• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle






  • Why? What should people know about Texas power grid upgrades?

    Best I can see right now is ERCOT and others saying lots of upgrades have been made, but not specifics. I can see ERCOT and the legislature going back and forth on a “market overhaul” that no one can quite agree on yet and which favors more on-demand sources (natural gas and such). Can you point to where people should read about upgrades?

    I think there is a bad title here, but that’s not the title at the link. I don’t know where this title came from. OP? The link is a pretty straight forward reporting of this recently released EIA report and doesn’t seem to contain much of the author’s opinion (apart from being on a renewable biased website).








  • A search for “asymmetrical spoon” gives a few that are shaped just like OP’s. These ones look particularly close in shape. They also have sort of similar design around the handled ends - at least in that they have designs rather than a fully plain end.

    OP doesn’t say anything about the flatter side being thinner or sharper. I think if meant to cut into grapefruit or ice cream that side would be sharper/thinner. Absent sharpening, a pointy spoon should penetrate something easier than a less pointy one - and these look less pointy than if they were symmetrical. Plus, you’d bend those up pretty quick in hard ice cream I think. I think they’re just asymmetrical for the sake of it, a point of distinction perhaps marketed as favoring right handed people in getting liquids off a flat surface better.







  • I sort of cringe (more of a nose wrinkle really) at OP’s “it’s known in some circles to be bad” You see beliefs and correlative evidence constantly misrepresented as proof and truth in food and medical science (reporting and discussion).

    I get it. The body is a hugely complicated system, it’s hard to figure these things out. What does even figuring them out mean with the amount of complicating factors of this affects that which affects this which causes this.

    I’m open to the idea that lobbying and such means Aspartame (and other industrial food products) has really been pushed through.

    It’s also obviously been studied quite a bit and it’s hard to believe all the studies saying it’s safe at recommended levels are bunk or fraudulent.

    This news was on another instance where the discussion included that the IARC carcinogen classifications do not take into account exposure/dosage. A whole bunch of things can be carcinogenic depending on exposure. Haven’t we all read how the rats that got cancer from saccharine had epic doses? It was just magnitudes more than a human would consume.

    If an observational study won’t cut it (I see you, @xthedeerlordx, and appreciate your comment and explanation), how does one prove the causation? Don’t you need randomized controlled trials which would be extremely onerous controlling for various factors and basically making the (ideally large number of) participants live in a lab for whatever amount of time the study takes to really prove causation? I’d genuinely like to know. It seems like for a lot of things correlation after correlation after correlation is the best we’re going to get.