exasperation

@exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fancy pants⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  I think if I’m working over hot fryer oil I’d want a secure grip on each part, so I’d probably still be using something pinchy to smoothly pull through. One loose stick seems like it wouldn’t be enough control to move quickly and safely.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fancy pants⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:

  Boneless corn dogs, yes. This is a good idea.

  When I make corn dogs with my own batter, the little sticks are helpful for dipping the hot dogs in the batter before frying. That said, I bet I could batter them with the stick, and figure out a way to release them into the fryer with some tongs or tweezers so that I can keep the even batter thickness and radial symmetry.

  Ok I’m trying that this summer.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A long-ass way to write 'not parmesan'.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Rapesan

  I’m not familiar with this anime character.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A long-ass way to write 'not parmesan'.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Any food where they use maltodextrin to make powdered fat (that is, many flavored chips) tends to catch fire really easily. Great kindling, because fats are high in energy and turning it into powder really increases the surface area to mass ratio so that any free oxygen will quickly react and make fire.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A long-ass way to write 'not parmesan'.⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  the process in processed cheese allows them to go as light as they want with the real cheese, I’m sure some government regulation has a minimum but the core point is that not all American cheese is the same

  For the formal legal definition, American cheese can only be mixed with water and cream, such that the fat from the cream is less than 5% of the total product.

  They’re allowed to add:

  • Water but the total moisture content of the cheese can’t be more than 40%, and the fat content must be at least 47% of the solids (that is, the non-water part) in the total.
  • Cream or milkfat but not so much to where fat from this cream/milkfat exceeds 5% of the total product.
  • Acidifying agents but have a minimum pH
  • Salt but it still needs to taste good
  • Spices and flavorings that don’t taste like cheese, but still need to taste good
  • Smoke but it still needs to taste good
  • "Harmless artificial coloring" which by its nature isn’t going to constitute a significant percentage of the total weight
  • Mold inhibitors up to 0.3% of the final product
  • If sliced, lecithin may be added as an anti-sticking agent up to 0.03% of the final product.

  Basically I can’t think of a way to make stuff that can legally be called “American Cheese” without using at least 90% cheese as an ingredient. If you cut it with too much water you’ll run afoul of the milkfat and moisture minimums. And everything else you’re allowed to add is never going to constitute more than 1% of the end product.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Theories on Theories⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Outliers are treated fundamentally differently between them, they are treated as bugs in economics, but as features in medicine.

  I don’t understand what you mean by this.

  Let’s take for example a simple example of the outlier of the person who smokes a lot of cigarettes but outlives the person who doesn’t smoke. Does this break the model where smoking harms health and increases all cause mortality (which we know through epidemiological observation of deaths, which is not in any sense a double blind test)? Where does this observation fit into medicine?

  Or take the example of a discontinuity regression in economics. A jurisdiction passes a law increasing the minimum wage above the market-clearing wage in that area, which shares a border with another jurisdiction that has a similar market clearing wage. Can we observe the differences on both sides of that border to see whether the minimum wage increase leads to an increase in unemployment? Yes, it’s just applied math at that point.

  Where does behavioral economics fit into your ideas of how economics expects a rational actor? There are differences in behavior that have been measured by economists in different situations, and those are important ideas in economic behavior and observations. So why do you assume those models have been discarded in favor of some sort of doctrinal insistence that humans behave in a particular way?

  And if you’re describing the reluctance of practitioners to abandon the core ideas of their models, or the core paradigms of their disciplines, I’d observe that you’re largely correct but wrong to assume it doesn’t happen in things that you’d probably call science, from medicine to meteorology to epidemiology. Things get overturned slowly, and sometimes these paradigm shifts meet a lot of resistance for an entire generation: phlogiston proponents slowly coming around on oxygen, cosmologists saying “fine I guess dark energy exists.”

  The critiques you lob at economics are valid. I just think you under appreciate how much they apply to hard science, too.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Theories on Theories⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Plenty of medical science doesn’t lend itself well to double blind studies. In vivo infection models can’t ethically be tested with double blind studies, and can only be observed. Lots of medicine advances through observational studies, too, like almost anything relating to nutrition or lifestyle or trauma. There’s no double blind study on how survivable car accidents are.

  Plus double blind studies themselves don’t necessarily have any kind of explanatory power (see the entire field of anesthesia where we know how much of each anesthetic it generally takes to put people under, but we don’t know the underlying mechanism it uses to make people go under). Or, for that matter, Tylenol (whose mechanism of action remains a mystery).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Theories on Theories⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  how does that relate to Popper?

  When a weatherman’s prediction is falsified, the model itself is not disproven. The fact that the practitioners of that discipline stick with it even when a prediction is falsified starts to look like the pseudoscience side of Popper’s falsifiability criterion.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Theories on Theories⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  In what way? And how does that differ from how medicine measures pain?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Theories on Theories⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  What definition of pseudoscience would capture economics without capturing medicine, ecology, or meteorology?

  Everyone’s just using models here, and the way we incorporate statistical observations to define the limits of the models’ scope, and refine the models over time, or reject the models entirely, applies to economists, meteorologists, seismologists, and many branches of actual human medicine.

  Popper would define pseudoscience as predictions that can’t be falsified, but surely that can’t apply to the idea of the weatherman predicting rain and being wrong, right?

  Kuhn came along and argued that science is about solving problems within paradigms, and sometimes rejecting paradigms in scientific revolutions (geocentrism vs heliocentrism, Newtonian physics versus Einstein’s relativity), but it wasn’t a particularly robust test for separating out pseudoscience.

  Lakatos categorized things further at explaining how model-breaking observations could be handled within the structure of how science performs its work (limiting the scope of the model, expanding the complexity of the model to fit the new observations, proposing specific exception handlers), but also observed the difference between the hard core of a discipline, in which attempts at refutation were not tolerated, and auxiliary hypotheses where the scientists were free to test their ideas for falsifiability.

  But when you use these ideas to try to understand how science works, I don’t think economics really stands out as less scientific than cancer research or climatology or other statistically driven scientific disciplines.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dr. Jesus and the half chimpanzee man.⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s not photoshop it’s slop.

  Which part? The entire image, with the exception of the patient, is just the AI image Trump posted last week. The patient’s face is just the photograph of that Israeli settler from the cover of some magazine.

  Combining two images with Photoshop is a pretty normal way to use Photoshop. Complaining that a particular source image is AI ignores the actual reason why it was posted, and why there was an editorial reason to want to post an otherwise faithful copy of the original, modified in a specific way.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Dr. Jesus and the half chimpanzee man.⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  It’s just a regular Photoshop blend of a newsworthy photograph over a particularly newsworthy AI generated image. There’s no net increase in AI here in this post.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Why is classy and fancy being called "Old Money aesthetic"⁩ ⁨⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Social media users are prone to using terms in nonsensical ways.

  Very mindful, very demure.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Talk like an 👽⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Maybe other intelligent life forms don’t make the same assumptions that we do that lead to the statement that there are two “apples,” and maybe mathematics isn’t universal.

  That just shows that “Apple” isn’t necessarily universal, and doesn’t actually disprove the universality of the concept of “two.”

  There are a ton of different physical ways to represent the Fibonacci sequence, for example, and I would imagine the first contact looks for ways to find the mutually understood medium by both sides: raised symbols, pulses of radiation, pulses of vibrations, physical pebbles arranged in a line, physical pebbles manipulated over a timeline, etc.

  Once we establish a common medium, we’d explore mutual understanding of prime numbers, approximations of pi/e/phi, and things like that.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Space Honey⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  You can swallow things while dangling upside down. The esophagus is strong enough to work against gravity.

  But liquids are a little bit more difficult, because they tend to flow in unexpected places in the mouth/sinuses/nose before trying to swallow.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Wacky⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Jim, would you like a sex metaphor or a nature metaphor?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨UwU🥺👉👈⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  this would not work

  You assume the goal is to actually try to date or fuck. It’s not. The goal is to intimidate and degrade, to make someone else uncomfortable. So viewed through that lens, it works.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Fun game⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  The cardinality of this infinite board is the same as a board with infinite number of rows, though, so same same.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨A shrubbery!⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  Yup, gardeners are encouraged to cut off the tops of basil so that it doesn’t flower (and then it doesn’t turn woody).

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Classic fucking Linda⁩ ⁨⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  And then you eat two desserts out of counter-spite. Win win.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Basic geography⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Lemme tell you about Gambia’s relationship with Senegal

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨College core: you sit in the class for attendance then go home and teach yourself⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Once I understood this, school really started to click. Too bad it wasn’t until I had baked in a shitty undergrad GPA.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Who said anything about scamming? At most, it’s an accusation of trolling for the lulz. Which is actually quite common on the internet.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Someone tell the world to slowdown so I can catch up to the events of the previous 12 hours properly⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Extrapolating from the plot of the Fugitive, I think it’s safe to say he’s murdered 4 people!

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Im pan so anyone can apply⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Flicking beans is back on the menu I guess

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I definitely know at least one woman IRL that would post like that.

  Aight let’s do a quick lesson in Bayes Theorem, here in a shitpost community.

  Imagine there is a disease that exists in 1% of the population. Medical science develops a test with 90% accuracy (both in false positives and false negatives) on whether a person has the disease. Your doctor orders the test, and it comes up positive and saying that you have the disease. What is the probability that you actually have it?

  Well if you test an entire population of 1000, 10 of whom have the disease, it will correctly positively identify 9 out of 10 who have the disease, and incorrectly give false positive results to 99 out of the 990 who don’t have it. So among the 108 people who get positive results, you only about 8.3% chance of having the disease.

  My Bayesian priors for an anonymous prolific poster of thirstposts in a shitposting community on a heavily tech-centric social media platform is that they’re about 90% likely to be 30+ year old men. Claiming to be an 18 year old woman might move the needle a little bit, but not as much as you might think.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨That's how the world works.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  Some startups are trying to synthesize edible fats from non-biological feedstocks, using just energy, water, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen, through the Fischer Tropsch process.

  Personally I’m more interested in seeing whether that can expand into just manufacturing hydrocarbons with excess solar energy, rather than synthetic food, but it’s still cool to see that people can do it.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨That's how the world works.⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I can do that. I’ll keep track of everyone’s food, you know, in exchange for food.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How do wealthy people know if the people they meet are wealthy or not?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  With enough training you can learn to distinguish buttholes that have been recently rinsed with the Toto Washlet.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨How do wealthy people know if the people they meet are wealthy or not?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

  I’ll defer to your personal experience, but when I walk into a place like that (usually as a guest of someone who is actually staying there) I’m always like “ok I don’t belong here.”

  I make good money but also don’t think I’d physically be able to swing some of the spending required at places like that. Like, I just wouldn’t have the funds in my bank account.