markovs_gun @ markovs_gun @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 95Joined 2 wk. ago
I think some mods are overly jumpy with chemistry type questions because uninformed morons will confidently answer the wrong thing and the mods are afraid it will get someone hurt. That or the subs in question just aren't geared for this kind of Q&A. You'd probably get better responses from a chemistry subreddit.
Scent compounds being potentially hazardous to some minor degree in their super concentrated form isn't a huge issue, because that's not how they're going to be experienced and it's hard to find anything that isn't harmful in some quantity. The alchemist Paracelsus, who pioneered evidence backed approaches to pharmaceutical medicine wrote the old adage "The dose makes the poison." Even water can kill you if you drink too much of it all at once, and pure oxygen is an extremely dangerous substance even though we need it to breathe.
That said, I happen to know a bit about chemistry and just did a bit of reading. It looks like rose oil comes in two forms - one produced by steam distillation, and one produced by solvent extraction. The one produced via solvent extraction is more common, more concentrated, and according to Safety Data Sheets (SDS) I was able to find, has more potential health hazards associated with it. The other form, known as Rose Otto, is produced via steam distillation and is less concentrated. This means you will need more and will need to adjust your formulation, but according to the SDS this is a pretty safe substance. If your concern is potential hazards of making your soap during manufacturing, then that may be a better option I guess. I still think that it's fine to use substances that are toxic in quantities that will never make it into the final product.
some have said
Oh you mean someone might interpret the sinister race of greedy hook nosed goblin creatures who run all of the banks as possibly being influenced by anti semitic tropes? That's news to me!
Yeah I feel like I'm fucked because I'm an engineer and not a scientist
Nah he's just an insane narcissist who thinks his genes will save humanity. Elon doesn't believe in any god other than himself - he is his own god.
The issue is that this guy just kind of did it without going through any of the normal check steps to make sure he was doing it right or there wouldn't be any unexpected consequences
I hope so. Textual analysis suggests a "2 Q" theory where the earliest posts were mostly one author on 4chan (interestingly not all, several early drops are believed to be from different users) and then another person (who I believe wholeheartedly is 8chan administration Ron Watkins) started posting as Q and moved to 8chan. I'm interested in knowing who the earliest Q was and what the content of the very first Q drops was, given that there are believed to be several that didn't get archived. Several people have claimed to be 4chan Q but none of their stories are particularly convincing. My guess is that it was a bunch of random trolls at first and then one of them just went with it when they started getting a following.
On one hand this is obviously absurd but on the other hand I don't actually know how one could solve the sheer scale of pedophilia happening on their platform without some dystopian shit. It seems like there is a maximum size for something like discord because at the scale it is now I'm not sure how you could possibly moderate it. I'll probably stop using it if they implement this but I can definitely understand why they feel like it's a good idea.
Yeah I legit think this is a bad thing. 4chan was bad for society but IMO it's less so than mainstream social media. To get radicalized on 4chan you have to wade through some truly despicable shit right off the bat, where there is this friendly veneer on mainstream Internet that makes it seem safer and less horrifying even though the same underlying filth of human nature powers it all. If you encounter far right ideology on 4chan, it's stripped of all of the edifices of respectability and it's clear that what it is is raw unfiltered hatred. If you encounter it on Tik Tok it's just another political viewpoint because they're not allowed to show their true colors.
I think those are mostly for super obese people because seat belts are really uncomfortable if you're really, really fat. At least that's what I always assumed because everyone I know who has one is really fat.
LEDs aren't the problem, it's that they're too bright in the forward direction. It's perfectly possible to make normal brightness LED headlights, car manufacturers just don't do it because bright headlights look great on the lot and sell more cars
You seriously misread that if you think it's about Christmas trees in anything but maybe an abstract way. It's about wooden idols. Who tf is chiseling their Christmas trees into shapes? I thought maybe this would be about Asherah poles or something at least kind of similar but this is a pretty obvious passage about idolatry.
I suppose it depends on what you're making but in my experience new plants are incredibly automated. Then again, I work in chemicals and not consumer goods, which probably has a bias towards automation
I feel like there are a lot of dimensions to this. I am a huge proponent of manufacturing, but yeah a lot of factory jobs suck. The problem is, they don't have to. Modern factories are way better than old ones, and could be even better if we as a culture prioritized making jobs less soul crushing rather than access to cheap shit. I also feel like people who haven't worked in manufacturing don't really understand what it's like in a modern facility. I think there's this idea that it's working at an assembly line or going out and turning a bunch of valves all the time but nowadays 99% of it is just sitting at a computer watching numbers. I wouldn't want to be on the floor at my current job but I've worked other places where it seems a hell of a lot better than most other jobs available to non college grads.
Another issue is that modern manufacturing sites are super automated. Very few people actually work at them, at least the ones in America. You can have a plant that makes millions of pounds of plastic a year that employs 60-70 people, which is less than a typical Walmart.
Lmao 35% of the country loves this shit, 15% are on the fence whether it's bad or not, and 50% dislike it but a lot of those don't dislike it enough to actually do anything about it.
Okay so at what point does it get handed off to private industry unless the government is just in business with manufacturers in a much more direct way than it is now? We'd need a completely different economic system for all research to be publicly funded. Consider this- often the way it works now is that a government funded researcher discovers a new molecule that could be useful. Then, private companies figure out how to make it industrially and run trials in pilot plants and design the plant to make it at scale. Should the government be doing all of that? This is extremely expensive, and I don't know how you'd try to prioritize resources in the current economic system.
This would be disastrous for actual manufacturing because a patent is the only thing that makes it worthwhile to spend a bunch of money upfront to develop a new technology. Unlike with software where you don't have nearly as much up front capital investment to develop something, it costs millions of dollars to get a manufacturing process up and running and in a good enough state to where it can actually work out financially. Without patents, your competitor can just take all of that work and investment and just copy it with the benefit of doing it right the first time, so they're able to undercut you on cost. The alternative is that everyone is super secretive about what they're doing and no knowledge is shared, which is even worse. Patents are an awesome solution to this problem because they are public documents that explain how technologies work, but the law allows a monopoly on that technology for a limited amount of time. I also feel that in the current landscape, copyright is probably also good (although I would prefer it to be more limited) because I don't want people who are actually coming up with new ideas having to compete with thousands of AI slop copycats ruining the market.
TL;DR- patents are good if you're actually building things, tech bros are morons who think everything is software.
Is the Chaplain distinct from other classes like priest, cleric, or paladin? If so, I would think the Chaplain is more of a ranger with a holy flair. However, if it's in a setting where it's the only holy class I would say they should have healing magic, faith based spells, and high charisma. The first thing that came to mind, however, was like a WWII military chaplain and I thought that would be pretty cool, basically a D&D style cleric but in WWII era tech, acting as a field medic, religious guide, and clairvoyant all in one.
Chloe Des Lysses 2
Saying fck isn't choosing not to swear though it's just swearing but being a bitch about it and not following through.