If that’s what you feel is the case if you don’t separate politics from technology then that sounds like a personal problem to address.

Technology and ethics and politics are not airgapped magically distinct things. Pretending that they are is a strategic political choice you are actively making.

“People want to talk about the things they care about when they should be talking about the things I care about!”

Alternatively, lol

This wasn’t a study and nobody has proven free will one way or another, the issue remains heavily semantic.

Scientists can have opinions and beliefs. A news organization encouraging it as being a scientific conclusion only because it comes from a scientist is really the issue here.

That’s a deflection. They are all known carcinogens lol, and doesn’t meaningfully change the point.

And no im not a geologist, but I’ve done hazard analysis on work with asbestos. I’m curious what you think a geologist has to actually say about the medical hazard of asbestos.

It’s certainly not overblown, feel free to look up the asbestos required to cause chronic health effects. It’s not some mystery, the numbers are out there, no wild speculation needed.

This is such a hilarious yet literally deadly problem, it’s like anti vaxxers who see “nobody has died of smallpox in years!” And forego smallpox vaccinations for their children.

Except this time instead of various life threatening pathogens, it’s friable mechanically toxic cancer darts.

Asbestos is a pain in the ass beyond belief to deal with safely. The safety mitigations to deal with it are not exaggerated, and the harms it can cause are very real.

Everything old is new again. Let’s toss some lead in our gasoline while we’re at it.

You’re immediately going to posturing, something specifically not mentioned, to choose an interpretation which makes it nonsensical. It could simply represent a level of aggression and imperialist intent.

No they are not incompatible thoughts.

I really don’t care about this dude enough to argue this point any longer, just try to actually respond to arguments for their content and rhetoric rather than just choosing a nonsensical interpretation out of many sensical though still disagreeable ones.

I feel like this guy is largely just drumming up defense budget.

But like, your critique is kind of a silly mischaracterization of what he’s saying that doesn’t actually address the content of his message. Yes, he’s saying that he believes China and Russia treat peacetime the same as wartime, and that they also consider themselves to be at war with Canada. These aren’t incompatible thoughts…

It’s been acknowledged in western cuisine forever too lol. You think western chefs just could’ve put a finger on meat char tasting good across all of human history??

No it’s just that it was discovered to be a fundamental receptor on the tongue which responds to amino acids. It was discovered by a Japanese researcher. The weird eastern exceptionalism is just silly if you take five seconds to look into why it’s named umami.

Additionally some compounds don’t become aromatic until they are dissolved in spit or digested by enzymes in your mouth. There’s also bitterness, which detects stuff associated strongly with poison.

Yes. Tons of evidence. As others have said what you perceive as flavor is mostly several thousand or so distinct chemical receptors in your nose firing off based on the aromas of the food.

It’s certainly legitimate in the metaphysics sense but it’s unfalsifiable, which limits what can actually be done with the idea.

You just don’t digest as much nor store as much calories. So your feces and urine, as well as exhalation.

It’s not cheating basic physics, there’s just a lot of misunderstanding about how weight works in biology. Cico is not what many people believe it to be.

Here’s the thing, our tissues are made of plastic. You can’t really escape plastics as people understand them generally. Collagen is a polymer, fundamentally no different chemically than any other common plastic. Plastics are incredible materials, that’s why we use them, it’s why they were selected for evolutionarily; the problem is more complex than whether something is a plastic or not, and so “plastic free plastic” is an admittedly absurd term for biodegradable plastic not derived from coal or oil which has less environmental impact.

@villasv@lemmy.ca

Just to get everyone on the same page here.

If they are writing using proper materials terminology then strength tells you a lot, since it has a pretty rigorous definition: amount of energy absorbed before failure.

Which, given one of the researchers themselves is quoted talking about its strength, I’m guessing they are even unintentionally being more precise than you’re expecting of them.

As for the properties: smaller sections being stronger is fairly normal amongst materials. The smaller a manufactured section, the more catastrophic any given defect will be. At a certain scale, you will be guaranteed to have either perfect, or already failed, material.

There are a lot of brain systems and a lot of complexity. Studies confirming something which is otherwise generally understood is par for the course. But until it’s tested, it’s dangerous to build theories off of it.

On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears Stephen T. Asma

This book covers this. The answer is yes. Elephant skulls likely informed the Cyclops myth. Griffins were likely from bones found in mountains in Arabia or something, it’s been a second since I read it.