But, as with anything, it’s about nuance. You can read through the ingredients here[0] and tell me what you’d like in your body.
The earliest tattoos, from my understanding, were done by incision and rubbing carbon into the wound. Regardless if you use old or new inks/techniques, it’s not really cut and dry to say “this is bad/good” because the size of the particulates matter. For a tattoo shop that uses high quality ink, and is diligent in its sterilization, most inks are fine. The large molecules are “trapped” by your immune system to just stay there[1], making them not dangerous.
There is a ton of research on PubMed about tattoos, most being negative. However, I suspect it’s because the authors had a predisposition to be negative from the start based on how the research is conducted and what they focus on. But I could be wrong and you should make up your own mind.
Bottom line: if you get tattoos, pay the premium and go to a good shop. The hygiene and good products are worth it, if that’s your thing.
Wait, why would the temperature at any finite point will always be zero? Because I’m quite confident it would be non zero as emptying space is stupid expensive.
And there is temperature inside a neutron, since it’s not a fundamental particle but composed of quarks: The neutron temperature T, on the Kelvin scale, is given by T = 2E/3k, where E is average neutron energy and k the Boltzmann constant.
> why would the temperature at any finite point will always be zero
Based on your answer of the temperature inside a neutron then maybe it won't be zero everywhere. Any finite point is going to either be inside a particle or outside of a particle. And since most of space is empty, and atoms are also mostly empty, the vast majority of finite points will be where there is nothing, and hence have no temperature.
> emptying space is stupid expensive
I don't what this means. Most of space is already empty.
If space is “empty”, then how come we can measure the temperature of the microwave background radiation?
Think about it…any direction we point an apparatus, we will get a reading — the static of a radio IS the CMB, and if you could take that radio into space, and have the ability to travel anywhere, that radio would still have static. As such, space cannot be “empty”, it’s filled with photons, electrons, and quarks, amongst other things.
To reach 0 Kelvin would take an infinite amount of energy (infinite is not exactly accurate but might as well be), hence “stupid expensive”. It would also create holes in the CMB. CMB has no holes, as such, there is stuff everywhere.
> how come we can measure the temperature of the microwave background radiation
Because that's the average temperature over an region not the temperature of a finite point. It's kind of like pressure; it really only makes sense at a macro level where you are averaging over a volume or region. The pressure at a singular finite point will also be zero because that singular infinitely small point will likely be in the empty space that makes up an atom.
The original comment was about scalar fields in which there is a value at every finite point. Temperature and pressure are not good examples of these. A better example would be like a magnetic or gravitational field which would have a specific value at every point in space.
Usually hydrogen peroxide[0] (when sliced) but if you are referring to what chemicals a farm uses, that would be really, really hard to provide. I believe Chipotle tried to do a farm to store supply chain doc and gave up and went with a distributor. However, they still are trying w/ robotics and other initiatives.[1]
At the end of the day, how do you really know what chemicals are used on the farm? The cost of tracking anything is astronomical. I.E. cost of a bolt in airline industry.
Lastly, at least for food: producers, distributors, end-users (stores), and everyone else uses different software with proprietary protocols and the margins don't really incentivize anyone from switching.
Only issue is that you cannot get a bundled price. For example, you know what a colonoscopy costs but only the procedure and not all the addition care that may come with it.
Predominantly, from my understanding, it’s because:
1. Bitcoin was classified as “currency” by Clayton.
2. It’s the closest to being decentralized so no “organization will benefit from the work of others”.
3. Growth of Bitcoin wasn’t initially speculative but as a use of currency, which is different from whatever token you fork as its goal would be for speculative trading, failing the Howey test.
That was when Etherium was proof-of-work. I imagine it gets complicated now that you can earn staking rewards on your ETH, even though by default you earn 0% because by default you are not staking. So one major feature of “banking” your ETH at an exchange would be so the exchange provides a way to earn the “interest” on your deposit.
This creates a regulatory risk, and is one reason for owning BTC instead of ETH. Note I own a few ETH and 0 BTC, and ETH has dropped 10% compared against BTC recently (normally they seem to be highly correlated (even long-term) which implies to me that the market is somewhat driven by generic crypto sector investing).
Nothing you said here makes a fork of the bitcoin code with a completely different genesis block (or ANY fork at ANY block of the bitcoin chain) a security.
When the massacre at Bucha was discovered, my now ex-wife told me: Why do you care, your family isn't there...
So I guess, who cares?
P.S. I grew up in a bad place...they targeted rich folks like you for home invasions and their opinions were similar to yours...who cares about those people? They're rich. Just remember that when your family is targeted, you should forgive those people because who cares about some random statistic.
> So, still very much misunderstood. There is an experiment showing the dominant mechanism (so still only explaining a part!) between solid-solid and a generic model proposed that can be used to explain other interactions (solid-liquid, liquid-liquid, etc).
This seems like a very large part, no?
I mean, we know it works, we get the majority of it, and it doesn’t seem super necessary to spend a lot of dollars and brain power to satisfy an internet debate on a theory of rubbing a balloon on one’s head.
I get your point. However, this is worked on by researchers who get paid to work on unsolved problems. This is one of them. It's a surprising one, since it looks like such a simple and obvious effect governed by physics we've (seemingly) understood for centuries. Gauss's Laws are from 1773 and much of the work on static electricity is from that era.
So, it's not just an internet debate. Knowing how things work _exactly_ is what scientists do. Getting the majority is not good enough.
And yes, that will often surpass the scale of "Is what we're doing useful?". However, won't know until we find out. Most likely understanding this effect will not bring any revolutionary insight but we should understand it nonetheless. Maybe our understanding will help someone else solve a problem, that solves another problem, that solved another problem, that gives someone a brilliant idea.
Maybe there are researchers who want to study the discrepancies of static electricity but if they don’t get funding, then they won’t be paid and have to take other priorities.
Seeming to demand these problems are resolved is a road to cynicism, in my opinion.
Just a shower thought.