+1. I was excited for it and it sounded nice in theory but in practice it was just too much of a slog for me. I picked it up because I have a non-traditional math background and while I more or less know calc + LA, I do lack fluency with the concepts. Perhaps I am wrong, but at my level I feel that I don't need to go through 10 trivial variations of the same theme and many foundational concepts could be massively condensed. I am instead progressing much faster just picking up a textbook and referring back to precalculus books to fill in holes where needed.
Seriously? This article is obviously poorly written marketing copy and is just one step above the average InfoWars article.
"Caffeine anhydrous was first developed by the Nazis"
OK, so what? Not to mention the fact this is completely wrong. The first total synthesis of caffeine was described by Emil Fischer in 1895.
"Do the soda drink makers have to state how much caffeine is in the can?"
I have no idea if there's a law mandating it but literally every can of soda or energy drink I've ever had lists the amount of caffeine in it.
I have no idea if the assertions about the quality of the Chinese plants is true or not but there are so many things that are off the about the article The general alarmist tone, rehashing of standard chemophobic tropes (woah, _SYNTHETIC_ caffeine!), inserting some industrial mishaps related to the manufacturing of caffeine products (no logical connection is drawn between these mishaps and well, anything else in the article...) etc.
PC has spoken admirably of Koch Industries and he thinks there's some merit to remaining private. That's probably why. I don't have the source at hand but probably one of his podcasts.
I feel like it makes sense for Koch to stay private since their work mostly focuses on fossil fuels and specifically fracking. Public markets can be a big distraction with protests and what not. Is stripe worried about being cancelled?
I would like to second this recommendation. For a long time I thought their content was low quality edutainment because of the generally 90s website design and the generic stock photos used for courses(admittedly, that's...a pretty shallow line of reasoning). The courses are usually taught by university professors, have a well thought out lesson plan and have helpful accompanying guidebooks (you can also request course transcripts, I believe). For example, the course linked above is taught by Paul Zeitz based on his book, "The Art and Craft of Problem Solving", which is a classic for learning Olympiad-level problem solving techniques. I've also learned a lot from their history courses.
Your logic is flawed because additive risks like that cannot be compared to exponential risks (like the spread of a virus). There's an asymmetry in the outcomes and the potential upside is enormous; especially when your stated risks are minimal to (say the least), like acne or in some cases, have been proven to be wrong by data (re: psychological "discomfort"--suicide rates decreased last year).
Suicide rates are not the same thing as discomfort.
Calling the risks minimal to acne makes no sense. It’s one of the worst contributors to acne in any person’s daily life.
Even if I agreed with your exponentiality argument the whole point is that I’m saying masks don’t reduce spread. You seem to think there’s only possible upside, but there is equally downside wrt xmission; that is, masks run the risk of worsening transmission.
Yes, but they are a pretty good proxy for psychological discomfort levels/rates. And my point was that you can't really compare acne to covid as the latter is much worse (let me emphasize that you _don't_ have to agree with me on this, all you need to agree with is the fact that exponential risk >>>>>>> additive).
Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that masks run the risk of worsening transmission. I see from your other comments that you're familiar with the mask clinical trials (presumably you're referring to the Danish study). That study was inconclusive (also note that it was _severely_ underpowered), and considering that _nothing_ in our previous knowledge suggests that they worsen infection rates, your reasoning is once again flawed.
I’ve already outlined in another comment why they could increase transmission.
They increase net volume of air exchanged, therefore all else equal they increase the release of aerosols. There’s furthermore a strong chance that they actively nebulize respiratory droplets into fine aerosols; ie they incresse the relative aerosolization and therefore the absolute aerosols.
They make convo partners stand closer together or speak louder.
They alter risk appraisal.
It is foolish to rule out any downsides. At best you’re advocating for a condom full of holes. At worse you’re advocating for a condom that magically worsens STI transmission.
Nothing in our previous understanding suggests that they increase release of aerosols or aerosolization. Multiple previous studies have shown that they don't (see Asadi, S., Cappa, C.D., Barreda, S. et al. Efficacy of masks and face coverings in controlling outward aerosol particle emission from expiratory activities. Sci Rep 10, 15665 (2020), for one example; there's also older studies but you can look them up yourself).
The other arguments are of the "seatbelts cause more accidents" variety, which honestly aren't worth refuting. But I'll just note that social distancing has much weaker evidence of affecting virus transmission than even masks (there is no real justification for the 6 feet number and mostly unlikely it makes much of a difference). Hell, social distancing is even much more difficult to comply with than wearing masks so your argument makes no sense at all.
Honestly, this is a problem with everything. Snobs are sort of a double edged sword. They are great because they are very passionate and likely spend a lot of time on the topic at hand (could be anything. Maybe it's running, classical music, Buddhism, beer etc.). You can learn a lot from them. On the downside, since they are so opinionated they can be frequently insufferable. I think you have to learn to not take their opinions too seriously and continue to have fun.
Nobody disagrees with holding judges accountable but from the context, what you're advocating for sounds like a blood feud and we all know how those tend to turn out.
