Posts by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
(DIR) Post #9yHgavJuJObtOfMYDo by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-19T15:25:26.841Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I mean, I totally get how cellphone radiation isn't tested. However, it just doesn't make "sense" why cellphone radiation would be a harmful portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.From a biological standpoint, we pretty well know that anything with a frequency above visibile light (i.e. ultraviolet and higher) can be harmful. But I've not seen any evidence that any frequencies from visible light and below is harmful. So while, cellphone radiation isn't very well tested, the microwave portion of the spectrum is pretty well understood.So if we're really worried about cellphone radiation, then why aren't we worried about our lightbulbs or candles that we use to light the darkness?I just don't see a reason to be worried about this, and I find it a little confusing that this point wasn't brought up in the talk at all.
(DIR) Post #9yHx5ATY7w12M4Jfxg by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-19T18:30:34.556Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@baguette "Nah jk, we'll all die of cancer. Our genome has not evolved fast enough to sustain the longevity of nowadays humans."I think your conclusion is overly simplistic--not in that you're wrong--but in that I don't think cancer is avoidable. I think there is plenty of reason to believe that you either develop cancer or your cells can't repair themselves. This means that its desirable to avoid things that can damage cell tissue (especially cell dna) with things like radiation.However, my point is different. I don't know of any evidence to suggest that electromagnetic radiation that has a frequency lower than ultra-violet light can damage cells. I agree with you that its the amount that makes the poison, but with anything in the electromagnetic spectrum below ultra-violet light there simply is not enough there to cause meaningful damage.Now, of course, its true that you might be able to achieve the same level of "poison" on lower levels of the electromagnetic spectrum by increasing exposure time, but the fact remains that going outside in the sun under the ultra-violet radiation that it produces for just a couple of minutes will absolutely dwarf the amount you are exposed to by carrying a phone in your pocket--whether its an old GSM phone or not.So its kinda dumb to worry about something like this when you're not taking the time to properly apply sunblock (but then I assume people would be worried about the chemicals in the sunblock!).Look, I wear sunblock anytime I'm going to spend a meaningful amount of time (more than 10 minutes) in the sun in the afternoon (any time from 11:30 to about 5 or 6). Part of this is because I have an extremely soulless pale complexion. Another part is because I know just how damaging ultra-violet light is.All I'm saying is that I'm skeptical of any talk that suggests that electromagnetic radiation is a potential problem that doesn't also strongly advise you to wear sunblock. Wearing sunblock is the number 1 thing that you can do to prevent cancer on your skin, and unless you're doing that I think its hypocritical to worry about other causes of cancer--yes that's right, I think its more important to wear sunblock than it is not to smoke. Smoking isn't anywhere near as dangerous as going outside in the sun with your skin exposed.
(DIR) Post #9yHxUnsImKyHmz7NeS by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-19T18:35:11.222Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@baguette "Nah jk, we'll all die of cancer. Our genome has not evolved fast enough to sustain the longevity of nowadays humans."I think your conclusion is overly simplistic--not in that you're wrong--but in that I don't think cancer is a bad thing from a biological standpoint. I think there is plenty of reason to believe that (eventually) you either develop cancer or your cells can't repair themselves. This means that its desirable to avoid things that can damage cell tissue (especially cell dna) with things like radiation. But it also means that cancer is literally a disease that we'll never be able to overcome, because the alternative is our cells not reproducing.In any case, I don't know of any evidence to suggest that electromagnetic radiation that has a frequency lower than ultra-violet light can damage cells.I agree with you that its the amount that makes the poison, but with anything in the electromagnetic spectrum below ultra-violet light there simply is not enough there to cause meaningful damage.Now, of course, its true that you *might* be able to achieve the same level of "poison" on lower levels of the electromagnetic spectrum by increasing exposure time, but the fact remains that going outside in the sun under the ultra-violet radiation that it produces for just a couple of minutes will absolutely dwarf the amount you are exposed to by carrying a phone in your pocket--whether its an old GSM phone or not. But the truth is that ultra-violet light is at least two orders of magnitude greater than visible light. That means that you're going to have to spend 100 times longer in front of a lightbulb than you would exposed to ultra-violet light to get the same kind of radiation. If you compare ultraviolet light to microwave light, then you're looking at about a million times longer.So its kinda dumb to worry about something like this when you're not taking the time to properly apply sunblock (but then I assume people would be worried about the chemicals in the sunblock!).Look, I wear sunblock anytime I'm going to spend a meaningful amount of time (more than 10 minutes) in the sun in the afternoon (any time from 11:30 to about 5 or 6). Part of this is because I have an extremely soulless pale complexion. Another part is because I know just how damaging ultra-violet light is.All I'm saying is that I'm skeptical of any talk that suggests that electromagnetic radiation is a potential problem that doesn't also strongly advise you to wear sunblock. Wearing sunblock is the number 1 thing that you can do to prevent cancer on your skin, and unless you're doing that I think its hypocritical to worry about other causes of cancer--yes that's right, I think its more important to wear sunblock than it is not to smoke. Smoking isn't anywhere near as dangerous as going outside in the sun with your skin exposed.
(DIR) Post #9yOreGTsYHHhUsXg24 by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-23T02:32:29.645Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@baguette "The question in that case is: what temperature can your brain sustain ?"I mean, we got that pretty well figured out. You don't start to get brain damage from a fever until you have a fever well above 100 degrees. Now, I guess you could say that you're talking about the temperature of your brain and not the temperature of your body, but its always going to be pretty close to the same thing. There is an absolute BOATLOAD of blood that is constantly going in and out of your brain, and this regulates your body temperature pretty well so that its mostly consistent throughout the rest of your body.In other words, I really don't think there is enough energy in cellphone's microwave radiation to heat up your brain before that heat is dispersed throughout your body by means of your blood. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe you use your cellphone to pop your popcorn, but I have been unsuccessful in my attempts.I'm not saying there aren't problems with cellphones, but this just doesn't strike me as one of them.
(DIR) Post #9yOssQ1RyQH367YeIa by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-23T02:46:24.226Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@logen@9chen.org But it does matter. There's so much electromagnetic radiation around us that its insane. Even if you go out into the tundra of the antarctic, you're still being exposed to tons of radiation. As always, and as @baguette rightly said "It's the amount that makes the poison." The truth is that there is a high end of the EM spectrum (i.e. gamma waves) and a low end (i.e. radio waves). In general the high end simply has more energy in their waves--because their frequency is higher. Now, that's not always true, amplitude matters just like frequency does, but if we know all of these things then we can actually calculate the energy of the radiation that we're talking about. And guess what--we know all of this pretty well because we can literally measure these things.So if you're going to speak on a topic and say that microwaves are dangerous, then you're going to have to explain what you're saying "dangerous" actually means. In otherwords, microwaves are dangerous relative to what? And you can do this pretty easily. You can compare the energy in microwave radiation from a cellphone to how much energy is in an x-ray, 10 minutes out in direct sunlight, a 2 hour airplane flight, etc. You can actually calculate these things and come up with a pretty good idea of how dangerous something is.Instead what we get is a talk about how the FDA (I don't recall what bullshit bureaucratic organization was performing the experiments cited in the video) fucked up their experiments. But the truth is that I don't trust any governmental organization to test products for me. I look at what's out there and see what makes sense to me based off of what I know about how the world works (and I reject the idea that modern science has a monopoly on that by the way).All I'm saying is that this is a giant waste of time because this is stuff that's pretty well already figured out and understood, and we don't need to expose people to electromagnetic radiation to "test" and find out what is safe or not. We know that--in general--anything at visible light and lower is usually safe. But notice I'm saying generally and usually because there are cases in which it would be dangerous to be exposed to radiation (say if the wire mesh on your microwave was broken, then that radiation could indeed be dangerous to you).So the tl;dr is simply it does matter what the danger of the rest of the em spectrum is because if you don't talk about that in your talk then we have nothing to compare the danger you're talking about to. However, that would kind of kill the talk, now wouldn't it?
(DIR) Post #9yOtA45sF5qeIe2d4y by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-23T02:49:25.753Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@barcode "the effects of lead in water pipes isn't very well tested,"The effects of lead in the human body is pretty well understood. So why the fuck do we need to test whether or not that lead comes from paint or it comes from the water you drink. Are you really that fucking stupid?All I'm saying is that you can take knowledge from one area, and apply it in another area. What a fucking concept?
(DIR) Post #9yOtcqHafdF3rbFB1U by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-08-23T02:54:47.028Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@barcode "the effects of lead in water pipes isn't very well tested,"The effects of lead in the human body is pretty well understood. So why in the world would we need to test whether or not that lead comes from paint or it comes from the water you drink? All I'm saying is that you can take knowledge from one area, and apply it in another area.I'd really like to make a joke about how you had lead in your water growing up because of how ridiculous your reasoning is here, but the sad truth is that this has actually happened to people in real life and has real world consequences and is very sad.
(DIR) Post #9zcxo3VKGlFzAqI2Fc by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2020-09-28T19:39:31.489Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@baguette Yeah, I'm a conspiracy theorist like that.
(DIR) Post #A32vAczahg3dfebEga by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-01-09T01:48:37.124Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
:q is a good way to end because you can chain it with other commands, for example :wq.
(DIR) Post #A32vD8a8E4NwDrt6f2 by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-01-09T01:49:03.948Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
:q is a good way to end because you can chain it with other commands, for example :wq. Of course, if you're only trying to quit, ZZ is obviously better.
(DIR) Post #A32yQsASLkCfER7SyG by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-01-09T02:25:28.844Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
You're completely right. Video games are designed to get you to play them at the expense of doing other things. Doesn't necessarily mean they're always shit, but like heroin, it usually is.
(DIR) Post #A32z7VJNCilCnScPJI by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-01-09T02:33:09.717Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@barcode I don't know about whether or not video games can be art or not, but I don't care. The issue with video games is that they try to manipulate you. Art does not manipulate you, that's what propaganda does. Propaganda is not worth your time.If there's a video game that can be classified as art, then sure that's fine, but I'd settle for video games that simply just don't try to manipulate you. I think lots of older games qualify as not manipulating you, but if you find yourself spending as much money on video games than you do on food, then I think its time to reflect on your habits.
(DIR) Post #A32zPRLcgDI5iSDuCW by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-01-09T02:36:22.638Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@barcode I don't know about whether or not video games can be art or not, but I don't care. The issue with video games is that they try to manipulate you. Art does not manipulate you, that's what propaganda does. Propaganda is not worth your time.If there's a video game that can be classified as art, then sure that's fine, but I'd settle for video games that simply just don't try to manipulate you. I think lots of older games qualify as not manipulating you, but if you find yourself spending as much money on video games than you do on food, then I think its time to reflect on your habits.With all that said, Linux probably wouldn't exist (at least GNU linux) if it weren't for Richard Stallman wanting to play his video games without a UNIX operating system.
(DIR) Post #A5PbYHcKfg0rIneLWS by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-03-20T20:12:41.218Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I don't think the problem is ads as much as the problem is the trackers that go along with them. If you have a simple php script on the background that decides what ad to send, and then the ad is just simply a link and an image with some text, I don't think it would be an issue.There's nothing wrong with monetizing the website, so long as it doesn't compromise the functionality.
(DIR) Post #ADkgyyLgaii4rUsNXM by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-11-22T03:35:35.692Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I don't know. It depends on what you mean by "rational." The way I think of rational is more or less the way Aristotle would describe "rational," which is very different from how "rational" is understood in the enlightenment.I think it does make sense to formulate a society that produces virtue and best fulfills the natural desires in its citizens. However, that is not at all what "enlightenment ideals" mean by rational, even though its very in line with what Aristotle would call rational.Modernity wants to justify everything epistemically, and that's really the problem with it. There can't ever just be any "given" that is just understood as a good for its own end.
(DIR) Post #ADkh0uCcyelYa9Yq4u by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-11-22T03:38:21.897Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@scilens St. Augustine wasn't a neoPlatonist. Neoplatonism is actually associated with many heresies of the early Church.Obviously, I understand what you mean, that Plato had a big effect on Augustine's theology in a similar way that Aristotle had a big effect on Aquinas'. However, neoplatonism and platonism are very distinct things--in fact, many people mistake neoplatonism for platonism.
(DIR) Post #ADnxQt0CLjMbI7sNSS by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2021-11-24T11:43:51.080Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"I know this sounds really gay"ROFL that's so hillarious. I really respect your opinion here and think that you're mostly right. And while I think you're completely on the right side in the sense that you can't fault someone for taking the view that they have no reason to question--I think you can fault people for having such an insane visceral reaction to something that just barely threatens that idea that they have little reason to reinforce.For example, while I think you're right about the people with Kyle Rittenhouse and the shock that they were wrong about the case--I think its entirely fine to go out and distribute justice with the zealousness in which they aired their ignorant opinion.There should even be forgiveness there, but there's much greater cause to punish people who zealously make declarations about things that they don't actually know. That's a problem, and I legitimately think that everyone that wrote something one the internet about kyle should be held liable for libel.We can't have a society where people just sling hostile, nasty, divisive accusations at people. That's how you get witch trials. That's how you end up throwing people into the brazen bull. I'm a free speech extremist in that I think even yelling fire in a crowded building or threats ought to be protected, because to me what matters are people's actions and not their words. But we do have to draw the line where people start saying things that are blatantly untrue. The caveate to that is that people have to have the room to experiment with things that *may* or may *not be* true. So as long as people aren't defending these beliefs as if they're more divine than the 4 gospels cannonized by the Holy Catholic Church, I think they should be given room to repent. However, those that are going to be filled with a passionate intensity when they haven't even done a basic investigation into the facts are equivalent to those who have denied the grace of the Holy Spirit. And I don't say this lightly, this goes for myself as well.This is something that we cannot have in a civilized society lest we are subject to raw anarchy.
(DIR) Post #AF3gvz9DAO7pSghIe0 by nicholas_rees@videos.lukesmith.xyz
2022-01-03T09:09:30.034Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@yellowbeard@freespeechextremist.com Did you actually read the post? How does that link say that Linus doesn't care about security? You're making no sense.