PetDinosaurs

@ PetDinosaurs @lemmy.world

Posts
2
Comments
17
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Living the dream

    Jump

  • Agreed.

    I might also argue that those people are all still engineers.

    Engineer just means "problem solver". Everyone gets paid for solving problems.

    The real question in my head is how far does this go?

    Sometimes the problem is that these burgers need flipping. Protein disk translocation engineers? I'm cool with that.

  • Living the dream

    Jump

  • I always thought about going to be a farmer. Then I watched some videos from farmers and realized they are also engineers.

  • Living the dream

    Jump

  • A large faction of engineers, especially software-type engineers, have these types of hobbies.

    I'm sitting here right beside the heirloom quality (compared to most furniture) coffee table I made in my garage with my nearly complete wood shop.

    I make stuff in two ways in my day job. I design something and someone else makes it, or it's just some idea as software.

    Engineers are a type. We're just wired differently from most other people.

  • Do humans have an inherent tendency to want to answer/respond to questions?

    Jump

  • Just say you're not going to hurt yourself or anyone else.

  • Do humans have an inherent tendency to want to answer/respond to questions?

    Jump

  • As an anonymous Internet person, I want you to know that I care about you.

    I also want you to know that I've gone through a lot of struggles, and I support you.

  • Do humans have an inherent tendency to want to answer/respond to questions?

    Jump

  • Are you feeling ok? Can you share some more of your feelings?

  • Do humans have an inherent tendency to want to answer/respond to questions?

    Jump

  • Can you clarify this a bit more? I'm not understanding this yet.

  • Do humans have an inherent tendency to want to answer/respond to questions?

    Jump

  • Psst. That's the joke.

    I quickly responded to your question with no, but the only people who would do that are people who really want to answer questions.

    In any case, I think you're correct enough for this joke. At least some people really want to answer questions, and I have a questioning 5 yo.

  • Do humans have an inherent tendency to want to answer/respond to questions?

    Jump

  • No.

  • Security expert reveals surprising way to make your password stronger: use emojis

    Jump

  • 💯🐴🔋(umm, staple)

  • Are there any people who hates music?

    Jump

  • Music was much better when I was younger and more emotionally vulnerable.

    I also like music from before my time, when they used to let ugly people make it.

    It's complicated.

  • Cooking @lemmy.world
    PetDinosaurs @lemmy.world

    It's getting to be soup season. What are your favorite soups?

  • How do you feel about financing a genocide?

    Jump

  • Oh yeah, and you know the justification for indigenous peoples being granted their land back because their ancestors used to live there, and they were removed?

    That's the exact same situation for Israel. The Jews used to live in Israel until they were kicked out.

    Let that complicate your morality.

  • How do you feel about financing a genocide?

    Jump

  • Also please remember that Europe purchased nearly the entirety of products produced by slaves in the Americas.

    If there were no European market there would have been little incentive for American slavery.

    I guess the slave free northern states also purchased their fair share, but nothing compared to Europe.

  • The temptation is always there

    Jump

  • Most people suck at software engineering.

    Plus, there's always the temptation to do it the shitty way and "fix it later" (which never happens).

    You pay your technical debt. One way or another.

    It's way worse than any gangster.

  • Newsom signs bill to make California first state in nation to ban "toxic" food additives

    Jump

  • There is, but banning these substances is a political process not a scientific one. It's definitely true that this should be done by experts and not politicians.

    The thing is that it's impossible to set up an experiment to show that something is safe. All you can do is collect more evidence that something is not dangerous. This leads to GRAS.

    There's also the additional fact that the dosage makes the poison. There is no substance for which a single molecule can harm you meaningfully.

    Roundup is about as toxic as tablesalt. Caffeine is vastly more toxic than that. And Tylenol, well, that simply wouldn't be approved if it were invented today. The ratio between the therapeutic dose and the lethal dose is too small.

    Then there's tradition and utility.

    Plenty of herbal supplements and even foods are quite dangerous but are sold because they always were and they are "natural".

    We can all agree that certain substances don't belong in food - either because they are useless or there's strong evidence they're harmful.

    It's the useful ones for which there is some evidence that they may cause issues when given in extreme doses, but a vast number of substances exhibit that behavior. Caffeine and Tylenol, for example. You do not think of these as poisons, but they are. Caffeine is so dangerous that you have to go through a lot of trouble to get it in its pure form.

    The fact is that those supstances are certainly more dangerous than the substances in the article, but people are not clamoring to ban them.

    And all this complexity is before people's individual interests are involved.

    This is why when you compare, say, us and eu food regulations you find substances that are on one list and not the other. One is not a superset of the other.

    Anyway, these substances are not "toxic" in really any correct usage of the term, and it's probably very unlikely that a ban will make anyone healthier or happier, despite what you may read about when you Google these substances. Even if you go to the scientific level.

    Scientists can have their own agenda. They're still people. Or they can just be bad scientists. Or they can just be churning out papers as fast as possible to increase their prestige.

    It used to be that the top paper that came up (it may still be up in the list) when you search glyphosate and bees was a bad paper. It did correctly conclude that glyphosate killed the bees when they put it in the honey, but they had to put so much in there in order to see any effect at all that the concentration was high enough to actually kill aquatic weeds. Next it wasn't properly controlled. Do you know what else will kill bees if put it in their honey? Water. And most definitely caffeine. I assure you a very small amount of caffeine in honey will kill a nest.

    It's just a political thing with good optics because who can argue with banning a "toxic" substance.

  • Asklemmy @lemmy.ml
    PetDinosaurs @lemmy.world

    Are you really smart? Are you really dumb? Are you average? How did you come to your conclusion?

  • Never to old to be part of the crew

    Jump

  • My great aunt Ginny (long gone) also used to be a dish.

    I'm closer to the old lady that the young ladies.

    Can I do /c/fuckimold ?