I just went down a rabbithole of googling Inhance Technologies, seeing an article mentioning a lawsuit against them by both the EPA as well another group, seeing an employee quoted in said article, googling them, and thinking about how it would be to work at a company that manufactures a PFAS product.
Do they feel any guilt? Do they believe their use of carcinogenic substances that do not biodegrade and become dispersed globally with no cleanup mechanism is just....moral? Do they believe anthropogenic industrial activity is just justified by the Good and Benefits it can bring to the world? Do they just assume these small messes we make while advancing Science and Progress will be easily cleaned up by smarter, more powerful humans in the future? Do they just consider the health effects to be worth whatever marginal improvement in waterproofing we get to our fucking disposable plastic cups in return, like smoking a single cigarette being no big deal?
Or do they just choose to ignore the headlines because its uncomfortable to think about how you might be one of the bad guys and their education and skillset is a sunk cost and acknowledging the environmental destruction they wreak would mean giving up a lucrative income, sort of how a FAANG employee might see a headline about IG being bad for teens mental heath and telling themselves 'whatever I'm sure it's not that bad'?
I don't really believe that, for the case of a chemical engineer who was able to complete at minimum a four year engineering degree who works in Texas (where said company is located).
And the same for other forms of media. Before video games became the scapegoat, we had people believing similar things about movies, TV shows, comics, tabletop games, music, etc. It'll probably be said of future forms of media too, if it isn't already.
Either way, the stats have never panned out for this sort of belief, and it usually seems to be a way to avoid having to think about political, social or mental health issues, access to weapons, or any other possible cause that might be controversial with a portion of the electorate.
This killed all shell interaction within my tmux setup, somehow, and I had to downgrade in osx/brew [1] back to v3.4.1 [2]. I'm still wondering what part of my (probably outdated) tmux config caused it, but the most suspicious part is the run-shell/if-shell stuff.
Anyway, have things to do before I can try again and dig in. Thought I'd post in case someone else ran into this.
[Edit] Tip: swap to a different shell before uninstalling your current shell. Sigh...lol
Hello, fish shell dev here. We opened an issue on our tracker - when you get a chance we'd appreciate if you'd share some tmux logs there, as I wasn't able to reproduce with your config file.
I enjoyed reading the Philosophy [1] behind Sup, for the glimpse into how Gmail's immediate search feature changed how people use email clients, and how it inspired Sup.
> An updated design, also known as a Comparetto Cube, [1] uses four filters and a cardboard base that can sit directly on the floor.
I never understood the purpose of the bottom filter in the Corsi-Rosenthal Box, so it felt like a waste of a filter, but I'm a big fan of the Comparetto Cube (no put intended). And 4 packs of filters are readily available -- 20x20x2 is suggested for the Comparetto Cube.
[edit] Also, thank you. I couldn't recall the Corsi-Rosenthal name/link, but thought of the wiki immediately.
> I never understood the purpose of the bottom filter in the Corsi-Rosenthal Box
It's for when the box fan is not sitting on the floor - either raised up on feet (which many have), sitting in a window, or hung somewhere. That said, you're right - 4 packs are easier to come by and probably work nearly as well in the real world.
I have been focused on HVAC / air purification recently.
Its amazing to me that these designs are less than two years old when the tech has been available for decades.
One of the biggest problems with the C-R and comparetto is that they are large and hideous to look at.
I have been working on a design that makes the C-R or comparetto or a smaller version than the 20" something that can be attractive enough to hang in the corner of a room as both an air purifier and room lighting.
It’s true. I don’t think popular, consumer grade luggage for the middle class had wheels until the 1970s. And if you watch for these kind of details in popular culture, I don’t think you even see wheeled baggage in the movies until the early 1980s. I couldn’t tell you the reason, but I think this was one of those status, income and class things: "I can afford to have someone carry my bags around."
It's easy to add "legs" to the C-R device - a few dollars at most in wood dowels and no tools, for example. Maximizing filter area is really important because flow vs static pressure for a fan like this is usually logarithmic...and static pressure rapidly rises as the filters get used (their efficiency goes up, but flow drops.) That's one reason you see a lot of squirrel fans used in air filtration units; they can generate much more static pressure.
In theory, if you mounted it fan-down and placed some towel or blankets underneath, you could also dampen a fair amount of the noise coming from the fan.
It's probably more effective and cheaper to get thicker filters. A 20x20x5 filter has five times the filter surface area of a 20x20x1 filter, but costs $36 - about 2-3x as much as a 20x20x1. Two 20x20x5 filters would provide twice the filter surface area.
But...these solutions were all intended mostly for emergency situations where purpose-built air filtration units were in really constrained supply. Folks should really just buy a regular air filtration unit that uses much less electricity and is quieter, especially if it auto-adjusts speed depending upon need.
> Folks should really just buy a regular air filtration unit that uses much less electricity and is quieter
This post is about how one of these made with a ceiling fan can be much quieter than a regular air filtration unit: "Testing my prototype, it has a CADR of ~180 CFM and is only 33dB. By contrast, the Wirecutter's top-recommended air purifier has a CADR of 233 CFM at 54 dB or 110 CFM at 36 dB. With some tweaks it should be able to match the commercial purifier's performance, without being louder."
> especially if it auto-adjusts speed depending upon need
I see how that works for wildfire smoke, but how would it work for covid?
virus in the air is dependent on effective filtration, rather than bulky particulate matter by volume.. the virus is highly contagious (few particles matter a lot)
You should still get vaccinated. Post-infection immunity is very heterogeneous, with respect to what level of protection you'll have, and how long it will last. You might have great protection for a bit, or you might get reinfected just like the first time, like many have.
The combined protection of natural with vaccination will be better than just one or the other. I hope you stay safe.
> Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19 because:
> Research has not yet shown how long you are protected from getting COVID-19 again after you recover from COVID-19.
> Vaccination helps protect you even if you’ve already had COVID-19.
an Israeli paper[2] (probably the one you're thinking of) also mentions that yes - your immunity from having the disease is better than a vaccine but getting both still provides a much better outcome. Please note that this study is very recent and may be overturned in review.
> This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
So maybe you'll end up super-immune! Congratulations! (now go get vaccinated)
It's been recently published and the warning on it is:
This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.
It's not something that can be held up as evidence in any direction at the moment.
The mRNA vaccines were developed to target the spike protein of the Alpha variant. We got lucky it works so well against Delta, or else they would have had to roll out a new vaccine.
Based on your wording, it sounds like you have the mistaken impression that the mRNA vaccines are expected to account for and target all future variants. A future variant may have a large enough mutation to the spike protein and render them 0% effective. But they can rollout a new vaccine very quickly with EUA. Sorry if I've misinterpreted.
I don't remember ever seeing #s promising long term effectiveness, but eventually later seeing a chart with projected effectiveness waning over time. What they should do is be careful to present variant specific numbers. There's too much generalizing, like I did as well, lumping Pfizer and Moderna together.
So it's a white lie, at most, because he was always accurate. He stayed within the "real range" of 70-90, but he varied based on what people could tolerate hearing.
If he said 70-90%, then people may only hear 90 and think no way we'll get there. Sounds reasonable. If people hear we'll never get herd immunity due to delta and the potential for new variants, will more people get it or will it eliminate a reason for some to get it?
"My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."
Your freedom to catch and spread covid to me is not supported by established law. It's also why we don't allow smoking in restaurants, etc. And it's also related to seat belt laws. George Washington forced our soldiers to take a smallpox innoculation and it was pivotal to us winning.
In 1905, in Jacobson v Massachusetts, the US Supreme Court upheld the Cambridge, Mass, Board of Health’s authority to require vaccination against smallpox during a smallpox epidemic. It ruled that the public health trumps your ability to freely engage in society if you will endanger it.
You'd like to reach herd immunity, but you didn't offer a solution; instead, you gave a hopeful outcome if we do nothing. We have millions that refuse to vaccinate yet wish to move freely in society. They are clogging hospitals and costing our society an estimated $6B, and climbing. Reaching herd immunity while using your version of freedom means that long covid disabilities and deaths are just an inevitable that we're hopeless to prevent.
> Your freedom to catch and spread covid to me is not supported by established law.
No all freedoms are given by eastablished law, many are implicit. Then later some freedoms can be restricted by the law.
Is there a law banning catching COVID or spreading COVID? I don't think so.
> It's also why we don't allow smoking in restaurants, etc.
Some establishments do allow it. It's your choice, if you want to visit them or not.
> And it's also related to seat belt laws.
It's not.
> George Washington forced our soldiers to take a smallpox innoculation and it was pivotal to us winning.
Yes, soldiers usually submit to wished of their commanders because otherwise their stance in the military deteriorates. Most people do not submit to military organization.
