If there’s anyone here living in the region, remember to drink water! The best method to prevent heat exhaustion or worse is to drink small amounts of water frequently, like roughly once every 30 minutes or every time you feel thirsty (whichever happens first). When all said and done, the best indicator is the color of your urine. It should be a light yellow color.
If you’re working outside, make sure you’re also drinking something with sodium electrolytes like liquid iv or Gatorade (other drinks like Prime aren’t suitable, they pad their electrolyte count will potassium).
If at all possible, take a cold shower at the peak of the heat around noon to regulate your temperature and comfort. If you get heat exhaustion, STOP WHATEVER YOU’RE DOING AND GET INDOORS. Heat exhaustion is the first step towards heat stroke and death. You will die in heat like this if you don’t take care of yourself. Do not “tough it out” or wait “5 more minutes”.
Well umm, that’s kinda the trick. In Phoenix in summertime, “cold” water is cold in name only. It’s more tepid than anything. That’s just another part of what makes it so oppressive living there in summer.
That’s fair. I live in the Midwest, so I’ve never had that problem and don’t have any solutions. These are things I learned while doing work like mowing, picking ragweed and rock, moving grain bins, and stuff like that
Yea, backyard pools are the norm in large swaths of the valley (Phoenix+). It’s the best way to avoid your kids burning to death if they don’t wanna go outside at midnight.
Ah yes, except it’s made more complicated than it has to be. The thing is to get salt. Sodium is a basic element not a salt. Also you don’t have to drink it, usually it’s easier and cheaper to find in foods.
Man this summer we were out and about, my eldest started talking like a zombie and I noticed she wasn’t sweating. Oh boy stage 1. Ok AC right now, no negotiations, no waiting.
I get your point, but disagree with your thesis. Fahrenheit makes a lot of sense for human comfort ranges. 0 and 100 are some of the most extreme natural temperatures most people in F-using countries ever see. 0 means cold as fuck and 100 means hot as fuck. And there’s a single-digit useful precision to it as well. 72 and 73 are close, but noticeably different. Celsius requires decimals for that kind of difference. And 0 means “it’s kinda cold outside, I guess” and 100 means “you were dead a long time ago”, so it’s not nearly as useful in every day life with natural living temperatures.
0 means any water outside will most likely start freezing, 100 means any water outside will be boiling. Makes sense to me. What temp do things start freezing in F? 30? 40? Doesn’t make sense at all. What temp does water boil? 160? I dunno, none of it is rational in any way.
0/32/64/96 are somewhat reasonable breakpoints in F, and make dividing the space between them in half repeatedly on a thermometer simple. Fahrenheit was literally made up by Big Thermometer for this exact reason.
Salt water freezes at 0F. Normal water at 32 F. Normal water boils at 212 F. Human body at 100 F (which is wrong, but also has been changing.) Below 10 F snot in nose freezes. 20 F is time to switch to long pants.
Once upon a time I was going trough some hardships, sometimes I couldn’t afford a meal, I’m not proud to admit that one time I took paper towels, wet them in a bowl and eat them, and you know what? Still had more flavor than br**ish food.
Any usefulness of Fahrenheit is purely accidental, how is water freezing at 32F useful? I’ll grant that the finer resolution can be seen as a positive, I don’t see how Fahrenheit is better for human comfort, my personal optimal comfort zone is 22-24C°, and I have no need for decimals for that. 73F is pretty close to 23C, I don’t see much difference regarding comfort in either.
The huge problem with Fahrenheit, is that it is impractical in many situations, it has basically no merit to justify its existence, and only a minority of countries continue to use it.
Of course Americans can do whatever they want, but they are looking stupider for each year they keep using “Freedom Units”.
Of course Americans switch to metric for mostly anything scientific, for example NASA use Metric.
True, but Kelvin is based on Celsius, only difference is that zero is moved from freezing water to absolute zero. Celsius however is more practical for everyday life.
Is also incredibly subjective. What’s comfortable for one person might not be for another. I’m pretty sure an Inuit and a Ghanan have pretty different ideas of what’s cold or hot. Same for Floridan and Minnesotan speaking of the US
If it requires this much explanation, it’s not very sensible.
In Celsius 0 is freezing and 100 is boiling. It’s so simple. “Comfortable” is anywhere from like 15-30 (my Canadian standards, very subjective I know) and we don’t need decimals.
98.6°F is body temperature. The .6 is funny because it’s only there because someone picked a nice round number in °C then converted it. There’s a name for that in math but I can’t remember what it is… something about more precise than accurate…
It’s honestly really intuitive for weather if you grew up with it. We still use metric for science because it makes the most sense there, like you say.
But it’s not that simple. 100 boiling is only true at sea level. At 530 (~1750 feet) it’s 98c. At 1500m (~5000ft) it’s down to 95c. At 3000m (10k feet) it’s just under 90c. Ocean water freezes at -2c. Fully saturated salt water freezes at -21c.
That’s an approximation. Celsius is no longer defined in terms of water boiling and freezing, and they are no longer exactly 0 and 100.
The modern definition of Celsius is based on absolute zero and the triple point of water. And those are also the basis for the modern definition of Fahrenheit.
Use the right tool for the right job. Fahrenheit helps plan your day, with weather or pool temperatures or whatever. Celsius is for science and engineering. This argument sounds a little like driving a nail with a torque wrench.
I can ballpark C to F. But pressure is never going to happen. Like what’s 30psi? 547000 Pa or something? Who the fuck knows. Or you could use bar, with a scale of 1 to 5, lol.
Knowing nothing?! I think Fahrenheit clearly wins as it’s normalized against your own perception and experiences. If you ever have direct contact with 100C, it will be less pleasant than 100F.
But my point was that both systems have their uses and I just code switch between them depending on the task. But if you have to have only one, it should be Celsius. I won’t disagree with that.
Kelvin is clearly superior to Celsius for scientific purposes.
I’m always amused when those who urge Americans to switch to Celsius because it’s “more scientific” are simultaneously unwilling to switch to kelvin because it’s not worth the effort.
Fahrenheit is no better than Celsius to plan your day, but it’s very useful to have just one scale to do both science and your day planning (and everything in between).
The water/weight comes up all the time. Filling a 10L bucket, I know that is going to weigh 10kg. I know I can lift it and my kid can’t.
The energy one, I’m not even sure is right. We don’t use calories, we use kilojoules. A joule is used to lift 1kg 1m. It’s not something I ever use. I use kilojoules for tracking food I ate today, that’s about it.
Weight to volume is extremely common when I cook, because often things are measured in volume, but I prefer to use the weight.
½ a liter water or milk or almost any fluid without extra dish-washing? Easy you just put it on the weight, select tara, and pour 500 grams. Voila you just saved both kitchen space and extra work. because 1g = 1ml with water and most fluids.
It’s equally easy if the number given isn’t in liter, ml or milliliter of course converts directly to grams, and dl or deciliter = 100 g. 1 liter of course being 1000 ml and in water 1000 g or 1 kg. It’s consistent all the way through.
I guess if you are used to Freedom units, this may sound like science fiction, but this has been reality in many countries for a long time already.
The Imperial pint used to be that much too, hence the old saying “A pint is a pound the world around”. Then the Imperial pint was increased by 25%, but Americans kept the old amount.
You don’t need to know anything about American units. But rest assured that those who do use them still haven’t found a good reason to switch to French units.
I’m a fan of the metric system, but understand that Fahrenheit is pretty convenient for regular human temperatures. For one, the vast majority of climate temperatures that we experience in the US on a regular basis land between 0°F & 100°F except for deserts & recent climate change impacts. For another, Farenheit is a bit more precise as whole numbers since differences between degrees are smaller, so I can be more precise with my a/c thermostat.
Still, I would prefer that we change to metric across the board in the US because it is more congruent across dimensions and decimals are easier to manipulate than fractions for me. For the latter, if I had a recipe that required I calculate 1/3 cup plus 1/2 cup, I have to switch to 2/6 & 3/6, which equals 5/6, then I’m stuck estimating that anyway since most measuring cups aren’t labeled to the 6th precision. It gets even more confusing when we have to consider teaspoons, tablespoons, & pints. Using liters would be so much more convenient for me. Another area where I get confused is when measurements for food are presented as ounces versus fluid ounces. I understand the difference, but it’s still something I have to think extra about.
My one request in switching over to metric would be that weather and thermostat temperatures are presented at least to the .5°C precision level so that 75°F would be 24.0°C and 74°F would be 23.5°C. Yes, I’m this picky about my thermostat settings and can notice a difference between 75°F/24.0°C and 74°F/23.5°C.
Request granted! My European thermostat that is about 30 years old now, has a display accuracy of 0.5 degrees, so I’d expect more modern systems to be at least as accurate. I’m not going to speak of the actual accuracy, but the display at least is 0.5 🙂
If any city can survive this, it’s Phoenix. From this oppressive heat, they will rise once again from the smoldering ashes. Not like the phoenix after which they were named, but like any non-mythical bird. They will smolder and scatter like the ashes of an unplucked pigeon that got caught in the chimney, causing the homeowners to ask “what on earth is that smell? Did something die?”
This is absolutely a good move, though I don't know how effective it'll be on its own. Unfettered AI garbage "content" is soon going to flood every storefront and service around, and the only way to really solve it is to close things down and move to more highly curated platforms. I wish that wasn't the case, but I can image a future where it's hard to find anything worthwhile in a sea of AI-generated junk.
DOC has identified a vacant building on the grounds of the Louisiana State Penitentiary that, with minor modifications, can house many of the juveniles currently at BCCY, while keeping them in separate facilities from adult inmates at all times.
I believe BCCY is juvie of no particular subtype, i.e. we can safely assume these kids committed some crime, but have no basis for speculating what sort of crime.
The more money a person makes, the more incentive and capability they have to design and structure their income, especially if they are a business owner or have customers overseas, and thus they have more opportunities to avoid doing the things that cause one to be taxed.
Also some are cheaters and just don’t pay what they owe.
Especially if it’s going to be a small ROI for the IRS.
I know in tax planning for high net worth individuals and businesses there is often a question about how the penalty (downside of being found to owe more tax) relates to the upside of just not paying the tax. For matters that aren’t so clear or where the tax code can be interpreted many ways - it often comes down to the decision maker’s risk tolerance.
So it’s smart for the IRS to avoid cases where a hundred hour audit gets them another $2k vs litigating a $20m underpayment over a grey area.
I heard an interview about this new effort. IRS agents used to be rewarded by case count. It’s much easier to audit people who earn salaries because you know exactly what they earned from employers’ reports. Rich people often have many sources of income that take time to investigate. Agents audit normal folks because it’s easy while the rich lie and get away with it.
The goal with this effort has been to change the incentive structure for agents to get the most money.
What are you actually taking about? Your first statement identifying the problem has nothing to do with the second one.
Let me guess: you’re under 34 years old…? You imply voting is ineffective when you haven’t even tried it yet! Talk to me when at least half of your demographic votes…
China does not have one road anymore. Once Russia invaded Ukraine the entire project collapsed. It is not possible to run the rail from China to Poland (there already was a functioning hub for China-EU railway transport in central Poland before the war) without crossing Ukraine or Russia and Belarus. And all three of these countries are kinda off-limit for who-know-how long. Meanwhile the West kinda soured on the Chinese products and offshoring so once the war is over there will be no more incentive to resume large-scale operations of the belt and road.
plus, this “rail to india” plan completely cuts out China - no one is going to drill a train tunnel under the Himalayans just so China can get connected. China certainly wont, they dont get along with India that well
Maybe the deep state top secret high-profile analysts in the US figured out that a country with unstable demography, unreliable economic data and half of the economy either propped up by the state coffers or hand-steered by The Party is a less lucrative business partner than a larger, younger, more democratic country which speaks English to boot.
I fucking agree with her, but that doesn’t mean someone in power should ever make blatantly unconstitutional moves. Nobody should get to unilaterally make declarations like that, regardless of sentiment.
Well, we can take bets on whether or not this survives the first judge who sees it, or argue on whether or not believing someone being right should allow them to unilaterally ignore the constitution.
You know there are states where open carry is not allowed, right? It also doesn’t need to survive a judge, it needs to be in effect for long enough to curb violence. Whether that happens is a different question than its constitutionality. But I doubt that this is intended to pass our insane judicial system too to bottom.
This has zero chance of making it to the supreme court. There are enough right wing lunatics and “sane” judges who are terrified of said right wing lunatics that it will be struck down because apparently “the right to bear arms” means “the right to shove forty guns in your trousers on the way to mcdonald’s”
But albuquerque is suffering right now and it will take at least 30 days to get struck down. Which, if the cops could avoid being worthless sacks of shit for even once in their life, would accomplish the goal of calming everything down.
It’s both open and concealed carry banned. I personally agree with her, but that matters not, as government officials shouldn’t get to ignore parts of the constitution they dislike “just for a bit” and then go “oopsie ;)” once the courts confirm they’re ignoring the constitution.
This is why principled Americans want to see Trump in jail. Doesn’t matter if you feel good about your actions, the constitution matters more
Far too many people feel that Supreme Court opinions, no matter how ridiculous, are unquestionable determinations of constitutionality. The sacred right to carry guns for self-defense didn’t exist until 15 years ago.
The real reason for the 2nd is to legit kill tyrants like Trump if he tries to illegally stay in power and protect vulnerable minorities like LGBTQ+ communities.
The problem is the Democrats have been successfully making guns scary to you, and now racist white Christofacists and cops maintain the monopoly on violence, so if you wanted to protest they can simply scare you away with threats (and sometimes actual) violence and because you are a toothless bitch you cant fight back without certain and pointless death.
And there I thought the young man’s testosterone fantasy of you and your buddies successfully fighting off the best equipped army in the world armed only with your private gun stash was the domain of right wing loons.
With respect this is a straw man argument. You don’t address @BaroqueInMind’s point- that 2A is designed to protect against government overreach by people who would ignore the Constitution, and for self-defense.
Nobody wants to fight the US army with a basement gun stash.
No it isn’t (a straw man argument). The goal of the 2A really seems to have been (I am neither from the US, nor a scholar of US constitutional law) to protect againt government overreach but its “right to bear arms” as it is understood by the US Supreme Court, limited to personal posession of firearms for self-defense, in today’s reality of organized, weaponized police forces and standing federal armies with high tech weaponry is no longer working. On the other hand it is directly responsible for the largest number of gun deaths in a country that is not an active war zone.
As far as I see it, @BaroqueInMind was trying to make two points:
“The real reason for the 2nd is to legit kill tyrants”
“(Without guns) you are a toothless bitch you cant fight back without certain and pointless death.”
So his points are that the 2A guarantee his right to assassinate the President, if he decides that he is a tyrant and for armed resistance againt an executive force of the government.
I argued that fighting the US government’s forces with handguns and winning is a testosterone fantasy.
So where exactly is my Straw Man?
The 2A may have been meant to protect a “free state” but in today’s reality, it fails to achieve this goal. On the other hand, the laws arguing from it, have lead to the greatest number of civilian gun deaths outside an active war zone.
al-Qaeda + isis held off multiple nations military for almost 20 years.
Why would a civil war where half of your military isn’t blindly loyal going to be any better? Killing your friends and neighbors for the state is a lot different than killing someone you’ve never met before.
I know you’re not the original poster, but you are just confirming the argument wasn’t a straw man. The belief is that basements full of guns will effectively combat the US military
Your straw man is that it’s a testosterone fantasy, and that the idea is to fight off the US Army with someone’s basement guns. I’m saying the straw many is largely your representation of attitude.
Look at Al-Qaeda and ISIS. They had little more than AKs, no electronics more than cell phones, and they managed to drive us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So let’s agree that it is POSSIBLE for a weaker force to defend against a stronger force, albeit with higher loss rates, especially if the weaker force blends in with a civilian population.
However Al-Qaeda is a bad example. A much better one is the Bundy standoff from 5ish years ago. And that shows a big part of the usefulness of guns- increasing the cost of using force.
Now for the record Bundy was an asshole so don’t take this as me idolizing him. But the situation is a useful example.
Put simply- there was a dispute about whether Bundy was allowed to graze cattle on some public lands. Bundy claimed a legal ancestral right, government claimed ancestral rights were removed because endangered turtles lived on the lands, but the government would still allow him to graze the cattle for a steep fee. Bundy refused to pay, so the government sent in workers to seize his cattle.
Bundy and his followers then took up armed positions to defend the cattle. The message was simple- it will take a firefight to get you the cattle. Everybody (including Bundy and his followers) knew the government would probably win, a bunch of ranchers with guns isn’t going to fight off the National Guard. BUT, it would also mean a lot of blood spilled on both sides. As in, ‘think twice guys, is seizing a few cows worth another Ruby Ridge type fiasco?’
Fortunately cool heads prevailed, the government backed down and agreed to bring the issue back to the courts.
The lesson remains though. A bunch of armed ranchers ‘defended’ against the mighty US government without ever firing a shot, simply because them being armed raised the cost of using force against them. If they’d not been armed, the government would have sent in riot cops with batons to beat them all up and arrest them and that’d have been that.
And THAT is why I say that defending against tyrants is still a valid goal of 2A. Because defending against tyranny doesn’t even necessarily mean killing tyrants, sometimes it just means making oneself a harder target to tyrannize.
(And once again, I should clarify I’m not necessarily siding with Bundy. I’m just pointing out that from his POV the government was being tyrannical, and his resistance against what he saw as tyranny WAS effective.)
If you want to see what the reaction to an armed insurection would be, I reccomend the American Civil War. Or do you really think that today’s “tyranical government” is that much more restrained than Lincoln’s government was?
Do they really maintain a monopoly on violence though? Almost anyone can get a gun. Moreso now than most recent points in American history if I understand the recent decisions regarding constitutional carry. Whether you’re on the right talking about “urban crime” and how Chicago’s daily forecast is supposed to be a storm of bullets, or on the left trying to do something about nutjobs with AKs in elementary schools and grocery stores, it’s pretty easy to see the government doesn’t maintain a monopoly on violence.
And as we know something that is well-regulated only refers to it being in physical working order, not following any sort of rules or order, right? Cause the interpretation that the second amendment protects the unfettered right of individual gun ownership is not very old.
Also we should amend the constitution to repeal the second amendment because it’s a moral harm on our society.
StOP GaSLigHtIng PeOpLe on THe IntERNeT bY diSAGreeInG wITh mE
Sounds like you also have an understanding of history that’s no more than 50 years old. That’s one of the most argued over sentences in American history, down to its inception.
I know guns are super cool and stuff but try not to trip on all the dead bodies on your way to getting a fuckin clue mate
The New Mexico constitution also has a right to bear arms and it’s not specified for a militia. Article 6 part 2:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
Please explain then. This is not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it’s the right of the people. They are two distinct sentences. Please tell me how the militia has any impact on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.
The founders wanted the militias to provide the bulk of the country’s defense and to not have a standing army. Anyone who owned a gun had to register it so that it could be verified to be in working order in case a militia needed to be formed. That whole idea of having the militia provide for our defense failed pretty quickly when several uncoordinated militias got their asses handed to them by Natives in the Northwest Territory. The federal government moved towards having an actual standing army and the role of militias shrunk.
That is not correct. Several colonies/states had passed laws against open carry in the years before and after the founding of the US including Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, and North Carolina.
I think this is what we have governors and presidents for, to act quickly, less carefully than a legislature. Whether or not it’s struck down in court, it at least bring attention to the problem.
The ban was issued as part of a declaration of a public health emergency involving gun violence. There is a ton of precedent for public health and safety taking priority over all. The classic example is that it is constitutional for the government to prevent you from trying to exercise your First Amendment right to free speech by yelling “Fire” in a crowded movie theater.
This is no different from that: there is a public health and safety issue preventing people from trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights as embodied¹ by New Mexico law.
I believe the President is the C-in-C of the armed forces and can declare him a national security risk and arrest him for military tribunal.
Meanwhile I have searched far and wide and I have seen that fascism will absolutely take over the US because as long as it is by “legal” means the people will grumble but kneel and submit because Americans are lazy worthless shits mostly composed of mealy-mouthed centrists who tell you to “vote harder”.
In other news, 1600 millionaires have made significant donations to their Congressmen and paid lobbyists. Expect a new “The IRS is evil” campaign soon.
You joke, but you bring up an excellent point as to why I dislike the "AI is plagiary" argument that I see a lot of these days.
Everything is plagiarized in some way. No thought is truly original. Unless you spend your whole life with zero contact to anyone or anything and consume zero media of any form (in which case, have fun conveying your original thoughts with the language you've had to invent for yourself that nobody else could possibly translate), then every idea is based on another idea before it. Every single thought has an inspiration behind it. LLMs aren't just copy/pasting content; the actual logic behind generative content production is incredibly similar to how people form thoughts and ideas of their own.
That said, if you're writing a book using AI, I'd argue a case for laziness more than plagiary. Though I don't see an inherent problem in using AI to help write a story. But if the whole book is AI-generated, I can't imagine it will be good enough to sell enough to justify the time and effort it takes to produce that amount of text and have it published, so I wouldn't foresee it being a very widespread problem just yet.
That's not actually how generative AI works. LLMs don't copy/paste material, unless deliberately instructed to. And even then, most are coded in a way that it will still not reproduce it's training material word-for-word.
Again, not how LLMs work. Maybe before you decide who you do and don't argue with, you should decide if you even should argue something you don't understand in the first place.
If you provide the sources and direct the LLM to use those sources, and then proofread the damn thing and cite the sources, it flat out is not plagiarism.
It’s as much plagiarism as using a calculator is to find square roots.
with a fair bit of the manufacturing leaving China for India, Bangladesh, and other SE Asian countries it makes a lot of sense to invest in rail. smart move there.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.