The user is one of those half-bots. They repost like a bot and make occasional abrasive comments intentionally that seem to be designed for downvotes.

Saw those flavors of accounts on Reddit too. Super weird, but whatever. Maybe they are going for gallowboob-ish reposting fame on Lemmy, which makes it even stranger.

Well, there is Metallica, Inc. and Slipknot (the business entity) along with all of the related brands and labels that are attached to them, off the top of my head. Many other mainstream bands are just businesses too.

It is. I was a Navy sailor, so there were a couple of layers to my comment. ;)

Some sailors that aren’t military may need to repair sails, but that is a highly specialized job usually.

Sailors should be good at knots, but most are not. There are only a few jobs that would require the skill these days, TBH.

Random note: The neckerchief’s that the sailors in the picture are wearing only require a four-in-hand neckerchief knot and is learned once and usually only tied once. (You can just lift it over your head and put it on a coat hanger without ever needing to tie it again.)

It’s Ocala Florida, so fairly normal stuff for that part of the world.

It’s his mad sewing skills that are actually drawing the attention.

There isn’t a shred of good will left at Google and their ban hammers operate on algorithmic randomness.

If anything, files should be jammed into as many short-form videos as possible to hopefully trigger a run-away implosion of that that entire ecosystem.

Not when you dip a stick of it in sugar and eat it that way. The butter cancels out the sugar and it becomes a super food.

Different formulations. Adderall XR is slow release Adderall, kind of. (It’s more of an instant release and a delayed release mix.)

Vyvanse - lisdexamfetamine (converted by your liver into dextroamphetamine) Adderall - amphetamine salt combo (amphetamine and dextroamphetamine)

They both work in very similar ways. I suppose it’s easy to think of Vyvanse as “slow release Adderall”, but it really isn’t.

My body and brain hate Vyvanse. It felt like my dopamine receptors imploded when I tried it for a month or so. Adderall works just fine for me now, so that is nice.

Cool, thanks for the feedback. It was just such a weird show, I had to ask.

The venue we were at just got a new sound system and it’s kinda nice. My wife and I hypothesized that since Sasha and Digweed are on tour anyway, they might have just paid Sasha to do a live sound system test while he was in the area. Turning a system test into a “show” may have just been a good way to offset his price. (I am somewhat of an audiophile so I know it’s hard to tune and test large systems. TBH, that is exactly what the night sounded like in hindsight: A 5-6hr audio test.)

Just got back from a Sasha show tonight and was searching comments on Lemmy to see if anyone else saw his latest tour. I just saw Sasha and Digweed a few months ago and hands-down, it was in the top 2 or 3 shows I have been to in the last couple of years. (Kids are older now, so my wife and I get to see everyone we either wanted to see now or saw 20 years ago. Just met Rabbit (Rabbit in the Moon) in person a couple of weeks ago too!

To someone else who seems to know the music genre: The Sasha show was tonight was horrible. Easily in the top 5 worst in the last 25 years. The same beat for 5 hours straight with hardly any variation or creativity. It was the worst of the worst house music, and was half-wondering if 90’s euro-techno was going to start at some point. It would have been a major plus if so.

I had to elaborate so much because it was that bad, but also extremely uncharacteristic. I expected progressive house/trance or something at least more Sasha’ish at a minimum. It wasn’t the venue: They capable of hosting top-tier shows.

Is this a known thing about his solo shows? The venue was mostly dead as well: Probably only 20% of what we saw for Sasha and Digweed at the same place. Given the lack of a crowd, I am just super curious about what others know that I don’t.

I am fairly sure this is a mix of plotlines from several different movies.

I am sure there are a ton of factors involved. I am also sure that there is a lot of financial incentives to publish positive studies.

There is a huge caveat to posting a study to counter your stats above since you technically aren’t wrong. “Typically” can mean many different things, but here, it can also fit within published data.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1125407/

Most articles I found usually point to roughly the same numbers as that study, but there is a lot of variation in how those numbers are presented. (Even that study initially presents stats in a way that is confusing: A percentage of a percentage of a percentage, over time.)

My point is that it’s one of those stats that is super easy view as “really good” or simultaneously “exceptionally bad”. IMHO, I still think it’s crazy that we can even do transplants at all.

Edit: I believe everyone should at least get a chance to live a bit longer, but it sucks that it comes at extreme cost. The procedures are extremely expensive and a person could potentially be put on expensive anti-rejection drugs for the remainder of their life. Add in all the follow-up appointments and occasional hiccups in recovery (adding even more cost) a person is likely going to die broke and be put through even more stress that is a very real danger to health anyway.

Used to watch him on the Today show on a black and white TV when I was a kid. We aren’t that old, TBH.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke

I certainly wouldn’t say it was incompetent and there is a good set of data points. Given the nature of what the study is attempting to correlate, not explaining what limitations were taken into account is a a significant limitation, IMHO. It is called out that there are limitations, but that it is essentially just a short footnote. (The full paper does a better job of calling out other studies and some contradictions.)

This referenced study found the opposite and had a no (or weaker correlation) to cancer associated with SSBs: Khairan P, et al. Sugary drink consumption and the subsequent risk of gastric cancer: Khairan P, et al. Sugary drink consumption and the subsequent risk of gastric cancer: The Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study. Eur J Clin Nutr 2023;77:218-25.

Without doing a comparative analysis of the studies, which would be interesting, I have open questions about what the key differences were. My first guess (without calling either study “wrong”) is that maybe risk factors were calculated differently?

On the darker side, there is motivation for keying-in on a specific correlation and that cannot be ignored either. (Past grants, groups requesting the study, etc.) The original paper also sets itself up to be a marketing call-out for artificially sweetened beverages, unfortunately. (I am not saying that is the intent, but the wording aligns exactly with what vitamin water-type company would want to see. It made for a good Lemmy post title, at a minimum.)

At the end of the day, they stated what they were looking for and presented what seems to be a clean analysis of that data. The limitations that were presented have the potential to be significant, however.

So my chance of developing gastric cancer doubles to 1.8% chance over my lifetime if I drink sugar-beverages every day… (This math wasn’t sponsored by a cancer testing company.)

After you actually get the the study, there wasn’t any mention of other associated lifestyle behaviors that may contribute to the risk of gastric cancers. What sticks out to me is that people drinking one or more sugar-packed beverages per day likely have additional diet or lifestyle concerns.

It’s not that I think the number crunching for the study was wrong or that the sample sizes were too small, it’s just that it was extremely focused on making a correlation for the sake of making a correlation.

Serotonin is a neurotransmitter.

It’s mostly function for cameras like that. The lense stacks for cameras these days is some really cool stuff crammed into a really tiny package. I don’t know the exact function of each camera, but they are collecting a lot of light to focus on a small camera sensor and are able to achieve some amazing results for various focal depths.

More lense with bigger holes equal more light, usually.

The biggest ones are going to be your generic filters which need big enough to keep the rings from interfering with the field of view.

There is some super cool engineering packed into those thing, but mainly because of their size.

I would try and light it outside, but with a long stick (like a wooden skewer). There is a high chance that those are O2 bubbles, if you were trying to make some Sodium Percarbonate which is a common additive to laundry detergent anyway… It’s supposed to be equal parts mix, but I suspect the excess of hydrogen peroxide is intentional as to have the best chance to convert all the sodium bicarb and still have plenty of liquid to soak something in. (Just a guess. Chemistry can be a weird science sometimes and I think there were a few reactions that could of happened here.)

Consumer grade hydrogen peroxide is dirt cheap, and so is the baking soda. I dunno if you saved money and a made a more effective solution for what you are trying to accomplish. A spoonful or two of regular laundry detergent may have masked smells a little better. Dunno. I like science but I also like efficiency, so whatevers! (Experiments are fun.)

Billionaire Island, Issue #1