Old mandolin slicers. The plastic on one’s produced recently cracks in a year for the cheap ones, or five years for the expensive ones. My grandmother had one that was solid metal. I’m sure it’s serving my cousin as well today as it served my grandmother 50+ years ago.

It’s actually not anything new. It’s called Pumped Storage Hydropower .

Tripped and dropped a box, worth approximately $220,000 today, of extremely precise tooling meant for a cutting die. I was on my way to my bench to wrap them up safely. Boss was not pleased that day.

This is great advice, I hope OP listens to you.

This comment is for anyone who is experiencing nuclear-phobia, kinda like I do, to which I strictly mean living with a state of fear or dread about a nuclear apocalypse, this development does puts the world one step closer. It’s okay to be scared by that, I know I am. It doesn’t mean the world is one step away from a nuclear apocalypse. The world has been closer to the brink of nuclear war before and we’re all still here. It’s okay to breathe.

While I do agree that it, at times, definitely stepped into ‘dumb femminism’ as you put it. I also acknowledge that it was a movie and to do a discussion on feminism justice it would require a lot more than 2 hours. So a lot got simplified, sometimes too much. I disagree with you that it was a constant attack towards men. The movie went wayyyyy out of its way to make it clear they were attacking patriarchal systems, not men in general. That’s Ken’s whole arc, he’s suffering under patriarchy too. He just also gets the benefits of the patruarchy while he’s suffering. If I had any criticism about the film it was how much it tried to avoid criticizing capitalism and corporate culture’s role.

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

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.

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.

Ukraine isn’t letting any prisoner serve,

Among those not eligible to serve include those found guilty of sexual violence, killing two or more people, serious corruption and former high-ranking officials, Shuliak said.

Hopefully they won’t be turned into cannon fodder like Russia did to their prisoner soldiers.

deleted by creator

Ah yes, but it is the job of you, the consumer, to make sure you educate yourself about the products you buy. As the manufacturer, it’s not my job to tell you anything about my product; except what I am legally responsible for divulging. It’s your fault dear consumer, you didn’t do your due diligence. Now, let me sell you another. /S

I saw you said as much in your post but I felt it was important to double check. Good luck with your endeavor.

So I’ve read a lot of this thread and I felt I needed to say one thing to you. I don’t know why you need such extensive data security but that’s none of my business.

What I wanted to say is that if you need this much protection for a business, ie you’re protecting many other people’s sensitive data, hire a professional to do it right the first time. Doing a half assed job then paying someone else to fix it is twice as expensive.

If you’re doing this to protect your own personal data then the best way to do it right eventually is through trying and learning from your mistakes. Obviously try to avoid them but it’s impossible to not make any.

This might have been acceptable 20 years ago but it’s not a strong enough policy today. Data theft happens all the time and it’s in the interests of a company who’s security has been breached to not tell you that your data has been taken. You should assume that at anytime someone has several examples of your login credentials, not just one. You should use a password manager that isn’t Chrome, Firefox, Safari, ect.

This post hit my top page too. You should look at the community label when you post, it’s kind of on you to keep yourself informed about where you are in the fedverse.

Small brain move: install Windows as a guest on a Linux host. Rip out so much of it’s guts it can’t show any ads and barely works at all. Declare victory over the desecrated husk of Microsoft Windows.