The fuel tank seats are genuimely the most relaxing.

…That may just be the benzene.

Indiana at it again. ¹

Hey, would you look at that? This Lemmy thread is on the first page of Google search results about this.

forced to register as a sex offender under some American laws.

the GOP would have to have feel shame and/or have honor to hold her accountable.

…Has the state of New Rome/South Ontario deteriorated to such an extent that your political parties now have direct executive control or veto over the executive aspects of law enforcement?

It turned out to be nine pendants, three rings and 10 gold pearls in what was described as the country’s gold find of the century.

Huh. I knew gold is one of the few metals that you can find in pure elemental form in the Earth's crust, but I had no idea it was already forged into pendants and jewelry and stuff! Geology really is fascinating.

…Am I not allowed to use "y'all", north of the 49th parallel? Do we have to bring back "thou" so "you" can be plural again? Or is this part of the Quebecois plot to force everyone to parler en français donc nous pouvons utiliser "vous"? C'est bien, anyway, j'suppose.

…That's a salt, though, right?

If you're counting non-NaCl salts as answers, then basically any "mineral" our body needs would probably be delivered at least partly in salt form. Just reading off some multivitamins here:

• Calcium Carbonate
• Chromium Chloride
• Cupric Sulfate
• Potassium Iodide
• Ferrous Fumarate
• Magnesium Oxide
• Manganese Sulfate
• Sodium Molybdate
• Sodium Selenate
• Zinc Oxide

(I haven't fully checked all of these are salts­— But I mean, a lot of of them are blatantly chemical analogues of stuff that definitely is salt (E.G. "Potassium Iodide" vs. "Sodium Chloride"), plus they're metals bonded to ionic groups so they're definitely not alloys or covalent molecules or ceramics.)

This is probably because in order for our body to absorb stuff, it basically has be water-soluble, which means salts work quite well.

When eating real food (plants, animals, and fungi), I assume a lot of this won't be in salt form, but rather it will mostly be bound up in proteins and DNA and such. For example, iron should be primarily in hemoglobin instead of ferrous fumarate. But some of it, for example the potassium, will definitely be technically in the form of dissolved salts/minerals in the fluids inside the food.

You can of course also rearrange the compounds around. For example, this can of Windsor-brand "salt free salt substitute" I have here further lists:

• Potassium Chloride
• Calcium Silicate
• Magnesium Carbonate

You'll note that these are some of the same components as in the list above, just a different combination. I'm pretty sure any ionic mineral that includes at least one ion that our body needs technically counts as "food", as long as the other half isn't poisonous— They should be basically the same when they dissolve in the water in our stomachs anyway.

Meats can also be preserved by adding nitrates and nitrites to it, though technically I guess that's more of a likely-carcinogenic additive than part of the "food".

Fun fact: Your body sorta knows when it's low on minerals, and will want to start eating dirt and rocks in order to make up for it! Over 100 different types of primate do it too. So in that case, you could probably argue that plain rocks and soil literally are food, in that they provide vital nutrients the body needs and that your brain is smart enough to know that. …These days it's apparently considered a mental disorder, but I swear it made much more sense back when the likeliest thing you were going to eat was some mud, rather than lead-contaminated radioactive refrigerants or whatever it is we've surrounded ourselves with.

Enjoy, also, this lovely video from a chemistry Youtuber and his friends taste-testing which alkaline-chloride salt tastes the best!

I am not a doctor. Don't go around eating rocks unless you're a bird or some other type of dinosaur.

The concept of a "master copy" has been around and in widespread use for around a century. It has nothing to do with either software nor social (in)justice. It's just the thing you photocopy so you don't end up making photocopies of photocopies. IMO It should make sense to anyone who, you know, has seen and used paper within their lifespan.

Some terminology, like "master and slave" for IO between devices, did always used to make me really uncomfortable whenever I heard it. But the branch name for software was probably fine.

It's not a request. It's a polite reminder that your employees are people too with their own lives, and if you come between them and the people or things they care about, you get to find out real quick where you stand.

Try not to choke much more on that ego. I'm sure the constant turnover you're bragging about must be real good for the bottom line.

Twitter helped create ISIL, and also POTUS45. When actual autocracies see people even trying to organize on Twitter, they simply ban the whole site anyway. And it also played a major role in the Arab Spring, which while originally talking about high ideals like democracy, liberalisation, and human rights, is these days mostly notable for having ruined several countries for a generation.

In fact, that seems to be the trend: Twitter is very good at making its users feel like they're organizing and making changes in the world, when in reality all that is being accomplished is/was inflating their own stock price and throwing outrage around with neither factual context nor a long-term plan to turn it into meaningful positive change. People were able to effect social change before Twitter, but they didn't do it because they saw somebody's sarky hot take for five seconds right before getting their dopamine hit with the "Like" button and then scrolling past it; they did it because they got sick of the way things were. The public-facing data should be kept around for historians and the rest of the curious, but Twitter was always primarily a predatory ad marketplace that gained relevance by being useful for propaganda, and we'll all be better off with it gone.

EDIT: Musk, surely, did buy Twitter for the power and attention he thought it would give him. But he's done it as a petulant, self-destructive manchild, not as some scheme to stifle public discussion— Twitter was already stifling public discussion, just because of what it is.

Apparently, this has been around for ages:

May 28 2020: https://consensys.net/blog/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-reddits-new-blockchain-based-community-points/

May 15 2020: https://old.reddit.com/r/ModSupport/comments/gk0x6g/could_the_admins_please_explain_this_community/

IA History: https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://www.reddit.com/community-points

Discussions of proliferating it and fantasies about the resulting weird exploitation it will enable have occurred as well:

March 17 2023: https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/11tv5vz/when_community_points_are_introduced_to_other/

July 16 2023: https://old.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/151fg8h/which_subreddits_need_to_be_the_next_to_get/

Apparently, they also tried to do this before, almost 9 years ago:

https://www.engadget.com/2014-12-19-reddit-notes.html

https://techcrunch.com/2014/12/19/reddit-announces-redditnotes-a-way-to-share-equity-with-readers/

https://www.theverge.com/2014/12/20/7427491/reddit-notes-announced-give-5-million-dollars-to-users

https://slate.com/business/2014/12/what-reddit-notes-are-their-history-and-future.html

https://old.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/2pt25f/announcing_reddit_notes/

https://old.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/5fyaec/what_happened_to_reddit_notes/

https://www.fortune.com/2015/01/30/reddit-notes-is-not-going-to-happen/

Kinda puts things in a new light. Ruining the site has always been the plan.

I’ve been telling people for years that the entire 21st century is at risk of being a lost century. Even personally I can’t guarantee my data will be with me 20 years from now even though I back it up. If you care about a photo or document, print it and throw it it a box. As I get older I find more of an obsession with physical media from a preservation point of view. Because I know my books and pictures will be around 50 years from now. Digital files not so much.

LOCKSS and KISS, though. Flash chips don't last forever but are pretty durable, and so are optical media as long as they're the right material. SSDs decay and HDDs fail, but for magnetic platter media even if the head or motor crashes there's always the old magnetic microscope in a pinch. USB's not going anywhere, and if you have four or five copies that you don't completely neglect and don't store in the same physical place, presumably you'll have the chance to notice and take corrective measures if any of them start failing or are at risk.

I don't actually know that an individual book or picture will still be around in 50 years; Fire, flooding, insects, acidic paper, low-quality ink maybe— Digital stuff's fragile, but so is physical stuff. Stick it in the attic, and the heat'll speed up any chemical reactions and probably make it cozier for insects; Stick it in the basement, and the condensation will get you mildew and rot. By contrast, having a flash drive accidentally survive a trip through a washer and dryer is a pretty common occurrence, and I've yet to lose a drive even with that level of negligence. Material compatibility's one of the very most basic parts of a set of very precise manufacturing techniques, tin whiskers seem pretty rare these days, the really scarily insidious stuff like hydrogen embrittlement is super improbable, and most biological forms of decay haven't adapted to eating cured epoxy and monocrystalline silicon yet.

At least I sorta know how a flash cell or hard drive platter is meant to be structured; Who knows what weird organic reactions and unstable or slowly diffusing molecules are happening in the pile of chemical pigments on a sheet of likely-acidic bleached cellulose and cheap ink or toner, and whether it will still be legible to human eyes in however many years? Plus, a printed photo or document starts fading the very instant it's created, and it gets a little worse every time you touch it with sweaty human hands or look at it while exhaling moist human breath and corrosive enzymatic saliva droplets under a white LED lamp or G-type star shooting out ionizing UV rays. Digital failures tend to be catastrophic, but at least up until the moment it fails, you can make sure that it is the exact same picture or text— And you can make many, many copies very cheaply, all of them very physically durable compared to paper, and know that they are all the exact same picture and text.

That said, I absolutely agree with your overall assessment that most of the information in the early 21st century, including most of the public Internet/WWW, most likely either will be or already is… Maybe not technically lost, per se, given how much caching and saving happens on private clients, but certainly rendered inaccessible.

Ideally I'd really love to see a return of microfiche, actually, using modern polymers and metallization. I've been meaning to look into that for a while now. At a reasonable scale for optical viewing, you could fit… much, much more content than you might expect, and do it several times over, in an entirely reasonable number of pages. Your comment actually spurred me to finally think of a practical way of printing that— for years before, I'd been trying to idly figure out a process based on photomasks and nanoparticles suspended in resin, which had always felt like a very messy and tricky idea, but I just thought of another idea– So thanks for providing some inspiration there.