That stopped me at first. Then the "pain reliever" part hit me even harder.
So this is literally water some idiots choose to give their children to relief pain. Ok, 20% or so may get the placebo effect. And rest are just going to suffer all out?
Takes a special kind of person to watch their own child in pain and give them water to help with it, knowing full well that there are better alternatives, but she/he'd have to give up some deep seated beliefs to use them.
That's the hypothesis. Unfortunately in reality, LEDs don't last anywhere near the advertised numbers, and tend to work poorly in many conditions like too cold or too wet.
This is because unlike halogen and incandescent, the circuitry needed to control the LED is fairly complex, and tends to be the primary failure mode. Additionally if circuit board actually does last something close to advertised time, LEDs tend to become much dimmer towards their end of advertised "lifecycle", to the point where in many applications, it will have to be replaced even if it can be claimed in advertising that it "will still work for many years". Sure it will work for many years, but that work will be below acceptable.
Which is why they are being mandated, instead of allowed to be phased in gradually by market choice. Because they're actually not beneficial to end users as far as market goes, even at this stage. But if you can force their numbers to increase significantly, there's hope that development of more reliable controllers will be funded and carried out eventually, as well as LEDs become more long lasting in terms of maintaining brightness.
The downside of this is that low hanging fruit in those sectors has been long since picked. Progress forward will be costly, so it's not very likely to be carried out without a significant legislative pressure on the supply chain just like there is one on the demand chain. We'll see how that ends up, and how much people will have to pay for illumination in the end.
First this isn't about switching equipment but radio towers and entirety of infrastructure. The actual switching hardware in that is typically done by 3rd party hardware afaik, outside some critical elements. The value addition these companies produce comes from everything else related to having the actual infrastructure. Everything from radio beam forming at the tower antenna to network coherence as a whole.
And numbers wise, while true, this is fairly irrelevant in this scope. Chinese are not going to stop favouring home grown corporations, and their market is likely to stay at least as big as it is today for foreseeable future, even if it doesn't grow. So this portion of the market is theirs to hold, while this market remains relevant to everyone else, as Ericsson and Nokia are in fact supplying infrastructure to China and do hold a sizable chunk of the market. Which is, as you note, much smaller than their worldwide average due to locals favouring local producers.
If I remember 2017 numbers right on mobile infrastructure market, Huawei was the biggest with just below 30% of global market, with Ericsson right on its heels, followed by Nokia that had slightly below 25% and ZTE at below 15%. And Huawei's market share was growin while Ericsson's and Nokia's were shrinking.
This is going to be another big win for Ericsson and Nokia it seems, following the similar trend in US recently.
And now, you're just plain projecting. I haven't even mentioned the plastics industry once. I have mentioned consumers several times, and made specific distinctions which are quite harmful to the relevant industry.
>Plastics in the environment, whether micro bead, micro fiber, micro plastics, plastic bags used by retailers for consumers, etc are all part of the problem and need to addressed.
"Radiation in the environment, whether it's background radiation or emitted by specific emitter, alpha, beta or gamma, is all the part of the problem and need to be addressed".
And we're back to desperate attempt to conflate the microplastics with plastic garbage in the oceans.
This is why I really hate this being done. After the conflation is well established in public mind, it's all but impossible to explain to them that these are two completely separate issues.
It's how problems like anti-vaccine movements get popularized.
Really now. Tell me then, how is it that in spoken language, the most basic scientific concept of "theory" has the exact opposite meaning that it does in science? How did that ever get to happen?
If that was the target, I wouldn't care at all, because I agree, and so does the scientific consensus at the time.
The moment however you attempt to peddle a lie of "microplastics" being relevant to this problem is the moment both myself and scientific consensus will have a serious problem. Unfortunately due to activist meddling in this issue, and constant conflation of the issue of microplastics, the "all penetrating, metabolically inert and mechanically harmless particulates that come primarily off clothing in washing and drying cycles" with plastic garbage, the "non-penetrating, metabolically sometimes active and mechanically very harmful materials that come primarily from plastic packaging and various sizable plastic garbage being discarded in the rivers and then flushed down the oceans forming large garbage patches below the surface causing damage to marine life in the area", we have a problem.
>Science has shown that micro plastics, micro fibers and micro beads are detrimental to marine life
Science has shown no such thing. Science has shown however that plastic garbage, once it gets small enough, is.
The current environmental activist journalistic project is conflating the problem of microplastics with the problem of plastic garbage. Which is why the signal to noise ratio on searches for "microplastics" has gone from what they used to mean just a few years ago to the current mishmash of microplastics and plastic garbage. Two completely separate problems conflated into one.
Which is about as anti-scientific as you can get. And when you call anti-scientific obfuscation "scientific", you reach the top level of propaganda. The Ministry of Truth level, when lie becomes true just because you keep repeating it.
That's interesting, considering that journalism even in this story tries to spin statements of the scientist into something they're not, and I'm debunking it literally using the quotes from the scientist.
I'm going to guess you're one of those dogmaic people, who think that when scientist disagrees with you in the story and journalist agrees, journalist actually knows the science and scientist can be safely ignored. Good luck with that.
When choice is between random dude in coffee shop in Ukraine and Kotaku, I'll take my chance with the Ukrainian dude. They at least brought us Stalker and Metro.
Your first part appears to be an agreement masked as disagreement, as you essentially agree with my premise, and merely disagree on technical detail (grinding vs chemical/UV separation). And I continue to insist, as I have from the first post (seriously, why are you all pretending this part of the post is not there) that there's a genuine problem with sea life swallowing plastic garbage. You're appear to be fighting against imaginary enemy here. I am in full agreement that this is a problem, and have been from the start.
My problem is and remains the conflation of the two separate, different problems, because I see this as continuation of the absurd fear mongering commonly done in media on environmentalist issues, rather than addressing them on their actual merits. There are genuine problems. We should look into addressing them. Problem with plastics garbage problem, is that there's very little that Western world can do about it. It's literally not the problem caused by us. between 80 and 90% of the plastic garbage that ends up in the oceans comes from ten great rivers in the world. Of these, zero are in North America and zero are in Europe. Two are in Africa and eight are in Asia.
We're simply insignificant, and this isn't a problem we're causing. As such, everything you're suggesting would at best reduce our part of the load, which is barely above ten percent of total. All the while the problem in developed world keeps growing, because they keep pulling more and more people out of poverty and misery.
This is probably the first issue related to environmentalism where developed countries will have to spearhead the development. And that will not happen because unlike us, they're overwhelmingly pragmatic rather than dogmaic. They will not do anything about the problem, until it's more detrimental to them than beneficial. And considering what would happen to poor in developing countries across Asia and Africa rivers, where most of the plastic garbage originates, should price of plastic packaging actually go up, it will take some actually serious consequences rather than inane moaning by people utterly removed from reality of the world to get them to change their ways.
Essentially, we should do our part, but in the current situation, once you actually identify the problem correctly on this issue, you have to concede that there's little to nothing we as Westerners can do about it even if we all came together and somehow managed to completely stop the flow of our plastic waste into the oceans. Whatever reduction we can accomplish in total would be worth a few years of growth in the rest of the world.
And as far as we know, the clothing fibres problem that was called "microplastics" in the original study that started the conflation trend in media some months ago are not a problem at all. They're utterly metabolically inert and mechanically too small to cause any harm. Which is good, because the concentrations of those things people have in them are meaningful. But having meaningful concentrations of harmless substance in your that you cannot see and that can penetrate your cells with ease is being conflated with a genuine problem of plastic garbage in the oceans, and masked as one problem.
Which is my point, and which I have to re-iterate again. We went from "all penetrating inert substance we can't see" and "non-penetrating substance we can see that can cause harm" to "all penetrating substance that we may or may no see that can cause harm". Do you see how conflation of two separate issues into one blows the issue completely out of proportions?
So I just found three posts made by you answering different posts by me in this thread. This is the third I'm going through. I answered first two I went through assuming honest misunderstanding on your part. However at this point, all of them, 3/3 have contained a lie about my views, dressed up to look as if you're a reasonable poster.
I'll give you a chance to prove yourself as something other than a malicious actor in those messages. Here, I'll simply dismiss you with "three separate lies in three different answers is enough for me to stop assuming anything but malice on your part and stop taking you seriously".
Pretty much the only belief you could even remotely suggest to be dogmaic I have demonstrated in this thread is the belief that scientific inquiry should supercede journalistic malpractice. Are you saying that this is a wrong view to hold?
So in your view, if someone takes two separate problems, who have two completely different causes and two completely different effects, and points out that those are in fact not the same problem... they an apologist for one or both of the problems.
Pretty much every article I've read on this topic so far has been poorly written, because they all focus on scaring people, rather than conveying the facts which are generally far less scary.
So the obvious question becomes, what kind of concentrations of it do we need to observe meaningful negative impact on humans?
My understanding is that whatever traces remain (and there obviously will remain some traces of it) are likely harmless. To my understanding, the actual damage to sea life is done mechanically, not metabolically.
And whatever damage is done metabolically is likely being done many times over by our exposure to plastics on daily basis. Considering that we are more healthy than ever on average, it would appear that whatever their negative effects may be, they are massively overshadowed by the positives, such as affordable reduction of bacterial content in food due to lack of oxygen and such.
No, as it gets to certain size, the amount of grinding apparently gets it off. By the time its in the millimetre range, it's gone.
You're also consistently missing the point. I am in completely agreement, as you can see in my opening post, that plastic garbage swallowed by marine life is a problem. I can actually talk in length on the subject, likely beyond overwhelming majority of the posters here, ranging from how the chain actually works to the source of the said plastic and the economic realities as to why Western crowds wanting to reduce this problem is not going to accomplish anything - they're a source for but a tiny and largely irrelevant fraction of the problem. And we don't really have any way of reducing the problem where it matters without exposing billions of people to risk of infection, disease, poisoning and death that they had a few decades ago, when death toll was in millions yearly by most optimistic numbers. Problems that have been largely negated in last few decades specifically because of proliferation of plastic packaging.
What I'm pointing out that is that plastic garbage problem is not the same thing as microplastics problem. Those are intentionally conflated in the media to get views. These are two completely different problems, with different causes and different effects, none of which overlap to any meaningful degree.
Slashdot Mirror
That stopped me at first. Then the "pain reliever" part hit me even harder.
So this is literally water some idiots choose to give their children to relief pain. Ok, 20% or so may get the placebo effect. And rest are just going to suffer all out?
Takes a special kind of person to watch their own child in pain and give them water to help with it, knowing full well that there are better alternatives, but she/he'd have to give up some deep seated beliefs to use them.
Discussion with manager went well I take it? This is a new accusation, so I guess they gave you training and a new cheat sheet.
You have a decent manager. Shame you're still awful at trolling in spite of his/her efforts.
I just want to point out that you ignored every single point I raised, and just gave us a long "my story" post.
This is great on your average mass media discussion board for average joes. But this is supposed to be a site for nerds.
That's the hypothesis. Unfortunately in reality, LEDs don't last anywhere near the advertised numbers, and tend to work poorly in many conditions like too cold or too wet.
This is because unlike halogen and incandescent, the circuitry needed to control the LED is fairly complex, and tends to be the primary failure mode. Additionally if circuit board actually does last something close to advertised time, LEDs tend to become much dimmer towards their end of advertised "lifecycle", to the point where in many applications, it will have to be replaced even if it can be claimed in advertising that it "will still work for many years". Sure it will work for many years, but that work will be below acceptable.
Which is why they are being mandated, instead of allowed to be phased in gradually by market choice. Because they're actually not beneficial to end users as far as market goes, even at this stage. But if you can force their numbers to increase significantly, there's hope that development of more reliable controllers will be funded and carried out eventually, as well as LEDs become more long lasting in terms of maintaining brightness.
The downside of this is that low hanging fruit in those sectors has been long since picked. Progress forward will be costly, so it's not very likely to be carried out without a significant legislative pressure on the supply chain just like there is one on the demand chain. We'll see how that ends up, and how much people will have to pay for illumination in the end.
First this isn't about switching equipment but radio towers and entirety of infrastructure. The actual switching hardware in that is typically done by 3rd party hardware afaik, outside some critical elements. The value addition these companies produce comes from everything else related to having the actual infrastructure. Everything from radio beam forming at the tower antenna to network coherence as a whole.
And numbers wise, while true, this is fairly irrelevant in this scope. Chinese are not going to stop favouring home grown corporations, and their market is likely to stay at least as big as it is today for foreseeable future, even if it doesn't grow. So this portion of the market is theirs to hold, while this market remains relevant to everyone else, as Ericsson and Nokia are in fact supplying infrastructure to China and do hold a sizable chunk of the market. Which is, as you note, much smaller than their worldwide average due to locals favouring local producers.
If I remember 2017 numbers right on mobile infrastructure market, Huawei was the biggest with just below 30% of global market, with Ericsson right on its heels, followed by Nokia that had slightly below 25% and ZTE at below 15%. And Huawei's market share was growin while Ericsson's and Nokia's were shrinking.
This is going to be another big win for Ericsson and Nokia it seems, following the similar trend in US recently.
ACs actually debunked this one better than I did.
And now, you're just plain projecting. I haven't even mentioned the plastics industry once. I have mentioned consumers several times, and made specific distinctions which are quite harmful to the relevant industry.
>Plastics in the environment, whether micro bead, micro fiber, micro plastics, plastic bags used by retailers for consumers, etc are all part of the problem and need to addressed.
"Radiation in the environment, whether it's background radiation or emitted by specific emitter, alpha, beta or gamma, is all the part of the problem and need to be addressed".
No.
And we're back to desperate attempt to conflate the microplastics with plastic garbage in the oceans.
This is why I really hate this being done. After the conflation is well established in public mind, it's all but impossible to explain to them that these are two completely separate issues.
It's how problems like anti-vaccine movements get popularized.
Really now. Tell me then, how is it that in spoken language, the most basic scientific concept of "theory" has the exact opposite meaning that it does in science? How did that ever get to happen?
You're not doubling down on being awful. Seriously. Call your manager and have them look at this thread for your career advisory.
As long as no one in mozilla has a clear need for it, they don't have a to care.
You're right. I went one generation too far. 7-9 was about a year, 9-10 was about two years, and now we're looking at almost three.
If that was the target, I wouldn't care at all, because I agree, and so does the scientific consensus at the time.
The moment however you attempt to peddle a lie of "microplastics" being relevant to this problem is the moment both myself and scientific consensus will have a serious problem. Unfortunately due to activist meddling in this issue, and constant conflation of the issue of microplastics, the "all penetrating, metabolically inert and mechanically harmless particulates that come primarily off clothing in washing and drying cycles" with plastic garbage, the "non-penetrating, metabolically sometimes active and mechanically very harmful materials that come primarily from plastic packaging and various sizable plastic garbage being discarded in the rivers and then flushed down the oceans forming large garbage patches below the surface causing damage to marine life in the area", we have a problem.
>Science has shown that micro plastics, micro fibers and micro beads are detrimental to marine life
Science has shown no such thing. Science has shown however that plastic garbage, once it gets small enough, is.
The current environmental activist journalistic project is conflating the problem of microplastics with the problem of plastic garbage. Which is why the signal to noise ratio on searches for "microplastics" has gone from what they used to mean just a few years ago to the current mishmash of microplastics and plastic garbage. Two completely separate problems conflated into one.
Which is about as anti-scientific as you can get. And when you call anti-scientific obfuscation "scientific", you reach the top level of propaganda. The Ministry of Truth level, when lie becomes true just because you keep repeating it.
That's interesting, considering that journalism even in this story tries to spin statements of the scientist into something they're not, and I'm debunking it literally using the quotes from the scientist.
I'm going to guess you're one of those dogmaic people, who think that when scientist disagrees with you in the story and journalist agrees, journalist actually knows the science and scientist can be safely ignored. Good luck with that.
Well, what do you know. That is literally the last thing that kept me sticking to ESR while looking for alternatives to Firefox.
That makes it really easy to just leave for Chromium derivatives when ESR support for 52 ends. Thanks for sharing this.
They get to define what is "clear need".
And there is no "clear need" for anything that is missing in the new implementation.
When choice is between random dude in coffee shop in Ukraine and Kotaku, I'll take my chance with the Ukrainian dude. They at least brought us Stalker and Metro.
Kotaku is just an other shitty Gawker offshoot.
Your first part appears to be an agreement masked as disagreement, as you essentially agree with my premise, and merely disagree on technical detail (grinding vs chemical/UV separation). And I continue to insist, as I have from the first post (seriously, why are you all pretending this part of the post is not there) that there's a genuine problem with sea life swallowing plastic garbage. You're appear to be fighting against imaginary enemy here. I am in full agreement that this is a problem, and have been from the start.
My problem is and remains the conflation of the two separate, different problems, because I see this as continuation of the absurd fear mongering commonly done in media on environmentalist issues, rather than addressing them on their actual merits. There are genuine problems. We should look into addressing them. Problem with plastics garbage problem, is that there's very little that Western world can do about it. It's literally not the problem caused by us. between 80 and 90% of the plastic garbage that ends up in the oceans comes from ten great rivers in the world. Of these, zero are in North America and zero are in Europe. Two are in Africa and eight are in Asia.
We're simply insignificant, and this isn't a problem we're causing. As such, everything you're suggesting would at best reduce our part of the load, which is barely above ten percent of total. All the while the problem in developed world keeps growing, because they keep pulling more and more people out of poverty and misery.
This is probably the first issue related to environmentalism where developed countries will have to spearhead the development. And that will not happen because unlike us, they're overwhelmingly pragmatic rather than dogmaic. They will not do anything about the problem, until it's more detrimental to them than beneficial. And considering what would happen to poor in developing countries across Asia and Africa rivers, where most of the plastic garbage originates, should price of plastic packaging actually go up, it will take some actually serious consequences rather than inane moaning by people utterly removed from reality of the world to get them to change their ways.
Essentially, we should do our part, but in the current situation, once you actually identify the problem correctly on this issue, you have to concede that there's little to nothing we as Westerners can do about it even if we all came together and somehow managed to completely stop the flow of our plastic waste into the oceans. Whatever reduction we can accomplish in total would be worth a few years of growth in the rest of the world.
And as far as we know, the clothing fibres problem that was called "microplastics" in the original study that started the conflation trend in media some months ago are not a problem at all. They're utterly metabolically inert and mechanically too small to cause any harm. Which is good, because the concentrations of those things people have in them are meaningful. But having meaningful concentrations of harmless substance in your that you cannot see and that can penetrate your cells with ease is being conflated with a genuine problem of plastic garbage in the oceans, and masked as one problem.
Which is my point, and which I have to re-iterate again. We went from "all penetrating inert substance we can't see" and "non-penetrating substance we can see that can cause harm" to "all penetrating substance that we may or may no see that can cause harm". Do you see how conflation of two separate issues into one blows the issue completely out of proportions?
So I just found three posts made by you answering different posts by me in this thread. This is the third I'm going through. I answered first two I went through assuming honest misunderstanding on your part. However at this point, all of them, 3/3 have contained a lie about my views, dressed up to look as if you're a reasonable poster.
I'll give you a chance to prove yourself as something other than a malicious actor in those messages. Here, I'll simply dismiss you with "three separate lies in three different answers is enough for me to stop assuming anything but malice on your part and stop taking you seriously".
"I display dogmatic beliefs" such as?
Pretty much the only belief you could even remotely suggest to be dogmaic I have demonstrated in this thread is the belief that scientific inquiry should supercede journalistic malpractice. Are you saying that this is a wrong view to hold?
So in your view, if someone takes two separate problems, who have two completely different causes and two completely different effects, and points out that those are in fact not the same problem... they an apologist for one or both of the problems.
Do you realise just how absurd you sound?
Pretty much every article I've read on this topic so far has been poorly written, because they all focus on scaring people, rather than conveying the facts which are generally far less scary.
So the obvious question becomes, what kind of concentrations of it do we need to observe meaningful negative impact on humans?
My understanding is that whatever traces remain (and there obviously will remain some traces of it) are likely harmless. To my understanding, the actual damage to sea life is done mechanically, not metabolically.
And whatever damage is done metabolically is likely being done many times over by our exposure to plastics on daily basis. Considering that we are more healthy than ever on average, it would appear that whatever their negative effects may be, they are massively overshadowed by the positives, such as affordable reduction of bacterial content in food due to lack of oxygen and such.
No, as it gets to certain size, the amount of grinding apparently gets it off. By the time its in the millimetre range, it's gone.
You're also consistently missing the point. I am in completely agreement, as you can see in my opening post, that plastic garbage swallowed by marine life is a problem. I can actually talk in length on the subject, likely beyond overwhelming majority of the posters here, ranging from how the chain actually works to the source of the said plastic and the economic realities as to why Western crowds wanting to reduce this problem is not going to accomplish anything - they're a source for but a tiny and largely irrelevant fraction of the problem. And we don't really have any way of reducing the problem where it matters without exposing billions of people to risk of infection, disease, poisoning and death that they had a few decades ago, when death toll was in millions yearly by most optimistic numbers. Problems that have been largely negated in last few decades specifically because of proliferation of plastic packaging.
What I'm pointing out that is that plastic garbage problem is not the same thing as microplastics problem. Those are intentionally conflated in the media to get views. These are two completely different problems, with different causes and different effects, none of which overlap to any meaningful degree.