brazzy

Which specific proposal out of dozens all over the world do you claim to know? And once you have one carveout, the next one is not far. I'm being "disingineous or deliberately obtuse" because that's how the spin doctors and lobbyists are going to paint it.

Sure, but one unfairness is status quo, and the other a viscerally ugly proposed change. It's clear how that's always going to be spun by opponents to the change.

A tax that prices 80 year old grandmas out of their homes and the whole area they've lived in all their lives is going to be extremely politicially unpopular.

This link gets me a shitton of extremely intrusiv ads, some of which look like malware (auto-downloading an "OperaSetup.exe"). Is pastebin already compromised?

This is serious enough that EOL should not matter. Of course, if someone is still running PHP 7 or even older, they're probably not updating anyway.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with "political correctness". Nobody is making moral arguments that these words should not be used.

Nothing is, so that's not really a useful observation.

It's not just a truism. The point is that sufficient knowledge allows you to understand and avoid or mitigate risks much more specifically. With your example, if you have only freshly fallen snow, and a slope of less than 30 degrees with nothing above it, avalance danger is so ridiculously small that it counts as "safe" for practical purposes.

I think the implicit assumption you may be missing is that "know what you are doing sufficiently" includes knowing when not to do something because it involves unpredictable risks.

Like free solo rock climbing: it's actually fairly safe if you do it on a route you know inside out, that is well within your ability, and in good condition. But if it's not in good condition and holds might come loose, nobody in their right mind - and the knowledge to recognize the condition - would free solo it.

Um... E.coli is an existing gut friendly bacteria, one of the most common ones present in at least 90% of all humans' gut biome. There are only some specific strains which are pathogenous.

> then infect some immunosuppressed political prisoners and see who dies fastest.

A virus that makes victims die the fastest is not, in fact, an effective bioweapon, because it won't spread much. And the "spreads by itself" part is what actually makes bioweapons worthwhile, if you have to manufacture it in bulk and dump it directly on all targets, you can just use a chemical weapon instead.

TDLR for the other two comments: a Japanese mathematician is claiming to have a proof for it, but it is based on an entirely new very complex field of maths which he invented. Getting into it takes years, so other mathematicians are hesitant to invest that much time only to find out that the proof is broken and the field isn't otherwise useful.

It doesn't help that the author is rather withdrawn and not willing to spend any effort in making it more approachable.

Some tried, and said they found gaps in the proof, to which the author responded, but they were not convinced.

And that's essentially the situation since 2018.

Why would they stockpile it when they're used to just buying it in the supermarket?

It's not bought for its long-shelflife property anymore, it's basically just an ingredient in some popular traditional local recipes. Sure, those recipes emerged because the shelflife used to make hard-tack a reliably available source of calories, but that's basically gastronomical skeumorphism.

Today as well. You need special equipment and a lot of time to remove all the moisture without burning it.

Sure, you can probably find a way to achieve a "good enough" result with normal household appliances, especially when it doesn't actually need to be stored for years and you're just going to soak it again for some tranditional recipe.

But it's a lot more effort than most people want to invest when they just want to replicate that recipe.