2·
3 months agoProbably stuck on an older os which doesn’t support the newest browser updates.
- 0 Posts
- 32 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: July 30th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Either you understand that the consensus is that naming things is hard and you just want to elevate yourself above everyone else by arguing against it, or you’re unaware that it is the consensus, in which case your opinion doesn’t really matter because you most likely underestimate the issue.
It’s such a truism that I’d suggest googling "naming things is hard*.
There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things. – Phil Karlton
“Figured it was a bad idea” actually means that some people were against it because they believed semantic class names were the solution, I was one of them. This was purely ideological, it wasn’t based on practical experience because everyone knew maintaining CSS was a bitch. Heck, starting a new project with the semantic CSS approach was a bitch because if you didn’t spend 2 months planning ahead you’d end up with soup that was turning sour before it ever left the stove.
Bootstrap and the likes were born out of the issues the semantic approach had, and their success and numbers are a testimony to how real the issue was, and I say this as someone who never used and despised bootstrap. Maintaining semantic CSS was hard, starting was hard, the only thing that approach had going for it was this idea that you were using CSS the way it was meant to be used, it had nothing to do with the practicality. Sure, your html becomes prettier to look at, but what good is that when your clean html is just hiding the monstrosity of your CSS file? Your clean html was supposed to be beneficial to the developer experience, but it never succeeded in doing that.
2·10 months agoOf course, but if you cut funds to your social healthcare system towards drug prevention and then point to drug decriminalization as the cause of a worsening situation, you’re not being truthful. That’s why I mentioned the logical fallacy.
It’s easy to fall in the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy though. The article goes on insinuating cause and effect, and tucks away the most likely reason at the end of the article, cutting funds of drug prevention to a quarter of what it was.
I’m pretty sure they’re saying the same thing.
Not in my opinion, because the underlying implication is that a mere change in the legality of a substance would lead to a major rise in its use that we need to counter with an improvement of social care. I’m of the opinion that we would be in a far better situation if we had never intercepted a single gram of any illegal substance or put a single person behind bars for their drug use. Of course we need better social care, but a reduction of repressive approaches to counter the drug issues alone would improve the situation and we don’t need to wait for “socialism” to take off in the US.
The idea that legalization or something similar would lead to more issues is completely unfounded and rests on the idea that the approach we take right now solves anything and stops people from using drugs. You legalize drugs to IMPROVE the situation, not to make it worse. The repressive approach towards drugs has made all drug issues worse, it is not some sort of dam that is holding back the tide of run-away drug problems, we already have that while they are all illegal.
People by and large do not end up with mental health issues because of drug use, they have mental health issues, or medical issues, or financial issues, which leads them towards drug use, which, with our current approach towards them, puts them into a downwards spiral. A more sane approach centered around harm reduction would be a means to help people in those situations, instead of turning people, who often ended up in that situation through nothing more than an accident or medical issue requiring pain relief medication, into criminals.
3·10 months agoThere’s dumb people and some of them drink or smoke.
the link was to a meta study that concludes that artificial sweeteners have no evidence that they cause harm.
This is how the meta study concludes:
Results from prospective cohort studies suggest the possibility of long-term harm in the form of increased risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality. Further research is needed to determine whether the observed associations are genuine or a result of reverse causation and/or residual confounding. Further research is also needed in children and pregnant women, the latter for which prospective cohort studies currently suggest possible unfavourable effects of NSS consumption on birthweight and adiposity in offspring later in life.
The scientists who produced the study seem a lot less convinced than you.
Ten-Week Sucralose Consumption Induces Gut Dysbiosis and Altered Glucose and Insulin Levels in Healthy Young Adults
So let me get this straight, someone asks for a study, I provide the study of studies, which you misjudge originally for being only an abstract, and then when I correct you and tell you it’s a study, suddenly it’s not good enough. What do you actually want?
It’s the equivalent of the human daily dose. So adjusted for body weight. Loosely translated, it would be 15% of the daily recommended dose for mice.
They asked for a study. You give a bare url to an abstract with the quote
Perhaps you could download the entire meta study that is linked next to the abstract and go through it? And why does it matter whether I’m agreeing with the post?
From all the years of reading about artificial sugar studies, it’s clear to me that there could be a risk but it is complex and varies from person to person, I find it misplaced to shout that there is absolutely no risk involved. To quote the study:
Result of this review largely agree with those of other recent systematic reviews, in that replacing sugars with NSS in the short term results in reductions in body weight, with little impact on other cardiometabolic risk factors, but is associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and mortality in the longer term.
Actually no, the keyword is equivalent, so adjusted for body weight.
No, it’s the equivalent dose.
When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA’s recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.
I’m baffled by your willingness to elaborate at length about this, but not read the article where this is explained. Misinforming everyone in the process.
When a sample of mice were given free access to water dosed with aspartame equivalent to 15 percent of the FDA’s recommended maximum daily amount for humans, they generally displayed more anxious behavior in specially designed mood tests.
The article actually states how much. 15% of the daily recommended amount.
Is the way Israel has been treating Palestinians something they should’ve ignored? Or do you reckon that’s why the attack occurred in the first place?
But let me guess, Hamas are terrorists and the IDF are well equipped soldiers so really Israel was just forced into this by evil people.
And before you reply with “I don’t condone yadda yadda ya…”, know that that’s exactly what you’re doing, that’s exactly what the media is doing, by always forgetting about where this started, and always pointing to the reaction of the people that are being deprived of everything and slowly eradicated.
What you’re insinuating here, if not bluntly stating it, is that Israel’s hand was forced, validating their reaction, and in the same breath saying that before this attack, all was well.
You can no longer claim that “this is not the way to go about it” after flat out condoning and supporting Israel’s reaction as it exposes your bias.
I would advise avoiding things with sucralose.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8880058/