I mean, isn’t the joke that there are only like 20 people who really do anything that matters in Star Wars? The rest of the trillions of beings in the SW universe are apathetic too.

That’s also one of the underlying threads in Andor, Luthen is trying to agitate the empire so that they lash out and start really interfering with people’s lives. The more the Empire tries to crush dissent, the more apathetic people they disrupt, and the dissent only grows. That’s where we’re at now, most people’s lives haven’t meaningfully changed yet, but it’s coming.

In what concentration? The SDS is an essential tool, but you need to be able to interpret it. Almost any chemical you look at is going to have an LC50 or EC50 and some kind of data on toxicity to aquatic life. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s so toxic it should never enter the water stream, it just means it shouldn’t be put into water sources in high concentrations.

Looking at a basic ‘geranium oil’ SDS, it’s mostly Citronellol, Geraniol, and Linalool, with miniscule amounts of a handful of others. That is probably not the best environmentally. Since Linalool and Citronellol are both antimicrobial and antifungal agents they absolutely will be somewhat harmful to aquatic life, though probably not significantly in the quantities you’d be using for shower gel.

That said, looking at Linalool, the more “toxic” component, the most sensitive subject is water fleas, with an EC50 of 20mg/L over 48hours. That means 50% of water fleas living in a medium of 20mg/L Linalool for 48 experienced harmful effects from the substance.

So, I searched a random shower gel recipe and got a basic starting point let’s say we’re going to use 7 drops of rose oil in 7 oz of liquid soap (and whatever other stuff). So that’s one drop per oz, using a rough estimate (0.05ml/drop) that gives us a concentration of 0.169% or 1.69 mL/L in your soap. A mL of liquid typically weighs roughly a gram (very roughly, but we’re just looking for a general ballpark here). Linalool makes up about 8% of the rose oil, so your overall Linalool concentration ends up roughly 135mg/L. So, the straight gel would definitely be harmful to aquatic life. But it’s not going into the water system straight, it’s mixed with the water used for bathing. Let’s say you use an entire oz of soap for a shower, and we’ve got a short shower using only 10 gallons of water. So one Oz of gel has 3.9mg of Linalool diluted into 37.8 liters of water, making a concentration around 0.1 mg/L. That’s not much, and that’s just going into more water to be diluted further.

It’s your creation, and it’s up to you to determine what level of potential harm you’re comfortable with, but moreso I hope this helps you understand better what the SDS really means and how to interpret it.

Truly the stupidest thing I’ve seen on Lemmy today, and that’s a fucking high bar to leap.

What ‘good’ was he actually trying to do? Padme was in no actual danger, he just had dreams about her dying. A desire to force someone to live beyond their natural life through any possible means and despite all negative consequences is not ‘good’. There is no universe where murdering dozens of children is ok because he might be able to save his wife from something bad that might happen to her at some future point.

Having superpowers powered by emotion is dangerous, and the whole point of Jedi training is to understand and recognize your emotions, so that you don’t allow intense emotions to control your actions.

Anakin did not learn those lessons. Ignoring emotion is the antithesis of Jedi teaching, the entire point is to learn how to deal with them in a healthy way.

"It also seems to me that if we only tell men to never “pursue”, but do nothing about the “hard to get”-behaviour, then men who follow the new instructions or script will be left with no chance to meet someone. "

I was with you 100% up to here. Women are well aware they don’t have to ‘play hard to get’ anymore. This has been a huge cultural shift over the last 70 years, acting like only mens behavior is changing is naive at best.

Temperature is not the problem. No climate scientist has ever worried that plants won’t produce well in higher temperatures. Acting like they’re ‘exploring the consequences of climate change’ is a smokescreen, it’s a way of making it seem like the fears are overblown. They’re testing a hypothesis with an obvious conclusion that’s somewhat related to global warming, while conveniently ignoring the things real scientists are actually worried about.

The fears come from the other effects of rising temperature and greenhouse gasses. Most of the real scary stuff is happening in the oceans. Things like the potential for massive amounts of algal death and the loss of potentially 60% of the oxygen creating organisms on earth. Plants are gonna grow great when oxygen levels drop to 15% and people have to wear breathing masks anytime they venture to the surface.

We are absolutely not a hardy or fast growing species. It takes years, for our children to be remotely self sufficient, and over a decade to reach sexual maturity. We have a similar growth pattern to elephants, outside of whales, we’re some of the slowest growing animals alive. We can’t survive extreme temperature swings, radiation, loss of oxygen. We’ve created things to overcome our physical mediocrity, but those things can very quickly disappear for most of the population when the infrastructure supporting global shipping and manufacturing collapses. The fact that we make up such a huge portion of mammal biomass mostly just means we’ll be a great food source for whatever bugs evolve to eat us. Keep in mind that we may be about 30% of mammal biomass, but livestock make up more than 60%. That’s not because they’re small and adaptable, it’s because they’re food.

This is a ‘transition period’ on a geologic scale. We’re talking about the next 50,000 years at best, it’s not something we’re just to ride out and things go back to normal.

Because higher temperatures aren’t the problem, the rate of change is. I assume the worst because we’ve seen it before in the fossil record. The best comparison is the Triassic-Permian extinction. Rapid change in temperatures led to global ecological collapse and the death of 85% of all life on earth. Now, during the Triassic-Permian extinction CO2 levels rose from 400 ppm to ~2500 ppm over the course of ~50,000 years, with an estimated rate of change of around .05 ppm per year. We’re starting out lower at 280 ppm before the industrial revolution, but we’ve already hit 420, and we’re now adding about 2.5 ppm every year, with that number increasing every year. So we’re currently experiencing warming that’s 50 times faster than the most devastating extinction event in Earth’s history.

The fact that our entire food industry is based around genetically engineered monocultures is just another point of failure. It’s a constant game of cat and mouse to continually keep each generation of plants protected against changing diseases and pests, and because the vast majority of the seed is coming from one company, if something does adapt to overcome the engineered defenses, it’s devastating to the entire global population of that crop.

Look at who funded that study, and the actual contents.

According to this study - funded by the Chinese government, the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions on earth - we’ll see increased plant growth in the short term under controlled warming. Even ignoring the incredible conflict of interest, the fundamental assumption of the study is that we’ll be able to get warming under control and stick to the goals of the Paris agreement, maintaining only 2 degrees of warming by 2070. That’s absolutely absurd. We’ll be incredibly lucky to not hit 2 degrees of warming by 2040 at this rate. Besides that, they are essentially just looking at how plant growth responds to changes in temp and CO2. Of course plant productivity increases with higher temps and more available CO2, that’s not where the problems come in.

The problems occur when those hardy, fast growing species start really exploding. Cyanobacterial blooms that deoxygenate massive swaths of the ocean, killing millions of fish at a time. Population explosions of pests, contaminating food supplies and starting future pandemics. The ecosystem is complex and interconnected, things will adapt eventually, but the transition period will be catastrophic.

We are not a hardy, fast growing species. I have no doubt that people will survive, but it’s going to effect everyone, and a lot sooner than you think.

Where do these “mass death everywhere” ideas come from?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

The problem isn’t that it’s going to be warmer. The problem is that it’s getting warmer so quickly that populations won’t be able to adapt. Ecological collapse is absolutely on the table here. There is no real debate in the scientific community about this, just deceptive propaganda that’s disguised as ‘conflicting science’ but is simply a smoke screen to keep people ignoring the problem.

If there’s a decent dribble there I’ll grab a paper towel or napkin and clean it off first, but I usually don’t worry about it. Wiping it off with a finger is disgusting though IMO. Her finger has about a thousand times more nasty stuff than anything in the sauce bottle, that’s a great way to contaminate an entire container.

This is nostalgia talking. In the OG trilogy, Thrawn was killed in a painfully obvious coup that any competent commander should have seen coming for miles. His constant dismissal of the Noghiri was idiotic. He may not have known Leia was Vader’s daughter, but something was obviously happening with their society that he just waved away like nothing.

In Ahsoka, he has next to nothing to work with, uses his meager resources efficiently, and achieves his only goal completely (aside from Ezra’s infiltration anyway). Babylon’s betrayal is the only reason the heroes achieve anything at all. At the end of the day, Thrawn has always been a fun character who primarily looks like a genius compared to the complete idiocy of other imperials.

You completely missed my point obviously. I’m trying to get you to consider what “intelligence” actually means. Is intelligence the ability to learn? Make decisions? Have feelings? Outside of humans, what else possesses your definition of intelligence? Parrots? Mice? Spiders?

I’m not comparing LLMs to human complexity, nor do I particularly give a shit about them in my daily life. I’m just trying to get you to actually examine your definition of intelligence, as you seem to use something specific that most of our society doesn’t.

I would argue that humans also frequently give bad advice and incorrect information. We regurgitate the information we read, and we’re notoriously bad at recognizing false and misleading info.

More important to keep in mind is that the vast, vast majority of intelligence in our world is much dumber than people. If you’re expecting greater than human intelligence as your baseline, you’re going to have a wildly different definition than the rest of the world.

That definition would also apply to teaching a baby to walk.