I think we put too much negative emphasis on people who aren’t as gifted intellectually.
In reality, the world works because of human automotons, honest people doing honest work; living their life in hopefully a comforting, complete and wholesome way, quietly contributing their piece to society.
There is no shame in this, yet we act as though there is.
This is what pains me with how many people respond negatively toward the idea of everyone being able to earn an honest living and raise a family. Too often the idea of "deserving it" comes into it as if doing your small part to contribute to society is not enough.
Doing a repetitive(ish) task day in day out requires a specific type of person, I'm not one of them.
But I do know multiple, just in my immediate familuy. People who graduated from school, went to the local factory and worked there for half a century before retiring. Pretty much the same job, moving widgets from A to B etc, nothing massively complex. I do respect the people who can do it and especially the ones who make it look effortless and efficient - even a bit performative.
Also because my home town is a "factory town", guess where I worked for my summer job(s). I wanted to shove a hot poker in my ear just to get away from the tedium after the first day. On the second day I was thinking how to automate the damn process to not involve me in it at all :D
I'm not blaming you here, but I think "automatons" may be inaccurate. A lot of the jobs that seem menial would be utterly bollixed if done by an automaton. The people continually handle the edge cases and tiny discrepancies between formal procedures and how things actually work. Consider the many stories of people experience AI bots when they try to get vendor support for products. "Please let me talk to a real person."
Many of those people, probably including most bureaucrats, are working on systems that have already been automated to the fullest extent possible. This is one of the reasons why bureaucracies seem chaotic and inefficient -- the stuff that works is happening automatically and is invisible. You only see the exceptions.
The automation can be improved, but it's a laborious process and fraught with the risks associated with the software crisis. You never know when a project is going to fall into the abyss and never emerge, and the best models of project failure are stochastic.
Anyone doubting this need only spend 15 minutes watching people using the self-checkout lines at the grocery store to see how good a good checkout person is...
I was like, I went from waiting for a cashier who's an absolute ninja with the scanning machine, to fumbling with my own groceries and fighting with GLaDOS about whether it was actually placed in the bag, or how much it weighs vs. how much it's supposed to weigh. Which usually ends with me waiting for an attendant anyway. And this is supposed to be a win?
I love a dog and a cat and tree. I can respect someone not as intelligent as other folks. I'd love it we started holding the crude, mean and willfully ignorant to a higher standard.
Human automatons? Why would you have mercy for automatons?
Just call them cattle, we might feel more compassion towards them if we don't think of them as machinelike.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. Using that sort of terminology already shows you don’t care about them more than the sort of energy someone has saying they would never consider keying _their_ car.
People don’t need to be exceptional to have intrinsic value.
I would prefer to keep on topic and discuss the original points personally, but it seems people keep trying to derail into berating each other, commenting on peoples behavoir and pointing out forum rules. Seems strange to me but I get dragged in all the same.
Is it not factual that trains have brake pads which wear down and cause carcenogenic micro dust? Seems I made that factual point and it was ignored in favour of criticisizing my semantics and stating obvious site rules.
> Seems strange to me but I get dragged in all the same.
Maybe it‘s a you thing?
> Is it not factual that trains have brake pads which wear down and cause carcenogenic micro dust?
Not a point I have contested, but yet another suggestion without any sense of scale, and so far you have refused to address that aspect of five or six replies on the topic. Maybe that’s why you are inviting so much hostility?
> yet another suggestion without any sense of scale
> Maybe that’s why you are inviting so much hostility?
If you are somebody who resorts to hostility just because somebody puts forward an argument without full explanation and rationale, then you have my sympathies.
Looking at your other replies in the thread and what other people are replying to you, it seems that you are either a really hostile person or just having a really bad day. I hope it is the latter for your own sake.
Like others I wish you well and hope that you can find peace without having to engage in mud sliging against anonymous people on the internet.
'Bikes cause it too' is technically true in the way that a dripping tap and a burst dam both cause flooding. The effect of this framing (intentional or not) is to suggest we shouldn't prioritise the thing that causes 99.99% of the problem until we've solved the thing that causes 0.01%. That's not a serious position, you're just protecting your comfort.
This was in mice that were given up to 1000 mg/L of microplastics in their drinking water. If you have this level of contamination, you probably should stop whatever it is you are doing anyways, disregarding your testicles. But even then, there is no evidence for this in humans. Research shows that most microplastics simply passes through your digestive system unhindered.
Yeah, typically we test adverse effects in mice before doing trials on larger animals.
That we haven't observed such extreme behaviour in a scientific way in humans doesn't mean it isn't there, it's just that we haven't yet scientifically observed anything. That there is some evidence in favour of it having adverse effects somewhat defeats the idea that it's "provably non-harmful", which is your current stance.
It might be interesting; instead of downplaying the harm, to see if we can observe any patterns that fit with these findings over the course of human history with the introduction of microplastics...
and if we were to do that, we'd find some interesting correlation, even if it's not provably causation yet.
Sorry, I still subscribe to science and not speculation. But I guess I am increasingly alone with that idea on HN. And to be clear if someone points out a rigorous causal link, I'd be onboard immediately. But this purely speculative fear mongering based on random scientific observations targeted at non-scientists is similar to what you see in the homeopathy and energeticism circles. Except noone here would believe that 5G makes you sick, because techies know at least this kind of science a little bit.
Then please link to it. I'm still waiting for a causal health issue meta analysis that disagrees with me. Shouldn't be hard, if "the science" as you call it has come to a consensus. But I have only seen wild speculation so far like the one linked here.
- Microplastics found in every human testicle sampled, at 3x the concentration of dogs, with PVC correlating to lower sperm count in canines: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36948312/
- In-vitro exposure of human semen to polystyrene MPs showed time-dependent decline in motility and increased DNA fragmentation: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/13/7/605
The mouse study I linked earlier isn't the whole picture; it's one piece. The "no human evidence" line was maybe defensible in 2022. It isn't anymore.
Also, re: "1000 mg/L is unrealistic".. the study used two doses, 100 μg/L and 1000 μg/L. Raw surface water in Amsterdam has been measured at ~50 μg/L. The lower experimental dose is well within an order of magnitude of real-world contamination. That's how dose-response science works.
You'll excuse me if I only explain the first one, since the others seem redundant (not to say suspiciously redundant if you look at the authors). And none of this is a meta review like I asked, but I'll let it slide this time.
First:
>no significant association was found between MP exposure and sperm concentration or total sperm count
Second: N=34
Third (if second didn't give it away): The one effect they did find sits at p=0.056. That means one in 18 random studies will find that effect just because of probability statistics. And as you have nicely pointed out, there are maaaany studies like this out there. You just don't find all the null results if you go into research with your mindset. But that is exactly what differentiates a scientist looking for truth from a hobbyist trying to argue on the internet.
It found microplastics caused a decrease of 5.99 million/mL in sperm concentration, 14.62% in sperm motility, 23.56% in sperm viability, and a 10.65% increase in sperm abnormality rate. (I copied and pasted these values directly from the source).
You said you'd be "onboard immediately" if someone showed you a rigorous causal link. This is a meta-analysis with an adverse outcome pathway mapping the causal chain from molecular initiating event (ROS) through to tissue-level damage. That's about as rigorous as it gets before human clinical trials, which (for obvious ethical reasons) nobody is going to run.
As for the p=0.056 critique: you picked the weakest single data point from one of four links and declared victory (scientific!). The in-vitro study I linked exposed actual human semen to microplastics under controlled conditions and observed time-dependent decline in motility and increased DNA fragmentation. That's not a simple correlation, it's a direct causal experiment on human tissue. You didn't address it.
The goalposts have moved from "show me evidence" to "show me a meta-review" to "well not THAT meta-review." At some point you have to engage with what the research actually says rather than with what you'd like it to say.
Doesn't this one directly contradict the other one you linked? What is it now? How is my sperm in danger!? Please Mr. Googlescienceman! Oh god! I'm so confused! I can't take it anymore. Please just tell me what brand of air filter and plastic free clothes I need to buy!! Perhaps I should ask the all mighty google AI overview...
Edit: Oh - lol XD. It literally just told me the science has found no causal link for microplastics harm. Hm. I guess you are just better at researching random studies than us mortals with stupid science degrees and hyped summary machines.
A single study with N=34 finding no significant effect on sperm count doesn't contradict a meta-analysis of 39 studies that did. That's what meta-analyses are for: aggregating underpowered individual studies into something statistically meaningful.
You know this if you have the science degree you're claiming.
As for Google AI Overview: if that's your standard of evidence now, we've come a long way from 'I subscribe to science.'
Realistically, the best thing you can do to reduce your microplastics intake seems to be to avoid microwaving in plastic bowls and to avoid using plastic bottles for soft drinks and water. (Though cans actually use a thin film of plastic inside too.. so, maybe just avoid packaged water?)
Beyond your personal intake though there's bigger fish.
Car tyres are the #1 source for microplastics entering rivers, and it's not even close (they're thought to be the source of up to 85% of all environmental microplastics).
Those particulates don't just vanish, they end up in the soil and the waterways and it ends up inside you, no matter what you do.
Some people use plastic cutting-trays / knives / forks /spoons / cups / jugs, which also are some things to avoid.
I would also avoid all nonstick pans and utensils, as they're lined with PFAS which is worse than plastic, and slowly it will break off into the food. Beware the industry shills on this forum, as they will have you ignore the fact that ingesting PFAS is well known to result in higher blood levels of PFAS.
Fully agree with you, however eating small bits of PFAS from pans seems to be pretty non toxic.
Even in the recent Veritasium video about it they said that unless the chemical was heated to above ~300 degress C if will pass through the human digestive system without causing any harm.
Didnt know that we reached that level of degredation already! :-D
Another example comes to my mind: In lot of European conutries, at "cheese corner/bar" in the supermarket, every time a piece of cheese is cut, they are removing the foil, cutting the cheese, and then re-packing it in new foil after that - and this for every chees bar in every supermarket: How much kilometers does just one branch waste per year?
Yes I just mean the more expensive tea on the shelf. On cheaper SKUs they're trying to cut cost so they use normal tea bags. The plastic sachets were a trend for a couple years but hopefully most brands have switched away.
That study is interesting because they used SEM to image the plastic afterward, and you can see how the plastic surface has literally been torn up on a microscopic level simply by touching hot water.
Plastic has a low-energy surface, which means it doesn't take much energy to tear it apart. Even Brownian motion is enough, which is pretty wild.
> Or is there really a difference in the quality/taste of the expensive ones?
If we are still talking about tea, then of course there are huge differences. And the best tea is not packaged in individual tea bags (also it's not sold in supermarkets unless it's a country with a very high tea culture).
So at the low end you would have tea that is grown with lots of chemicals, plucked by machines or by badly paid workers, industrially processed in high quantities, sold as bulk on international markets. While on the highest end you would have artisanal small-batch tea with no chemicals involved, possibly grown in some special way like the tea bushes shaded from the sun or hundred years old tea trees in forested areas, processed by hand so the leaves are not broken etc... And all of this is reflected in the taste.
And to add - tea is graded at source, and buyers purchase based on grade. So a low quality tea bag will have tea that is objectively worse than a high quality one, while the best tea is never near a bag.
The article focuses on the airways. The commenter probably takes more hollistic approach and you are gonna eat way more palstic in yoir life than you breathe in.
the article lists several things including textiles, plastic packaging, and avoiding tyre particles. I led with containers/bottles because that's where the most concentrated single exposures seem to be (microwaving in plastic, bottled water), but you're right that textiles are up there too, especially for airborne microfibres.
The exposure from food packaging is many times more prominent than polyester, which slows down leeching over time.
Also, stop using dishwashing pods and laundry pods with the dissolvable plastic layer encasing them. Use powder or liquid detergent instead. If you can't find it in store, look for it online, because it definitely is in stock.
> Car tyres are the #1 source for microplastics entering rivers, and it's not even close (they're thought to be the source of up to 85% of all environmental microplastics).
Do EVs create more microplastics than ICE vehicles then?
There’s a big difference between nanoplastics/chemical leeching (which is what happens with heated food containers) and microplastics of the sort that break off from clothing other plastic materials (which is what the article is talking about). Both are significant issues though.
So I boil my water (hoping it does something to all the mirco plastics, maybe make them lump together). Only just now did I think to check 'is my metal kettle lined with plastics'. And guess what...
You know that feeling where you feel like you have a good handle on things- maybe it's foundational mathematics, or the fundamentals of computer software.
And you start reading something so incomprehensible that you start to wonder if there's just this universe hiding in plain sight directly under the universe you've always known.
That is the precise feeling I get when I trying to understand this post.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the exposure, but damn if I'm not sweating trying to understand why this all matters.
I know exactly how you feel. Looks like it was 10 (?!) years ago [0]
> Ah, APL/J/K. Time for my annual crisis of thinking everything I've ever learned about programming is wrong...
Still, though, I'm always happy when it comes up on HN for a little discussion. As I recall there were a couple people working on a new OS or something based on K, I think. I wonder whatever happened to that.
As for this particular post, I get how `x^x*/:x:2_!100` works now (it's cute!), but it seems pretty wasteful. It's generating 10,000 products to filter out of the list of 100 integers. But 99 x 99 isn't anywhere near a number in the original 2..100 list! You only need to go up to 2 x 49, 3 x 33, etc. I wonder if there's more of a "triangular" shape you could generate instead of the full table.
the first few paragraphs lay out the precise extent to which this matters. there's a snippet of code (`x^x*/:x:2_!100`) in a language (k7) using a feature ("rank-sensitive" set difference) not present in previous langs (before 2019); the prev langs' workaround (razing `,/` the table into a list) is bothersome (to chrispsn) so his article examines some alternatives.
chrispsn is sharing the map he drew of the rabbit hole he explored. it involves a lot of haggling with "depth", which is when you nest a list in another list: good for organizing your data, but bad for producing long vectors over which your programs could vectorize. so if you want this to matter more broadly, you can consider it a meditation on some of the mechanics of that, i.e. how to flatten some deep constructions in algorithms, and how to generalize shallow operations to apply at depth
Yeah, array language syntax just breaks my brain. I'm sure given enough time I could get the hang of it, but I'm also pretty sure I'll never put in the time
If you use a cloud provider and use a remote development environment (VSCode remote/Jetbrains Gateway) then you’re wrong: cloud providers swap out the CPUs without telling you and can sell newer CPUs at older prices if theres less demand for the newer CPUs; you can’t rely on that.
To take an old naming convention, even an E3-Xeon CPU is not equivalent to an E5 of the same generation. I’m willing to bet it mostly works but your claim “I build on the exact hardware I ship on” is much more strict.
The majority of people I know use either laptops or workstations with Xeon workstation or Threadripper CPUs— but when deployed it will be a Xeon scalable datacenter CPU or an Epyc.
Hell, I work in gamedev and we cross compile basically everything for consoles.
So you buy exact same generation of Intel and AMD chips to your developers than your servers and your cutomsers? And encode this requirement into your development process for the future?
No? That would be ridiculous. You’re inventing dumb scenarios to make your argument work.
It’s more like: some organizations buy many of the same model of server, make one or two of them their build machines, and use the rest as production. So it’d be totally fine to use march=native there.
You just wouldn’t use those binaries anywhere else. Devs would simply do their own build locally (why does everyone act like this is impossible?) and use that. And obviously you don’t ship these binaries to customers… but, why are we suddenly talking about client software here? There’s a whole universe of software that exists to be a service and not a distributed binary, we’re clearly talking about that. Said software is typically distributed as source, if it’s distributed at all.
There’s a thousand different use cases for compiling software. Running locally, shipping binaries to users, HPC clusters, SaaS running on your own hardware… hell, maybe you’re running an HFT system and you need every microsecond of latency you can get. Do you really think there are no situations ever where -march=native is appropriate? That’s the claim we’re debunking, the idea that "-march=native is always always a mistake". It’s ridiculous.
We use physical hardware at work, but it's still not the way you build/deploy unless it's for a workstation/laptop type thing.
If you're deploying the binary to more than one machine, you quickly run into issues where the CPUs are different and you would need to rebuild for each of them. This is feasible if you have a couple of machines that you generally upgrade together, but quickly falls apart at just slightly more than 2 machines.
Lots of organizations buy many of a single server spec. In fact that should be the default plan unless you have a good reason to buy heterogeneous hardware. With the way hardware depreciation works they tend to move to new server models “in bulk” as well, replacing entire clusters/etc at once. I’m not sure why this seems so foreign to folks…
Nobody is saying dev machines are building code that ships to their servers though… quite the opposite, a dev machine builds software for local use… a server builds software for running on other servers. And yes, often build machines are the same spec as the production ones, because they were all bought together. It’s not really rare. (Well, not using the cloud in general is “rare” but, that’s what we’re discussing.)
FYI I am notoriously bad at taking photos (as is constantly explained to me by family and my partner) and my Phone has 130GiB of Photos and Videos on it as we speak.
In reality, the world works because of human automotons, honest people doing honest work; living their life in hopefully a comforting, complete and wholesome way, quietly contributing their piece to society.
There is no shame in this, yet we act as though there is.
reply