TauZero
@TauZero@mander.xyz
- Comment on This Apple Lie at the grocery store 1 week ago:
You misunderstand the idea of cost per calorie. The expectation is that you start with something nutritionally-complete, like these soylents, the frozen rice+vegs+chicken dinners, or even the frozen apple pies (how ever nonconventional these may be), or if that is not possible then a combination of several foods in a ratio that makes them nutritionally complete, and then scale up to hit that 1500cals/day target. A single item or known ratio of items so I don’t have to think about this ever again. If I didn’t care about nutrition I’d just be chugging high fructose corn syrup (<$1/day) which you never saw me say. My daily meal ends up being rice and beans drenched in olive oil with some raw vegetables-of-the-day on the side, since I can’t afford the soylents.
- Comment on This Apple Lie at the grocery store 1 week ago:
I’d love these! I’m the target audience but they cost even more per calorie than microwaveable frozen meals do.
- Comment on This Apple Lie at the grocery store 1 week ago:
I hate the amount of time it takes to cook and eat things every day. 😆 The microwavable frozen foods section would have been my first choice, there is usually enough selection to find something suitable, but the dollars-per-calorie cost is way too high, on order of $20-$30 per day. This pie is $15 and has enough calories for 2 days and takes zero work. Sugar and fat are already two of the three main ingredients I need. Also protein, but the wheat in the crust has some. Apples are a fruit, they have vitamins and shit. Looks good to me!
- Comment on This Apple Lie at the grocery store 1 week ago:
The authors do not note any conflicts of interest The scientists are from Nigeria, one of the largest producers of palm oil, so it could be in their nationalistic interest to dismiss palm oil health concerns to promote their international exports. It’s like reading an article about how ICE cars are better for the invironment than electric cars written by an American.
They themselves admit in the opening abstract that “Most of the information in mainstream literature is targeted at consumers and food companies with a view to discourage the consumption of palm oil.” I’ll stick with doing what the mainstream tells me until and unless the mainstream changes.
Some of the links in the paper are more interesting though because they include actual randomized experiments, like the one where people were randomly assigned to switch to palm olein oil or olive oil for cooking, and both were about as good for their cholesterol levels. Palm olein is the liquid fraction of fractionated palm oil, high in oleic acid. I am actually open to the idea that palm olein could be better than some of the other cooking oils like soybean oil or corn oil, which I also avoid at all cost, or lard. However whether palm olein is a better substitute for soybean oil is a separate question from whether the solid palm oil is a better substitute for butter, which the Nigerian paper just lumps all in the same category. It’s the highly-saturated fatty acids in the solid fraction, the same ones that make palm oil butter-like, that are the problem for my pie search.
- Comment on This Apple Lie at the grocery store 1 week ago:
Thankfully I always check ingredients before purchase. Haven’t had my fill of apple pie in months. 😭
this company is owned by the dickhead maga mayor in my state
The plot thickens!
- Submitted 1 week ago to mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world | 139 comments
- Comment on Is it possible that the rich are so rich that they have created inflation? 5 months ago:
You overlooked the hundred trillion dollar coin inside the […].
- Comment on Is it possible that the rich are so rich that they have created inflation? 5 months ago:
No, money at rest does not create inflation. It is the consumption of goods and services through use of money that does. Trump could mint a one hundred trillion dollar coin and put it on display in the White House, and this would have no effect on prices, even though he is now richer than all Americans put together… as long as the coin stays on display. But the moment he tries to deposit the coin at a bank and start spending its value to pay for goods and services, all prices will skyrocket, because now there are more dollars competing to buy the same amount of food, the same number of houses, the same number of services, that existed/was being produced before, the same that you are trying to buy.
Remember those news articles last year how the wealthiest 10% of Americans drive 50% of consumer spending? That’s how the rich influence prices. Not hoarding - consumption. The poorest 90% (those earning less than $250k/year, namely you) only have access to 50% of food and consumer goods and such. One person from top 10% consumes 9x more than one person from bottom 90%. If wealth inequality did not exist and the 10% consumed as much per person as the 90%, then you would literally be able to buy 1.8x as much stuff as you can now, with no other changes in productivity required.
- Comment on Am I financially enabling child labor in 3rd world countries by buying second hand fast fashion? 5 months ago:
Unpopular opinion: yes, you do. 2nd-hand markets contribute to the value of the original item even for things like clothing. When you buy a 2-year old car with intention to sell at 4 years, the price you are willing to pay includes the resale value you expect to get later. Which in turn influences the price of the new car that the original buyer is willing to pay. Another commenter mentioned cell phones having a chain of resales too.
But even for cheaper items that are donated instead of resold, the 2nd-hand use of the item has a non-zero effect on the original production and sale of it, because the act of donation itself is a notable event. You give away an item for free instead of throwing it in the trash because you think the item still has some value and you want someone else to enjoy that value. This works whether you give it directly for free to a person, or donate to a charity shop that then resells it. A charity donation is also recorded as tax-deductible.
The act of donation frees you from guilt/responsibility for throwing the item away without using up its full value. You are then free to buy more of the same item new. Faster than you would have otherwise, had the charity shop not existed. You also value it more, knowing that someone else can use it after you.
So here is a practical scenario for how this effect works. Imagine what would happen if instead of buying problematic child-labor fast fashion clothing from a 2nd-hand charity shop, you refuse! You keep wearing the clothing you have, or buy some non-problematic boring 2nd-hand clothing instead. And I do too. And every other charity store shopper stops buying them as well. Then the charity shop will refuse to take donations of those fast-fashion clothing, right? Just as they would refuse if you brought them a box of VHS tapes today. When the people would bring boxes of their mildly-used fast-fashion clothing for donation, they would be turned away - “nobody wants to buy those!”
Those people might not believe in their responsibility to eliminate child labor, but they still thought of themselves as good people, because they wanted to donate the remaining value for free, but now they can’t. They have to either keep wearing those clothes themselves, or throw them in the trash without feeling good about it. They end up buying fast-fashion clothes less frequently, or buying other clothes instead. Either way, the value of new fast-fashion clothes goes down and less of them are produced, and fewer children are employed to make them. All because of 2nd-hand.
IMO, the only way to consume the remaining value of a 2nd-hand item without having an influence on its original production, is to literally pull it out of the trash. And you have to do it in a way that the original owner isn’t aware of it. Because if they knew, they might feel good about it. Like a baker who makes extra bread knowing that most of it will be unsold and go in the trash at the end of the day, because they have seen people rummaging in the trash bin for food at night (not saying that’s bad, just pointing out the chain of influence).
- Comment on [troll science]: Unruh particle shower on a centrifuge 5 months ago:
physicists are quite confident only blackholes can Hawking radiate
Good to know! I was starting to get worried :D
you absolutely need a horizon to get radiation
Does the particle need to travel all the way from the horizon to reach you? How long does that take? The horizon still exists on the centrifuge, if only for a moment, shifting slightly from one instant to the next. In principle, at any moment you could detach from the centrifuge and fire 10g rocket thrusters in a straight line instead. In that first instant there is no way to tell the difference between the two.
I say this because in the linked paper, the “acceleration” experienced by the positrons was the bouncing off the atomic nuclei in the silicon crystal, which takes place over the space of a few angstroms, or at most within the 3.5mm size of the crystal, in the time given by the speed of 178GeV positrons (+Lorenz contraction). This instant was sufficient to claim Unruh effects were occurring.
- Comment on [troll science]: Unruh particle shower on a centrifuge 5 months ago:
Another complication is that even if the centrifuge slows down as it gets heavier, you can recover most of that mechanical energy when you hop off the centrifuge with your now full jar. Then you can boost it back up almost up to full speed. So I’m not sure exactly at what point you input energy into the system to instantiate the particles. When they hit the belljar bottom transversely maybe? Is this some kind of Maxwell’s Demon situation where you need to close the jar before the particles fall back out?
Also good to mention Earth! Logically, if Hawking radiation works for black holes it seems as if it would also work for any star or planet! But I’ve never seen this mentioned anywhere.
- Comment on [troll science]: Unruh particle shower on a centrifuge 5 months ago:
Oh for sure, science is never boring :D but compare the intense situation in the troll science pic to the displayable results from the actual experiment (fig. 1c):
Tip: evidence for the Unruh effect you are looking for is this 2mm difference right here:
The teal dashed line is the power spectrum predicted from theory including the Unruh effect, and violet dashed line is without it. The data points match the teal line better. But you can’t even see that by eye from the noisy dots! You need to do chi-square statistics to even prove it. (The dots below 30GeV - outside the “accelerated thermality” region - are not included in the analysis because they are guaranteed to be incorrect, as the experiment wasn’t sensitive in that range.) Boooring!
What the authors of the paper glance over in a single sentence before moving on to better things is that they had to shoot a FRICKING POSITRON DEATH BEAM FROM THE MFKING LHC through a crystal target and watch the resulting Bremsstrahlung gamma rays that would melt your bones off to obtain these datapoints. Talk about intense!
- Comment on [troll science]: Unruh particle shower on a centrifuge 5 months ago:
Like many other popular weird physics effects, it has been accepted non-controversially by scientists and then popularized for decades in fun thought experiments and pop-sci videos, all of which neglecting to mention that no actual experiments have yet been performed. This lack of grounding leads to spread of confusing statements like “the Unruh particles exist in the accelerated frame but not in the lab frame”, which make no sense, for how can there be two separate realities that coexist? Luckily we now do have a first Unruh experiment from 2019 arxiv.org/abs/1903.00043v7 and the temperature did rise and reality did not split apart. So no longer hypothetical, just routine and boring.
- Submitted 5 months ago to science_memes@mander.xyz | 14 comments
- Comment on It slaps tho 10 months ago:
- Comment on NYC street names 10 months ago:
Literally one block away: intersection of Dyckman St and Seaman Ave
- Comment on data transfer 11 months ago:
The numbers in the meme are off. One sperm is 750MB, or about 1 CD, so full human is 2 CDs. Or a couple 1.4MB floppies if you only store the diff from the reference genome.
- Comment on Jigsaw Trolley Problem 1 year ago:
Yes! Cancels out, leaving only a very slight edge on door 2. All that work for only… 2.77% edge over picking at random. What a troll problem, huh?
- Comment on [deleted] 1 year ago:
I agree that OP is in the best position to report the crime to the police - they are closest to the police station, they have video evidence, they literally know who the thief is - but it should not be their responsibility! OP has done nothing wrong and there are no measures they could have taken to prevent this crime (other than not shopping online at all). If OP gets a police report, OP is taking up the task of being the victim, and then BestBuy has no legal obligation to refund them at all, other than out of the kindness of their heart. Rather, BestBuy is the victim in this crime, same as if the item was stolen off the shelf at their warehouse and scanner records forged. It is their responsibility to file a police report, if they want the numbers in their system to add up. Only then could they ask OP to kindly provide the video evidence to help them out, and they’d be lucky if OP would give it to them, having no obligation to do so.
- Comment on Jigsaw Trolley Problem 1 year ago:
Knowing that the ball was gold gives you Bayesian knowledge about the boxes behind the door, since the prior probability of the host pulling a gold ball from a 6-gold door is different than from the 3/3 door. So you have to multiply Monty Hall probabilities and Bayesian probabilities together.
That assumes the host pulled a ball at random, of course, and not a deliberately gold ball.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 year ago:
Yes! It’s an olympics game of mental gymnastics where everyone - BestBuy, DoorDash, OP, the police - try to offload responsibility onto someone else. However, a crime WAS committed. Someone is the victim. The victim is the one who was deprived of property/money and will not have access to it until/unless the thief is caught and property recovered. BestBuy thinks OP is the victim, since the item was stolen off (not)their porch. OP thinks BestBuy should be the victim, since OP had no involvement in organizing the delivery. DoorDash could also take up responsibility of being the victim, since it was their (not)employee that stole from them.
If OP goes to the police now, they would be losing the mental gymnastics by accepting the status of the victim. BestBuy would never refund them in this case. It is in OP’s best interest to pursue the chargeback first. If OP succeeds in the refund or the chargeback, then BestBuy will have no package and no money, so BestBuy would be the victim. Then it will be BestBuy’s responsibility to report the crime.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 year ago:
The “libertarian paradise” idea is that as far as Best Buy is concerned, the item was delivered. If the DoorDash delivery driver happened to turn right around and steal the package, that’s a separate crime and a matter for the police to deal with, same as if anyone else had stolen it. And it’s OP’s fault for not picking the box up sooner, during the 3 seconds it was sitting on the porch. The porch that wasn’t even theirs. So anyway, the libertarian solution is for OP to contact police to track down the thief and either recover the stolen item or sue the thief for monetary compensation. Best Buy is innocent and no refund is coming. DoorDash is innocent too because they contracted with an independent contractor to deliver the item, and what the contractor does after the item has been delivered is not their responsibility.
- Comment on But I am mighty!! 1 year ago:
@xavier666@lemm.ee If you sit at a magnesium fire, it burns at 3300K, which is hot enough to produce sizeable ultraviolet rays. So you can get your sunburn from that, damaging the DNA in whatever of your remaining cells have not been melted away by heat.
- Comment on Jigsaw Trolley Problem 1 year ago:
Doesn’t say the trolley is a runaway. Don’t even need to make deals, you can safely walk away.
- Comment on KM3-230213A 1 year ago:
KM3-230213A is an ultra-energetic (220PeV) neutrino event recorded by the Cubic Kilometre Neutrino Telescope (KM3NeT) on the bottom of the Mediterranean sea. The telescope consists of thousands of photomultiplier sensors suspended in the water, watching for Cherenkov radiation of the decay particles resulting from the rare collision of a neutrino with the inside of the Earth. There is no known cosmic mechanism how a neutrino so energetic could have come to be.
This meme proposes the hijinks of Apu as an alternative explanation of how all those blue-sensitive photomultipliers got activated (saturated even) in a straight line going from bottom up all at once.
- Comment on Jigsaw Trolley Problem 1 year ago:
Your family was kidnapped and is now safely eating ice cream backstage. Tied to the tracks are 5 infinite worlds Hitlers.
- Comment on Jigsaw Trolley Problem 1 year ago:
it’s not clear that he’s following Monty Hall rules
Whenever I see a badly-specified Monty Hall Problem, I always imagine the host saying something like “Oh, you want to pick door number 1? Well, guess what - the car was behind door number 3 all along! You get nothing but a goat!” And only when you initially pick a door with the car does the host ask “Are you sure you wouldn’t rather switch to door number 2? Look, there is even a goat behind door number 3!” Switching doors 100% gurantees you get a goat… or 50% silver balls in this case.
- Comment on Jigsaw Trolley Problem 1 year ago:
Yeah, problem doesn’t specify whether you want your family to live. Common mistake.
- Comment on Jigsaw Trolley Problem 1 year ago:
Doesn’t say it’s your family tied to the tracks either.
- Comment on Jigsaw Trolley Problem 1 year ago:
Beautifully written!
I think the probabilities cancel out?
My conclusion as well. Except that since Jigsaw has taken one gold ball out, door 2 must have slightly better chance of gold ball remaining on average (75% vs 72.2%?).
