251–259 of 259 posts
The most interesting part of the article for me was the Gathering the Data section. Because honestly, this would be a project better targeted for a large e-ink display. Maybe you've even seen the photo of the large wall-hanging e-ink display that in fact displays the day's news [1]. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/eink/comments/11febnk/eink_newspape...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a Brother printer from 2019 (HL 2340) that does not support IPP Everywhere. A lot of other printers from before ~2020 don’t either. You are (like so many other people) confusing IPP the protocol with IPP the driver, which is honestly not your fault and a terrible naming mistake. And like you mentioned, people have way older printers because if all you do is print monochrome and mostly text, a printer from 2004…
If you read the linked issue you will see that the plan for legacy printers is to move the printer drivers under a separate application that CUPS can then talk IPP to. So yes, CUPS itself will only support IPP without any printer-specific driver. Since mobile phones also only directly support IPP this sounds like a reasonable decision.
Ah, yes. Thanks for pointing that out! I wonder how much more secure that will make things for those who have to use legacy printers.
> Since mobile phones also only directly support IPP
Technically AirPrint is not IPP Everywhere, they use a different raster format and some different glue. For example my Brother printer supports AirPrint but fails ~50% of the IPP Everywhere self-certification tests. But that’s splitting hairs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most mainstream phenol free thermal paper out there is one made from a branded chemical "pergafast" which is supposedly based off of urea. This is increasingly the type used by big brand stores where the paper is advertised as BPA and BPS free. It appears safe in studies so far in terms of not being absorbed through the skin nor endocrine disrupting, but is also known to be highly toxic to aquatic life. There's a…
Always remember that X-free or similar claims of not being toxic only means that the substances used instead of X are not yet known to be as toxic (or at just that the laws haven't caught up yet). It isn't guarantee that the new product is any safer than X and it might even be less safe. After all, the X in question was also seen as perfectly fine at some point.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/bpa-subst...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I can't find any evidence that anyone has ever died from bisphenol-A poisoning. That's like talking about cigarettes and claiming people don't die from nicotine, therefore smoking isn't a problem. Missing the point terribly.
On the contrary, nicotine poisoning is common, the lethal dose in humans is relatively well characterized (though higher than most poisons: 500–1000mg/kg) and there are many case studies of nicotine poisoning in the medical literature, many of which are life-threatening and some of which are even lethal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning . Moreover, nicotine has been widely used to kill insects in the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't find any evidence that anyone has ever died from bisphenol-A poisoning. Searching the medical literature finds no case studies of emergency-room visits or dying epoxy painters. Rat studies like https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&d... and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236345183_Pathologi... come up with acutely lethal oral doses around 2000–3000 milligrams per kilogram, by wh…
> My best guess is that we'll find out that a few food additives that became popular 50 years ago upset the intestinal microbiome in a way that promotes obesity. I bet it's mostly just sugars. That and plain overconsumption and lack of exercise. Excacerbated by societal shifts that mean people don't get shamed into behaving better as much as they used to be. Trying to blame evil chemicals for making you fat is just a…
The cause might be sugars, but they'd have to be sugars that were little used 50 years ago when the obesity pandemic began. One promising candidate was high-fructose corn syrup, with a promising hypothesis about how a fructose/glucose ratio of 1:1 was harmless. That hypothesis was always somewhat unlikely and basically didn't pan out. Glucose syrup was also an interesting hypothesis‚ but fructose/glucose hypotheses all run up against the sucrase-isomaltase problem: people in some places, such as the US, ate plenty of sucrose before 01974, and it gets split into fructose and glucose in the small intestine. So you need an explanation of why the modern sugar-heavy diet has such dramatically different health effects from historical sugar-heavy diets. Maybe it's fucose? Chlorinated sugars like sucralose? Massive galactose doses? You could be right, but you've chosen to take on a heavy burden of proof there.
As for your "shame people who don't want responsibility" ideas, I suggest reading https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/12/the-physics-diet/, which begins:
> There are at least four possible positions on the thermodynamics of weight gain:
> 1. Weight gain does not depend on calories in versus calories out, even in the loosest sense.
> 2. Weight gain is entirely a function of calories in versus calories out, but calories may move in unexpected ways not linked to the classic “eat” and “exercise” dichotomy. For example, some people may have “fast metabolisms” which burn calories even when they are not exercising. These people may stay very thin even if they eat and exercise as much as much more obese people.
> 3. Weight gain is entirely a function of calories in versus calories out, and therefore of how much you eat and exercise. However, these are in turn mostly dependent on the set points of a biologically-based drive. For example, some people may have overactive appetites, and feel starving unless they eat an amount of food that will make them fat. Other people will have very strong exercise drives and feel fidgety unless they get enough exercise to keep them very thin. These things can be altered in various ways which cause weight gain or loss, without the subject exerting willpower. For example, sleep may cause weight loss because people who get a good night sleep have decreased appetite and lower levels of appetite-related hormones.
> 4. Weight gain is entirely a function of calories in versus calories out, and therefore of how much you eat and exercise. That means diet is entirely a function of willpower and any claim that factors other than amount of food eaten and amount of exercise performed can affect weight gain is ipso facto ridiculous. For example, we can dismiss claims that getting a good night’s sleep helps weight loss, because that would violate the laws of thermodynamics.
> 1 and 4 are kind of dumb. (...)
4 is your position. Read the article to see why it's dumb. It's a short, easy read.
Also I suggest reading https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry..., a review of The Hungry Brain by neuroscientist Stephen Guyenet, who specializes in nutrition. Also, and I know this may be a big ask, maybe read an actual book on the topic too. Also, you would probably find it illuminating to read https://www.bpni.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2020-UPFs-ob..., "Ultra-processed food and the risk of overweight and obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies," and although observational studies aren't the strongest form of evidence (you could hypothetically have some kind of widespread undiscovered brain infection that both causes obesity and also makes you eat Cheetos and Cheez Whiz, without the latter causing the former, or fat people might settle for ordering Domino's Pizza because it's too hard for them to travel all the way to Whole Foods), there are also randomized clinical trials showing the same thing.
Maybe also https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13668-024-005..., "Ultra‑processed Food and Obesity: What Is the Evidence?", whose summary says:
> Greater UPF [ultra-processed food] consumption has been a key driver of obesity. There is a need to change the obesogenic environment to support individuals to reduce their UPF intake. The UPF concept is a novel approach that is not explained with existing nutrient- and food-based frameworks.
It's shorter than the SSC posts I linked, but it demands a higher level of literacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the contrary, nicotine poisoning is common, the lethal dose in humans is relatively well characterized (though higher than most poisons: 500–1000mg/kg) and there are many case studies of nicotine poisoning in the medical literature, many of which are life-threatening and some of which are even lethal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_poisoning . Moreover, nicotine has been widely used to kill insects in the…
I think their point was that many toxic chemicals have been linked to various cancers and other long-term health conditions and that they don’t need to kill you immediately to be considered harmful.
I think the point CapstanRoller was making was just that their understanding of toxicology is limited to vague hunches, so they feel comfortable in dismissing any information from anyone who knows more than they do about the subject.
I'd use the Wikipedia current events portal [1] to generate the headlines/news. It’s less sensationalist that news headlines and contains a lot more global news. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events