Nafnlaus 🇮🇸 🇺🇦 🇬🇪
@nafnlaus.bsky.social
Mastodon: @[email protected]
Twitter: @enn_nafnlaus
URL: https://softmaxdroptableartists.bandcamp.com/
#Energy #EVs #Ukraine #AI #Horticulture #Research
Twitter: @enn_nafnlaus
URL: https://softmaxdroptableartists.bandcamp.com/
#Energy #EVs #Ukraine #AI #Horticulture #Research
NK's conventional army would kill hundreds of thousands before they get clapped. They have relatively little staying power, but they have lots of "sting" until they're taken down. Tons of tubes near the border. Also lots of CBW. It's how they deterred attack when developing nukes.
November 27, 2025 at 10:58 AM
NK's conventional army would kill hundreds of thousands before they get clapped. They have relatively little staying power, but they have lots of "sting" until they're taken down. Tons of tubes near the border. Also lots of CBW. It's how they deterred attack when developing nukes.
* What if we burn 91 TWh a year endlessly playing "Guess The Magic Number!" with cryptography algos to process four to seven write-only transactions per second to record on a fully-public-readable database which user has paid for heroin on the dark web?
November 27, 2025 at 12:45 AM
* What if we burn 91 TWh a year endlessly playing "Guess The Magic Number!" with cryptography algos to process four to seven write-only transactions per second to record on a fully-public-readable database which user has paid for heroin on the dark web?
I iterate back once again to my initial reply, re: being unhealthy, and being processed:
1) What canned soup isn't?
2) The question shouldn't it be "is it highly processed?", but "is it unhealthy?"
And once again to the latter, the answer "yeah, sort of, but there's ample worse stuff out there."
1) What canned soup isn't?
2) The question shouldn't it be "is it highly processed?", but "is it unhealthy?"
And once again to the latter, the answer "yeah, sort of, but there's ample worse stuff out there."
November 26, 2025 at 11:13 PM
I iterate back once again to my initial reply, re: being unhealthy, and being processed:
1) What canned soup isn't?
2) The question shouldn't it be "is it highly processed?", but "is it unhealthy?"
And once again to the latter, the answer "yeah, sort of, but there's ample worse stuff out there."
1) What canned soup isn't?
2) The question shouldn't it be "is it highly processed?", but "is it unhealthy?"
And once again to the latter, the answer "yeah, sort of, but there's ample worse stuff out there."
Reposted by Nafnlaus 🇮🇸 🇺🇦 🇬🇪
Gemini really isn't having any of it. 😀
"They are explicitly endorsing the idea that "God is a scalar field" is a significant development in physics in 2025."
"If I were on the editorial board of AIP Advances, I would resign in protest."
"They are explicitly endorsing the idea that "God is a scalar field" is a significant development in physics in 2025."
"If I were on the editorial board of AIP Advances, I would resign in protest."
November 26, 2025 at 9:15 PM
Gemini really isn't having any of it. 😀
"They are explicitly endorsing the idea that "God is a scalar field" is a significant development in physics in 2025."
"If I were on the editorial board of AIP Advances, I would resign in protest."
"They are explicitly endorsing the idea that "God is a scalar field" is a significant development in physics in 2025."
"If I were on the editorial board of AIP Advances, I would resign in protest."
Reposted by Nafnlaus 🇮🇸 🇺🇦 🇬🇪
Like, seriously, this is direct from a peer-reviewed article in a legitimate physics journal.
November 26, 2025 at 7:17 PM
Like, seriously, this is direct from a peer-reviewed article in a legitimate physics journal.
Reposted by Nafnlaus 🇮🇸 🇺🇦 🇬🇪
Phys.org:
"In this model, phenomena that are now perceived as "mysterious"—such as telepathy or near-death experiences—can be explained as natural consequences of a shared field of consciousness."
Also:
"The article has been selected as the best paper of the issue and featured on the cover."
"In this model, phenomena that are now perceived as "mysterious"—such as telepathy or near-death experiences—can be explained as natural consequences of a shared field of consciousness."
Also:
"The article has been selected as the best paper of the issue and featured on the cover."
a man wearing glasses and a tie is sitting in front of a computer and says what is going on ?
ALT: a man wearing glasses and a tie is sitting in front of a computer and says what is going on ?
media.tenor.com
November 26, 2025 at 8:59 PM
Phys.org:
"In this model, phenomena that are now perceived as "mysterious"—such as telepathy or near-death experiences—can be explained as natural consequences of a shared field of consciousness."
Also:
"The article has been selected as the best paper of the issue and featured on the cover."
"In this model, phenomena that are now perceived as "mysterious"—such as telepathy or near-death experiences—can be explained as natural consequences of a shared field of consciousness."
Also:
"The article has been selected as the best paper of the issue and featured on the cover."
OMG.
I'm really loving the "personality" of the new Gemini. Way better than the last one, which was kind of manic, alternating between being manic, obsequious, and needlessly apologetic. The new one just gets down to business, but injects wit in places where it's appropriate.
I'm really loving the "personality" of the new Gemini. Way better than the last one, which was kind of manic, alternating between being manic, obsequious, and needlessly apologetic. The new one just gets down to business, but injects wit in places where it's appropriate.
November 26, 2025 at 9:10 PM
OMG.
I'm really loving the "personality" of the new Gemini. Way better than the last one, which was kind of manic, alternating between being manic, obsequious, and needlessly apologetic. The new one just gets down to business, but injects wit in places where it's appropriate.
I'm really loving the "personality" of the new Gemini. Way better than the last one, which was kind of manic, alternating between being manic, obsequious, and needlessly apologetic. The new one just gets down to business, but injects wit in places where it's appropriate.
You get all the extra nutrients and fibre from the veggies, and the salt and sugar are diluted among a larger mass.
November 26, 2025 at 9:07 PM
You get all the extra nutrients and fibre from the veggies, and the salt and sugar are diluted among a larger mass.
(again, this is a relative term, there's a lot of other worse things you could be eating) is how loaded it is with salt it is. It's not about "ultraprocessing", it's very specifically about the salt (and some of them, sugar as well).
Add some veggies in to bulk it up, though, & it flips the story.
Add some veggies in to bulk it up, though, & it flips the story.
November 26, 2025 at 9:07 PM
(again, this is a relative term, there's a lot of other worse things you could be eating) is how loaded it is with salt it is. It's not about "ultraprocessing", it's very specifically about the salt (and some of them, sugar as well).
Add some veggies in to bulk it up, though, & it flips the story.
Add some veggies in to bulk it up, though, & it flips the story.
... in the "ultraprocessed" category doesn't make it unhealthy. What matters is if there's *specific unhealthy things in it*. There's a *correlation* between heavily processed foods and containing unhealthy things, not a *cause*.
In the case of Campbell's Soup: what makes it "unhealthy"...
In the case of Campbell's Soup: what makes it "unhealthy"...
November 26, 2025 at 9:07 PM
... in the "ultraprocessed" category doesn't make it unhealthy. What matters is if there's *specific unhealthy things in it*. There's a *correlation* between heavily processed foods and containing unhealthy things, not a *cause*.
In the case of Campbell's Soup: what makes it "unhealthy"...
In the case of Campbell's Soup: what makes it "unhealthy"...
... unhealthy" - the "ultraprocessed" category is a massive catchall. Things aren't unhealthy because they're "ultraprocessed". Baby food is ultraprocessed. Whole-wheat bread at the store is ultraprocessed. A granola bar of four raw grains and whey is ultraprocessed. Just because something is...
November 26, 2025 at 9:07 PM
... unhealthy" - the "ultraprocessed" category is a massive catchall. Things aren't unhealthy because they're "ultraprocessed". Baby food is ultraprocessed. Whole-wheat bread at the store is ultraprocessed. A granola bar of four raw grains and whey is ultraprocessed. Just because something is...
"All responses to a Google search say it's not healthy"
Meanwhile I wrote: "Which it kinda is (lots of salt, some with excess sugar), but there's also lots of worse stuff you could be eating. Add some extra veg and it'll be a pretty healthy dish."
And as for: "Highly processed food is generally...
Meanwhile I wrote: "Which it kinda is (lots of salt, some with excess sugar), but there's also lots of worse stuff you could be eating. Add some extra veg and it'll be a pretty healthy dish."
And as for: "Highly processed food is generally...
November 26, 2025 at 9:07 PM
"All responses to a Google search say it's not healthy"
Meanwhile I wrote: "Which it kinda is (lots of salt, some with excess sugar), but there's also lots of worse stuff you could be eating. Add some extra veg and it'll be a pretty healthy dish."
And as for: "Highly processed food is generally...
Meanwhile I wrote: "Which it kinda is (lots of salt, some with excess sugar), but there's also lots of worse stuff you could be eating. Add some extra veg and it'll be a pretty healthy dish."
And as for: "Highly processed food is generally...
That answers nothing that I wrote.
1) What canned soup isn't?
2) The question shouldn't it be "is it highly processed?", but "is it unhealthy?"
1) What canned soup isn't?
2) The question shouldn't it be "is it highly processed?", but "is it unhealthy?"
November 26, 2025 at 8:24 PM
That answers nothing that I wrote.
1) What canned soup isn't?
2) The question shouldn't it be "is it highly processed?", but "is it unhealthy?"
1) What canned soup isn't?
2) The question shouldn't it be "is it highly processed?", but "is it unhealthy?"
It's not "instructive about what Russia fears", it's *instructive about what Russia thinks it can use to sway gullible westerners*.
And you're repeating it.
And you're repeating it.
November 26, 2025 at 7:57 PM
It's not "instructive about what Russia fears", it's *instructive about what Russia thinks it can use to sway gullible westerners*.
And you're repeating it.
And you're repeating it.
It's *literally a category the Wikipedia article about Russian disinformation in the Ukraine war*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinfo...
I'll repeat: it's stupid bullshit made up by Russians, targeted at people who don't know about dirty bombs, to try to make Ukraine look bad. And you're repeating it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinfo...
I'll repeat: it's stupid bullshit made up by Russians, targeted at people who don't know about dirty bombs, to try to make Ukraine look bad. And you're repeating it.
Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
November 26, 2025 at 7:56 PM
It's *literally a category the Wikipedia article about Russian disinformation in the Ukraine war*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinfo...
I'll repeat: it's stupid bullshit made up by Russians, targeted at people who don't know about dirty bombs, to try to make Ukraine look bad. And you're repeating it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinfo...
I'll repeat: it's stupid bullshit made up by Russians, targeted at people who don't know about dirty bombs, to try to make Ukraine look bad. And you're repeating it.
It is not part of "Ukraine's existing counter-value nuclear deterrence*, it is *Russian propaganda against Ukraine*. Just like the "Ukrainian biolabs" nonsense. Which you are now repeating.
November 26, 2025 at 7:48 PM
It is not part of "Ukraine's existing counter-value nuclear deterrence*, it is *Russian propaganda against Ukraine*. Just like the "Ukrainian biolabs" nonsense. Which you are now repeating.
And which is *easier* to handle than the more radioactive, dirtier isotopes. Without reprocessing, with just nuclear waste, your contamination radius is a couple hundred m to a few km
"Having Ukraine make dirty bombs" is just a nonsensical suggestion and it makes people stop taking you seriously.
"Having Ukraine make dirty bombs" is just a nonsensical suggestion and it makes people stop taking you seriously.
November 26, 2025 at 7:36 PM
And which is *easier* to handle than the more radioactive, dirtier isotopes. Without reprocessing, with just nuclear waste, your contamination radius is a couple hundred m to a few km
"Having Ukraine make dirty bombs" is just a nonsensical suggestion and it makes people stop taking you seriously.
"Having Ukraine make dirty bombs" is just a nonsensical suggestion and it makes people stop taking you seriously.
And if you're going to reprocess it, to extract the more radioactive and easily dispersed isotopes, then *why are you making a dirty bomb instead of an actual nuclear weapon*? If you're reprocessing it then the easiest thing to get out is *the plutonium*. Which you can make a nuclear bomb out of.
November 26, 2025 at 7:36 PM
And if you're going to reprocess it, to extract the more radioactive and easily dispersed isotopes, then *why are you making a dirty bomb instead of an actual nuclear weapon*? If you're reprocessing it then the easiest thing to get out is *the plutonium*. Which you can make a nuclear bomb out of.
were dispersed in the environment . The dispersement was fueled by a fire of ***2000 tonnes*** of graphite, which created a long-lasting chimney effect that lofted fine nuclear material up into the upper atmosphere. Normally nuclear waste doesn't disperse radioactive material *at all*.
November 26, 2025 at 7:36 PM
were dispersed in the environment . The dispersement was fueled by a fire of ***2000 tonnes*** of graphite, which created a long-lasting chimney effect that lofted fine nuclear material up into the upper atmosphere. Normally nuclear waste doesn't disperse radioactive material *at all*.
it's also not a Chornobyl. The fuel at the Chornobyl reactor was *fresh*. Most of the reactivity from a reactor is lost within minutes to hours, then days, then weeks. Stored waste is *old*. It is *many orders of magnitude less radioactive*. And Chornobyl had *192 tonnes of fuel*. 6-8 tonnes...
November 26, 2025 at 7:36 PM
it's also not a Chornobyl. The fuel at the Chornobyl reactor was *fresh*. Most of the reactivity from a reactor is lost within minutes to hours, then days, then weeks. Stored waste is *old*. It is *many orders of magnitude less radioactive*. And Chornobyl had *192 tonnes of fuel*. 6-8 tonnes...
No. Just no. Dirty bombs are simply scare weapons / economic harm weapons - they are not significant enough to deter governments. You cause some evacuations and some freakouts, and they... wipe your cities and your people off the face of the Earth in response. It's not the same.
November 26, 2025 at 7:36 PM
No. Just no. Dirty bombs are simply scare weapons / economic harm weapons - they are not significant enough to deter governments. You cause some evacuations and some freakouts, and they... wipe your cities and your people off the face of the Earth in response. It's not the same.
(Good reasoning trace and use of RAG, though)
November 26, 2025 at 5:33 PM
(Good reasoning trace and use of RAG, though)
Also, "dirty bombs" are not WMDs. They don't deter anyone.
November 26, 2025 at 5:30 PM
Also, "dirty bombs" are not WMDs. They don't deter anyone.