SemanticTriangle t1_jbdadh6 wrote

Dental hygiene companies reached saturation with toothbrushes, toothpaste, and floss, so created a new pointless product to sell. It gave people oral cancer.

That's the strange phenomenon explained. If you need to wash your mouth out, salt water or even just water will do.


SemanticTriangle t1_jbapww3 wrote

Climate action tracker explicitly measures policy and current action on emissions, not extraction, do they not? Based on their 'CAT emissions gap' visualisation, they seem to extrapolate current consumption emissions into the future to arrive at 2.2-3.4C by 2100. Is there a section of this (I agree, excellent) resource that tracks committed emissions against commercial disclosures?


SemanticTriangle t1_jb6ix7v wrote

Oh, we're not on the 2.7C trajectory, my dude. Check the commercial disclosures of fossil fuel extraction companies and the governments giving them permits. We're likely heading for 4+ or worse if we don't get a deus ex machina or a sufficiently large and sudden ice sheet slip. There's no sign of restraint on the extraction side.


Also check McGlade and Nature 2015, and Ekins' 2021 follow-up.


SemanticTriangle t1_j9jbogd wrote

And these are the same companies with the means to make changes. Does this paper seek to actually disentangle the enabling mechanism of success and the correlation between economic output and emissions from greenwashing?

Surely what matters is not just absolute emissions (but that also!) when considering greenwashing, but actual delta between baseline emissions and current emissions.

>"Sometimes a hypocrite is just a person who is in the process of changing."


SemanticTriangle t1_j7uuvot wrote


SemanticTriangle t1_j7u82bo wrote

Perhaps my understanding is not correct? Have we not essentially figured out that the increasing frequency of food related allergies is related to the topical application of food derivative proteins in a largely functionless manner in cosmetic and cleaning products? Baby body encounters new protein in wrong context (like peanut derivatives in a skin cream), arranges immune reaction, then later deploys that reaction when the child finally gets around to eating that thing rather than having it rubbed on its skin?

Is that model not well enough validated, or is my understanding flawed?

If this is the major contributor, isn't this an easily soluble phenomenon by subtraction, rather than addition?

Example sources:

And similar citations


SemanticTriangle t1_j4ppq17 wrote


SemanticTriangle t1_j41bhe8 wrote

Not even. Moneyed interests will first deploy a small portion of their wealth to eviscerate and oust the policy makers attempting to hold them to account. Those lawmakers so removed, business continues as usual.

Political action on global warming is demonstrably too slow without significant campaign finance reform in every large economy. No clue what you do for the large economies with authoritarians in charge, but I guess it's comparing two huge problems.


SemanticTriangle t1_izw77z6 wrote

50% capacity loss after 1000 cycles, requires Mo, which is only about 30% cheaper per kg than Li. 2/3rds of the theoretical energy density of sodium sulfur. Lots of engineering learning required to go from research to viability, and no strong record at University of Sydney for continuous process improvement or technology transfer to industry -- although I have not dealt with this school or group before and they might certainly be better. Not overly exciting as a candidate unless they show more.


SemanticTriangle t1_iwhbn54 wrote


SemanticTriangle t1_isykwgd wrote


SemanticTriangle t1_is1aqh7 wrote

>The researchers developed a new battery structure that adds an ultrathin nickel foil as the fourth component besides anode, electrolyte and cathode. Acting as a stimulus, the nickel foil self-regulates the battery’s temperature and reactivity which allows for 10-minute fast charging on just about any EV battery, Wang explained.

Increase in cell complexity means increase in processing cost. Does it scale?


SemanticTriangle t1_irwb414 wrote

It's complicated, especially if your problem is high body fat percentage. Eating disorders are no joke, but controlling body fat ultimately comes down to controlling energy intake.

If you are just not active, then you start at the beginning. Either /r/fitness or /r/bodyweightfitness have beginner guides and faqs. But there's no easy or short road. You have to consistently put in the work and it's not easy.

If you have medical problems or pain you may need medical advice first, or to fix underlying issues, and those subs will not give medical advice.


SemanticTriangle t1_irq97yk wrote

It's reasonable to assume all of the normal caveats and side conditions apply, but it definitely makes the sentence less punchy. I guess all in all, it's easier to accuse me of ableism than to think about the vast majority of people in the OECD who age badly because they just don't make the time for it.

The statement isn't intended to be comprehensive. It's intended to be simple. Most people, especially able bodied people, think of old age as something that happens to them that can't be mitigated. There's a component of that, but for the most part it can be held off by being active. Even people with disabilities benefit from being as active as they can.

See how much longer that was to write?