361–370 of 413 posts
What's the state of cheap nano filters ?
I kind of like ceramic ones (from Doulton / Berkenfeld). Well proven technology, invented by Victorians, and does a remarkable job at filtering most stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Breathability is as much a marketing feature as it is a useful property of these garments/fabrics. Do they work well in cold/dry conditions? Yes! Do they work well in warm humid conditions (i.e. your average North America. Rainy day)? Not so much.
How old are you? The key feature is not breathability but "waterproof+breathable." You might not be old enough to remember airtight rubber raingear, or questionably waterproof oilskin, or horribly "water resistant" synthetics. You also might not be into gear enough to have realized the significant spectrum of breathability between a nylon jacket, a 2.5 layer jacket, and a fully 3-ply goretex pro. It is a real thing,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole breathable/gore-tex thing is overrated as they all rely on liberal use of DWR chemicals that tend to be waterproof only for a while. So regular retreatment, which never seems to be as good, or acceptance of wetness is needed. :) I'm surprised to see Patagonia in the worst of that site's categories, considering their stance on sustainability.
Gore-tex (at least the heavy 'classic' kind) doesn't have any refreshable coating. Its an inner layer of moisture wicking mesh, stuck to a thin rubbery ptfe membrane of some sort and an outer very abrasion resistant layer which is hydrophobic when clean. It can be boil washed and special treatments are advised against. It is very waterproof while surprisingly breathable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can choose to use non-non-stick frying pans.
But if the coating from non-stick pans makes its way down the drain (or down the toilet) and back into the water system of the planet then you really can't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy is mostly a facade anymore, unfortunately. Don't get me wrong, we haven't gone completely south to a dictatorship--there are many protections in place to keep things from falling apart but nonetheless I feel as though we're in the decline in the respect of being democratic. The underlying failed assumption in our representative democracy was that representatives would represent their constituents' interests…
I think democracy was always problematic. Its original form, direct democracy, was vulnerable to the tyranny of the masses. Representative democracy, long described as the solution, really isn’t. Representatives are self-interested, just like everyone else, and so we cannot expect them to be purely faithful executors of their respective mandates. What we did not expect, and perhaps are now beginning to, is that human…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this a little like saying "in part that's due to the fact that conservatives are persuasive"?
Yes. But I think you can also attribute some of it to “the rich* have weaponized conservative politics.” They have the most leverage so a minority opinion can show outsized results. *apply all appropriate modifiers about not all rich etc
Distrust of the government is deeply baked into American culture. Blaming it on “the rich” effectively denies that culture can be a thing (or assumes it can be easily constructed given sufficient monetary resources).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the most part, what happens is nothing. PTFE is completely biologically inert, which is why it's commonly used in surgical implants and prosthetics. Only the finest particles ( Ingested PTFE passes right through the digestive system unaltered. You can scrape the non-stick coating off of all your pans and eat it, and there will no detectable fluorinated chemicals in your blood. However, if you heat that nonstick p…
Just to clarify, if a large quantity of PTFE particles was introduced into your blood stream are you stating that wouldn't deprive your cells of oxygen? I think you're making some health related claims and assumptions that may be correct in limited circumstances but haven't been sufficiently studied to come to a good conclusion on.
PTFE is chemically and biologically inert. It's well studied, and has enjoyed extensive medical use inside peoples' bodies for over half a century. I'm aware of no evidence that PTFE in your body is harmful in any form or quantity that is known to actually occur in humans. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gore-tex (at least the heavy 'classic' kind) doesn't have any refreshable coating. Its an inner layer of moisture wicking mesh, stuck to a thin rubbery ptfe membrane of some sort and an outer very abrasion resistant layer which is hydrophobic when clean. It can be boil washed and special treatments are advised against. It is very waterproof while surprisingly breathable.
No, Gore Tex -- and all other membrane systems -- rely on DWR to keep the face fabric from wetting out. The face fabric is only water repellent if it's finished with oil, wax, or DWR. When the finish is degraded, rain will wet out the shell and breathability plummets. There are no exceptions. If you invent a fabric that is both breathable and permanently water repellent (as in, it sheds water in beads), then I promis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. But I think you can also attribute some of it to “the rich* have weaponized conservative politics.” They have the most leverage so a minority opinion can show outsized results. *apply all appropriate modifiers about not all rich etc
I think this misperceives the nature of the American polity. 20-35% support secession of their state from the union, depending on region. https://images.app.goo.gl/8fwmTm44Q55ReEV76 . For comparison, the Basque region of Spain is at 17%. That’s certainly not a position advocated by “the rich.” Is it so hard to believe that a big chunk of the rest are skeptical of big government? Distrust of the government is deeply b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly the opposite! For one, Germany too had a representative system and elites governing. So what happened there wasn't some issue with "direct democracy" and tyrannical masses that a representative democracy would stop. Second, even within Germany's non-direct-democracy system, the masses last voted for the various parties in 1933 in iirc, the Holocaust started much later, almost 8 years later. In fact, masses wi…
You're right, that was a bad example. So let's look at Athenian-style direct democracy. You have the ecclesia, an assembly where any male citizen can vote on proposals and elections (like a more ad-hoc city council meeting and election in one). You have a bureaucracy of 500 randomly selected men who run the city government. Once a year, you can vote to exile any leader for 10 years. Slavery was big business and women…
That was the norm of the era and much much later. Democracy is not supposed to change the norms of its times, it's supposed to assist those who participate to represent themselves better.
Women didn't have a vote well into the 20th century, the poor non land owning people couldn't vote in the US until the 19th century, and slavery was a thing for almost 2 and a half millennia after ancient Athenian democracy, even in much more "enlightened" and "christian love morals" nations. Even representative democracy gurus like the "Founding Fathers" had no qualms with owning slaves. So hardly a thing to blame ancient Athenian democracy for not solving 2.5 millennia in advance.
We should focus on what innovative (or worse) it did bring to the table, not whether in other ways it was compatible with a baseline that held for 2.5 millennia more.
>There were very few elected officials and they were chosen randomly for the highest offices. Think of random people with conflicting, crazy ideas being voted in and out regularly, as judges, as bureaucrats, as heads of state.
That was not a problem, as it is in the modern world. First, life was much more public oriented, so the crazy ideas where tamed by interaction with others (and of course, knowning that you will randomly be replaced in the next term).
>The assemblies weren't held accountable to themselves, and could vote to break their own laws.
That's the whole point, isn't it? That you're not iron-bound to some law you've passed, if you decide it doesn't work.
Even worse, being iron-bound to some law a policitian you've voted for for different reasons (say, because they promised tax breaks), passed on another matter, but you can't do anything, because you only get to vote wholesale (their whole platform, take it or leave it, even if you just strongly like 1-2 parts of it), and can't change anything for 4 years.
>It changed over time.
Again, that's a plus - people can change the system directly, they're not thrown into a rigid system they have no power on.
The rest, it not being perfect, the rich having increased influence (e.g. class playing a role), etc, were artefacts of the power balances of the era. That was the case everywhere, and is still now.
>Some researchers have suggested that direct democracy like this wouldn't work over a very large area. It can work in towns and cities, and small city-states, but there's just too many factors for it to be practical in a large scale diverse modern nation.
Doesn't need to be an exact replica. It could be multi-level (e.g. direct voting at the city/small district level), with national referendums on any major law, etc. Today we also have the option to vote online with crypto etc.