Buffalox
@Buffalox@lemmy.world
- Comment on Why are fruits and berries healthy, even though they are mostly just sugar? 7 hours ago:
OK, that only confirms to me that he was in fact insane. There is no way we are supposed to eat only fruit, it simply doesn’t provide any real energy, but consumes as much as it yields, meaning there is no way to survive on fruit alone.
- Comment on Why are fruits and berries healthy, even though they are mostly just sugar? 9 hours ago:
So where’s does he claim to only eat fruit?
Are you confusing it with him recommending to use Apple? - Comment on Why are fruits and berries healthy, even though they are mostly just sugar? 10 hours ago:
You made 2 false claims, and now you say you don’t actually know what you are talking about.
Yes, I kind of figured that out already. - Comment on Why are fruits and berries healthy, even though they are mostly just sugar? 10 hours ago:
If lembot_0004 is a bot, it is in fact a shitty bot as was commented, that gives clearly false information.
It was clearly an error in judgement by the moderator to remove the above post.
Please restore! - Comment on Why are fruits and berries healthy, even though they are mostly just sugar? 10 hours ago:
Fructose is the element in sugar that actually taste sweet, it is also the part that is unhealthy. it acts somewhat like alcohol.
Giving similar problems and can also cause dependency. - Comment on Is it true that the natural lifespan of humans is only 38 years old and we only live past that because of loads of modern medicines/technology? 6 days ago:
Average disregarding race or culture.
- Comment on [deleted] 6 days ago:
Your question seems mostly nonsensical, we are not “house trained”, and what do you mean by “rather than controlled”?
Is your question based on biblical or another form of faith?But in short regarding our social behavior, the principle of it is not very different from social behaviors of other animals like dogs or chimpanzees. We “behave” because we are social animals and it’s in our DNA to work for the benefit of the the group.
Obviously misbehavior is generally rooted in conflict of interests, which can naturally occur in all groups. They are absolutely not generally a result of mania. - Comment on Is it true that the natural lifespan of humans is only 38 years old and we only live past that because of loads of modern medicines/technology? 6 days ago:
Average lifespan used to be shorter because of the amount of infant mortality.
That is completely wrong. discovermagazine.com/what-was-the-life-expectancy…
Other research reveals that the lifespan of Homo sapiens may have changed from the Middle Paleolithic to the later Upper Paleolithic, since the ratio of older to younger remains increases. The same research shows that starting about 30,000 years ago at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, the average lifespan began to push past 30 years.
Note that Lifespan is NOT the same as life expectancy:
my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/lifespan
Lifespan is the maximum length of time that a person can live
So 30000 years ago 30 years was pretty much the maximum age a person could achieve. Life expectancy would probably have been 15-20.
Read my other comment, the study is probably pretty close to the truth.
lemmy.world/comment/19682894 - Comment on Is it true that the natural lifespan of humans is only 38 years old and we only live past that because of loads of modern medicines/technology? 6 days ago:
Tribal nomads of 100000 did not live to their 60’s.
AFAIK they rarely lived beyond 30.discovermagazine.com/what-was-the-life-expectancy…
Other research reveals that the lifespan of Homo sapiens may have changed from the Middle Paleolithic to the later Upper Paleolithic, since the ratio of older to younger remains increases. The same research shows that starting about 30,000 years ago at the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, the average lifespan began to push past 30 years.
Note that Lifespan is not the same as life expectancy:
my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/lifespan
Lifespan is the maximum length of time that a person can live
So 30000 years ago 30 years was pretty much the maximum age a person could achieve.
- Comment on Is it true that the natural lifespan of humans is only 38 years old and we only live past that because of loads of modern medicines/technology? 6 days ago:
It’s OK, we have evolved to be intelligent enough to also evolve our society and science to enable us to live far beyond what was needed as a tribal nomadic species.
I don’t like to reveal too much personal info here, but to me you are still a child.
- Comment on Is it true that the natural lifespan of humans is only 38 years old and we only live past that because of loads of modern medicines/technology? 6 days ago:
beginning of civilization
Beginning of civilization is not the natural lifespan either, even early civilization has advantages that can extend natural life.
Clearly we are already ageing at 38 years old. - Comment on Is it true that the natural lifespan of humans is only 38 years old and we only live past that because of loads of modern medicines/technology? 6 days ago:
Nobody dies “naturally” of old age at 38.
But genetically we were originally nomads, and AFAIK the nomads of a 100000 years ago, had a far shorter average lifespan than after we settled and began farming. Also people of nomadic tribes in the rain forests of South America today, often don’t live longer than that on average AFAIK.When we look at animals, it is also not uncommon that a tamed animal pet can live twice as long or more than they usually do in the wild. For humans if modern environment has similar impact compared to the harsh life as a nomadic people, the double of 38 is 76 years, and that’s pretty close to our average lifespan today.
So I certainly wouldn’t dismiss the claim outright, but the article is very thin on details on the science of how they arrived at this apart from “DNA”.
- Comment on whatever happened to in-store coffee grinders? 1 week ago:
I think many people stopped buying it, because they use machines at home that have built in grinders.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
What if it’s a very bad picture? Or compromising?
What if you set the clock to go to the doctor, and if you don’t go to the doctor you will suffer way bigger pain? - Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
So why not include the context? Maybe you would get better answers that way.
- Comment on [deleted] 1 week ago:
Is deleting a picture of yourself a type of self destruction?
Is setting an alarm clock to wake you in the morning a form of sadism towards future you?
Can eating a cake formed like your girlfriend give her an orgasm?These an many other interesting questions can be found on “No Stupid Questions”
- Comment on What is a good source to read about thought experiments? 1 week ago:
Yes and no, it’s based on observed interference by Newton, Which was noted looked like how rings in water can interfere.
With relativity the difference is the huge amount of thought experiments that Einstein was able to connect to a coherent theory. That actually explains a huge part of how nature works.
- Comment on What is a good source to read about thought experiments? 1 week ago:
Maybe not harder than those, but they are amazing, because the conclusions from them actually work.
There are thought experiments that are unsolvable paradoxes, but these are cool exactly because they are not.
So I’d say Einsteins are among the coolest.
Also double slit experiment is not so much a thought experiment as it is a phenomenon that is hard to explain. - Comment on Just got this flyer in the mail today. 1 week ago:
Australia?
- Comment on What is a good source to read about thought experiments? 1 week ago:
IDK but be careful, if they explode, it can blow your mind.
- Comment on How do you get over a really good manga or webcomic you've read that you want to read more of but you've caught up with all the current updates? 1 week ago:
No you.
- Comment on How do you get over a really good manga or webcomic you've read that you want to read more of but you've caught up with all the current updates? 1 week ago:
You know? Sometimes people need to be told the truth, otherwise they never learn.
OP is behaving like a small child, seeking empathy and emotional for a situation that is as banal as they come.
Sometimes you need to grow up FFS. - Comment on How do you get over a really good manga or webcomic you've read that you want to read more of but you've caught up with all the current updates? 1 week ago:
And where exactly do I complain about anyone enjoying something?
- Comment on The inner fire of my hatred COULD melt steam beams 2 weeks ago:
Steam beams
Mildly infuriating typo, you probably meant steal beams.
- Comment on What is with this new generation of shooters writing stuff on the bullets? Is this some new fad like if I go deer hunting or something I write FUCK BAMBI on the bulllet? 3 weeks ago:
What an absolutely moronic false equivalence.
- Comment on do you consider joking about dying and killing oneself a sign that the person saying it is troubled? 3 weeks ago:
She is either suicidal or very weird. I’d ask her if suicide is actually something she sometimes think about.
Problem is she will most likely brush it off if she is, so it’s a tough one.
It might be worth a lot to tell her you appreciate her. - Comment on Who is your favourite Superman? 4 weeks ago:
70’s comics where he loses all his powers one by one in the span of an entire year.
- Comment on How did it come to be that only two companies supply all of the world's PC graphics chips? 4 weeks ago:
You don’t write what market you are describing but:
The PC market has been dwindling for decades, the PC gaming market has also been dwindling with consoles taking bigger share, and the past 5-10 years due to high GPU prices that have been wildly unstable.
Lately prices have returned to more normal levels when accounting for inflation, which could explain a bump this year.
USA is an outlier because of tariffs. - Comment on How did it come to be that only two companies supply all of the world's PC graphics chips? 4 weeks ago:
Maybe you are right, but I think they did that because they thought that would help them remain competitive, keeping the profit share that would normally go to board vendors, allowing them to sell cheaper while still making money, and compete better against Nvidia.
Maybe I remember it wrong, but I think Voodoo was already dying with Voodoo 2.
- Comment on How did it come to be that only two companies supply all of the world's PC graphics chips? 5 weeks ago:
IDK, I think it was because they couldn’t keep up with Nvidia, I bough the Voodoo 2 already at about half price.
After that it was basically lights out for Voodoo.Intel has somewhat the same problem I think, because their GPU reasonably is good and for the customer it’s a competitive product.
But for intel, the GPU chip probably cost 3 times as much to make as for a comparable Nvidia or AMD, because Intel requires a twice as big GPU to be competitive!
That means that Intel is probably not making any profit from their GPU division.
Same with Voodoo, they simply couldn’t keep up to make a profit, they had to compete with Nvidia that quickly surpassed 3DFX, and since Nvidia were better Voodoo had to be cheaper, but they couldn’t make them cheap enough to make a profit from them.It’s not that Voodoo got worse, because obviously they didn’t. But Nvidia had a development cycle that was unheard of at the time. It wasn’t just 3DFX that couldn’t keep up. It was also S3, Matrox and ATI. And ATI were by far the biggest GPU maker at the time. ATI however made a strong comeback as the only competitor to Nvidia mainstream performance desktop graphics and gaming, and then ATI was later bought by AMD.