Unless it’s a real person who gets zapped. Then it’s manslaughter.

If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Extra credit recently published a video about Monopoly . If it peaks your interest it’s worth checking out.

I never thought of it like that, well written.

It’s interesting watching the discussion in this thread evolving and polarizing. Yesterday the discussion started as ‘nuclear is one solution in a portfolio of solutions to combat climate change. vs. nuclear is always bad.’ and developed into ‘nuclear is good and you’re dumb. vs. nuclear is bad and you’re evil’.

Playing our hidden games on the school’s network. Good times. Back then if you knew a few lines of code you could give your session administrator privileges. That was when internet security existed because so few people knew how to use a computer, let alone a local network or the internet. An entire computer lab playing against another entire computer lab in whatever those games were called. The most popular was light cycles, an open source Tron clone.

It’s not our fault our AI chose to set prices so high they extract all the money from customers. We just told it to find more efficient business strategies. How were we supposed to know that collectively raising prices with our competitors would bankrupt the public? It’s not a conspiracy, we just chose the same AI models and the AIs just coalesced on the same answer. /S

Seriously though, your absolutely right

If he claimed to know how it worked, they wouldn’t be able to sell it as a scapegoat for indefensible business decisions.

Reading that made me feel like I lost The Game. That’s a bit of Internet history I am happy to forget.

deleted by creator

The government cares quite a bit.

It really reminds me of all those static and velocity pressure calculations I had to do in undergrad, until I got the degree.

Can’t believe I’m posting in a Palestine thread again but here we go. I think people aren’t using the same words in the same way in this thread. In the last decade there has been a shift in how the word liberal is used. Two decades ago there were the neo-liberals, which said they were not big C conservative but were.

To separate themselves from the neo-liberals, liberals started calling themselves leftist. Which meant the neo-liberals as the only “liberals” remaining. So now the word liberal can mean a person on the left, or a person on the right, depending on the intent of the speaker.

So saying that the liberals are turning a blind eye to genocide is true, the speaker probably just means neo-liberals but ommitted the neo. Language is fluid, and confusing

If it were only as easy as flipping a switch. I wish I could be as idealistic as you are right now, I used to be. Part of my journey fighting injustice how I think I best can has been to learn how to hold my idealisms hand and let that lead me. Rather than listen to it’s endless screaming. If I didn’t I would have burnt out long ago.

I guess I just want you to understand that the people I’m speaking for, most of my former professors and my colleagues, share your concerns and are trying. They’re trying to stop testing on animals, they’re trying to stop industry from running ahead of them, they’re trying to protect the environment just as much as humans.

There is so much working against my professors from developing it, to myself and my colleagues trying to enforce the regulations proposed. In this system we need funding and government support to do any of that which we just don’t have. The only ones with enough money to do that are the ones who have the most to lose from us doing our jobs. So it just doesn’t happen.

Oh I absolutely agree that it is extremely stupid that industry is allowed to move faster than what toxicologist can research. It makes me very angry but if I start telling people this I just get called a leftist nut. Everyone assumes that someone is making sure they’re safe. Well I sat in those people’s classes for six years and they do not get enough funding to live up to the publics expectation. Part of me thinks that’s by design, because poorly funded toxicology research is big businesess’ wet dream.

Regardless of how much you and I might want it to be different that’s not how it is right now and there are problems that need to be solved right now. It’s not an either, or, that’s a false dichotomy. Abandoning current toxicology research in order to prioritize advancing research methods means that until those research methods have matured, industry would have an opportunity to go without scrutiny. It’s bad enough nowadays when there is barely enough funding to pay attention, imagine a decade where no one is paying attention to the new things industry comes up with while those methods are developed.

I don’t like animal testing, none of my professors did either. Who do you think taught me to respect and understand why we test on animals. Some of them were doing research into new methods like you described, others were testing new chemicals with established methods. It isn’t a dichotomy, at least in-so-far-as toxicology research is concerned. I don’t have any experience in pharmacology or cosmetics.

I did my undergrad in toxicology which is all I can speak about with any sort of knowledge. What you described is more like what my professors actually did when they told us about studies they have done. They try to use the fewest amount of live specimens possible. They start on a computer (in-silico), then they move onto cultured himan cells (in-vitro), then onto animals (in-vivo). Pharmacology will move onto human testing but toxicology doesn’t. Pathogens don’t selectively choose to damage a heart or liver, they have an effect on the whole body.

The reason why it’s done this way is because toxicology is playing catch up to industry. There are more compounds being produced than researchers have time to examine. It would be nice if a company had to prove that it’s new chemical is safe but unfortunately that type of legislation will never pass in the west. Would you be willing to be dosed with BPA or PFAS to determine if it causes cancer in place of an animal? Without clear evidence that it was companies would still be making water bottles with BPA. You might be tempted to say just look at population data but it’s just not that simple.

In so far as toxicology research is concerned, animals are needed. It would be great if companies would stop removed poisoning the environment and us but unless we have undeniable prove to shove right into their ugly faces that what they’re doing is hurtful, they won’t stop. Right now the only way to do that without causing a ton of human suffering is to test on animals.

Tons of work is being done to reduce the numbers of animals that are tested on and new AI models are really taking off. Eventually though a living thing needs to be subjected to it to ensure our simulations aren’t just removed.

I’m so old I used to install my games on 5 1/2" floppies. I dispise how the video game market changed from an ownership model to service-based and micro transactions models that are popular today. Don’t even get me started on mobile games. What I have noticed is that I am paying almost the same price for a video game today as I was 30 years ago. A game that I paid approximately $75 for in 1994 I should be paying approximately $150.00 for a new release today. Yet I’m still paying $75 for a game, they have to be making up that difference somewhere. Now the tools needed to make a game have had an enormous impact on reducing costs, and there’s a whole bunch of other economic stuff I’m ignoring. Regardless, it’s still kind of amazing the price of games hasn’t inflated.

I’ve thought about this for a while to be sure I’m not just being reactive. I wouldn’t ask you to stop, in fact I encourage you to post more. I can’t find the time to write such well written replies. Your post is the type of content I like to see and I’m sure others do too.

I’m giving you an unsolicited critique of your comments. If you intend to communicate with laymen about scientific concepts from my experience you’re going to have a lot more success approaching it as if you’re a supportive teacher rather than trying to prove someone wrong. If you try to be more like Ms. Frizzle than Sheldon Cooper you might reach more people, which is the ultimate goal of communicating science to laymen.

You are actually very good at it, and I encourage you to practice and find what works and what doesn’t. Proving someone wrong just makes them defensive, teaching someone or communicating with the public shouldn’t make them feel the need to be defensive.

This is going to barely scratch the surface but, historically when economies contract people die but the rich get richer.

When top-down agricultural economies contract (negative inflation) that means there is less food around this year than last year. If that happens enough times there’s a famine, but it’s not those rich in food stores that will suffer the most. It’s those with the least food because they’ll run out first.

When top-down capital economies contract (negative inflation) there is less capital around this year that last year. If that happens enough times there’s a recession/depression, but it’s not those rich in capital that will suffer the most. It’s those with the least capital because they’ll run out first.

In either case the problem in my opinion at least isn’t that the economy contracts, but that those are the top don’t share their wealth because those in the middle are so afraid to lose theirs they’re not willing to take it from the rich. That’s because the middle doesn’t realize how far away the rich actually are from them and they’re worried that if someone goes for the rich and powerful then someone will also come for the mediocre money too.

It surprised me too how much my parents did as my parents got older and needed more support. Cleaning and cooking was only the tip of the iceberg. They did so many little things for everyone, I still don’t understand how they had the time to do that, raise kids, and work.

The pot said to the kettle. Your reply to this thread is much better presented, you how to communicate science. I think you need to think a bit more about your audience. Lemmy isn’t an academic institution, it’s removed posts all the way down.