But Spartan women weren’t that bad off, compared to other places in antiquity

We also white wash Spartan history pretty dramatically. Yes, Spartan women who were citizens were better off than their Athenian counterparts. However, that’s not saying much when you consider spartan citizens were a fraction of the population of Sparta.

The vast majority of women in Sparta were helots, and were subject to chattel slavery. I don’t think you can claim that Spartans cared about gender equality when they had an entire social class made up of the bastards produced by raping their slaves.

Command Senior Chief

The person who came up with the scheme is also the most senior NCO on the ship. All the enlisted people in charge of monitoring that activity knew, they just knew not to ask questions.You would be surprised how much pull an E-8 or E-9 has in the military.

Yeah… This is a bit sketchy. Pharmaceuticals aren’t just something that an amateur can make by following step by step instructions. Even something as simple as baking a cake requires some basic experience to know when things are going right or wrong.

Even maintaining the calibration on a CLR requires some background experience, let alone building and programming one all on your own. With your actual reactor being as small as a mason jar, it means the margin for error is going to be small as well.

This is neat for people with a background in chemistry, but I don’t really see it as anything but dangerous for the general public. They also are fudging their math a bit to make things seem a lot cheaper. Reagents can be really cheap at bulk prices, but you have to spend the time looking for them, and they aren’t equating the cost of a trained chemist making these medications.

seems today’s pattern in general. Such projects go for something hardly achievable, don’t achieve it, give us all that feeling of passive frustration, and divert attention.

I think it’s kinda a byproduct of venture capital funding. With the Fed prioritizing low interest rates for the last decade, investors are a lot more willing to stick their money in yolo financial schemes.

There are plenty of places on the planet which could use additional electricity, water, wired connectivity, normal roads.

Pssh, why build physical things when you can just gamble on things like virtual currency, virtual intellect, or even virtual reality… /s

Or, say, security from armed apes with UN membership, like Azerbaijan.

Lesser Armenia has really flown off the handle lately. I don’t really know why they have UN membership, Azerbaijan is basically “what if the Saudi tried to build Singapore on the Caspian sea”.

Just what Comcast needs, a fleet of very slow cruise missiles.

Can’t wait for them to park their buoyant IED router above my house if I don’t upgrade to the game day package.

Oh yeah, let’s build our infrastructure project based on tech that requires a large amount of helium. You know, that element that is extremely hard to store and transport. Yes, the one that’s already scarce and is required for vastly more important technologies.

I don’t see what the problem is, it’s not like helium production is a byproduct of an energy sector were trying to rapidly divest from…

Dude complaining about a dude complaining about apple being proprietary in 2024, when apple has built their entire business from day one by being the most draconian closed loop proprietary hardware/software model since personal computers were invented…

You just made the same argument, but in an aggressively dumb way.

We’re talking about the basic premise of the movie, which is: “If smart people reproduce too little and dumb people reproduce too much, we’ll have a problem of stupidity.”

That’s your own flawed interpretation. The premise of the movie is about social “devolution”. Basically, an inverse of the normal social motivators occurs, where society no longer values concepts like intellect or education, and begins valuing things like fame, and risk taking behaviour.

It doesn’t rely on nature or nurture, or anything else.

The concept of intellect is inseparable from the concept of nature vs nurture.

Mentally dishbled people have been sterilized, because they were “unfit for parenthood” due to eugenic arguments.

The eugenics based argument is that mentally disabled people shouldn’t have kids because they believe their illness will be passed down to their children.

Eugenics is a part of a long line of debunked “racial science”, and is meant to be applied in the aims of isolating a certain type of people from society. It’s not applicable to an entire society with different ethnicities being affected the same.

No, but that’s literally the thesis of the movie, which I dislike. 🙄

Lol, there are only two “smart” people in the movie, and one of them is a former sex worker… They also have three kids.

So I don’t really think that tracks, more than likely the writers were trying to get across that dumb people like to inappropriatetly talk about their sex life in public.

I think you’re getting a little caught up on concepts like “breeding”, which you seem to think is only something that happens in eugenics. All mammals are the product of breeding, it’s just a semantic term for sex with added negative connotations because we typically use it while talking about animals.

The important part which you are ignoring is what could possibly explain the social devolution of every single person in a country within 500 years. Even if we were talking about selective breeding where we purposely paired stupid people together, this still would not explain every single person being an idiot. That would require a complete shift in social mores to the point where society as a whole sees no value in education or intellect.

You are just being willingly obtuse, or are just really ignorant at this point. I’ve provided rebuttals for all your examples, and youve failed to do the same for mine, other than saying I’m “cherry picking”, which really isn’t an argument.

although being smart doesn’t make you a good parent and being dumb doesn’t make you a bad one, so I’m already generous)

Lol, notice how you had to completely change the wording to make that somewhat palatable? Being smart doesn’t make you a good parent, but that’s not what we were talking about. Stability and access to a decent education is what nurtures intellect.

how many mentions that dumb people do be fucking?

So your argument is that only dumb people like to fuck?

What theory? Eugenics doesn’t work in real life. I’m critizising the movie on its’ own premise, not on scientific pedantry.

But you aren’t… There isn’t any clear delineation in the movie that would suggest they’re implying intellect is due to nature over nurture.

The reason this is still a debate in psychology is because it’s hard to achieve a statistically viable sample size for a conclusive study. To make a factual delineation you would have to know about the parents intellectual capabilities and then their children’s intellectual abilities. However, we would also need to study a child that they didn’t raise…

So, unless Idiocracy has a scene in it where the child of “smart parents” was raised by idiots, and remained smart… Then it’s impossible to know if they were implying bits an inherited trait.

Wait, I thought the clip was the setup of the premise. Like, the beginning. What other clip have I shared?

I was talking about the end of the movie…that’s what we were talking about from what you quoted.

At around 3 min in this clip. The narrator says they have 3 of the smartest kids in the world, and in the scene we can see the protagonist teaching his kids how to read. It also says his friends has 30 of the dumbest kids in the world, and he is teaching them how to chase each other with mallets.

the prologue constantly bangs on how much stupid people are fucking and smart people don’t.

People in lower income levels tend to have more kids with less access to decent public education… America being a land of inequality based on social status isn’t exactly a new idea.

You never see a focus on kids not being raised well, which would be a nuture standpoint.

In the clip you just posted their are kids being actively ignored by the parents who are arguing over infidelity… Not exactly great parenting.

Basically all idiots in the movie are coded like white “trash” trailer park people (except the President, maybe).

I did not get that impression… Maybe you just have some biased preconceptions about trailer parks?

Where is an example of a behaviorist stance by the movie?

How about the parts where you ignore the family structure and behavior of the “idiots” in the same scene? How about the protagonist teaching his kids to learn?

Lol, I really don’t know what this guy’s going on about. I feel the only way you could be this obtuse about nature vs nurture argument is if you actually believe intellect is a purely inherited trait.

Dude, modern eugenics was invented almost 40 years before they knew genes were even a thing. Do you expect them pointing at a double helix and saying “this is the stupid gene”, before you accept a premise that’s based on breeding having an eugenic message?

Yes, and this movie was written in the 2000s… If we want to get pedantic with the science aspect, then your theory is out the window to begin with. 500 years is not long enough for a species to radically alter their intellect on a societal scale.

Nice cherry-picking. In the rest of the clip, they’re constantly ref renceing, how much “stupid” people breed. One punchline is specifically that a stupid person’s junk was saved.

The rest of the clip? It’s literally the end of the movie… And again, there’s no way to delineate if the stupidity in question is a byproduct of parenting vs “breeding” as you put it.

Do you know what “except” means?

Lol, and how does it conflate poor people with stupidity? Just out of the blue…no context?

the movie explicitly negates these behaviorist ideas.

Lol, no it doesn’t.

You would have a point if it would have focused more on the poor children being badly cared for, instead of slutshaming the poor.

Lol, what are you talking about? I’ve brought up the care of children several times, and havent brought up sexual provocation at all?

I think you need to take a nap or something.

The movie constantly focuses on genetics. It even ends with the naration that the (relatively smart) hero has a few smart kids and his dumb friend has a few dumb ones.

It doesn’t mention genes… In the clip you are talking about where he has smart kids, you can see both of the parents actively teaching their kids how to read. It then pans over to his friends who had a bunch of dumb kids and he’s teaching them to play with fireworks or something.

The movie never interacts with *any socioeconomic factors, except for conflating poor people with dumb people.

If it never interacts with socioeconomics how does it conflate poor people with dumb people?

The movie doesn’t get into that argument.

It’s the whole point of the movie…

What does “clean slate” have to do with this?

Lol, so no. You don’t understand.

Yes, that’s my point. The premise of the movie hinges on intelligence being mainly inherited.

How are you making that determination? How does one delineate between the two within the context of the movie?

The joke is “this could have been prevented, if that guy became infertile, but unfortunately, modern medicine saved him”. That’s not jumping to codclusions, that’s the literal text of the movie.

Yes…it is. Preventing a deadbeat dad from abandoning even more families to poverty is not saying that his genes are cursed or something.

Seriously, what’s wrong with your media literacy? It’s so obvious

Have you not ever heard of nature vs nurture? Never heard of tabula rassa? You do know that intellect isn’t determined by genes alone, correct?

Nice try. I’m sim’ly interpreting the text of the movie.

Yes, through the lens of eugenics…

At 1m58sec they are talking about medical advancements…not genetics. Again, I think you are jumping to conclusions. Medical advancements that allow people to procreate at a faster rate is not biology, it’s sociology.

It kinda seems you are dismissing the possibility of nurture attributing to the equation at all, which in and of itself is a eugenics based argument.

Are we talking about the same movie?

Yes, everyone knows about this scene. This still isn’t claiming that intellect is a genetic trait that can only be inherited. It’s claiming that intellect is no longer a valued societal trait that people find necessary to procreate.

I think the problem with your interpretation is it is focusing on biological evolution, when in reality the satire is based on societal evolution. Idiocracy is only set like 500 years in the future, not exactly enough time to see humans biologically adapt in any significant way.

eugenistic because the movie argues idiot parents have idiot children while smart parents have smart children.

This still comes down to a nature vs nurture argument, and the movie tends to fall back on things like education being the primary issue.

Idiots raising idiots isn’t necessarily an argument based in eugenics. Parents who never learned are not going to be able to teach their children. If there isn’t something like a decent public education system, then what chance do the children of idiots really have?

No, it won’t. That’s the point of the misconception. You even get to it later then dismiss. We aren’t taking about overall health. We aren’t talking about the 'betes.

I mean, whenever you are talking about health you always consider total outcomes. The articles you are linking are talking about a very specific type of dehydration.

None of those things will dehydrate you more despite people saying differently. Not soda, not milk, even beer under 2% beer will be better. You will be rehydrated, there WILL be a net gain of water in your body. There is no net loss of water no matter how much people say sugar or caffeine will lower the net gain.

“Beverages with more concentrated sugars, such as fruit juices or colas, are not necessarily as hydrating as their lower-sugar cousins. They may spend a little more time in the stomach and empty more slowly compared to plain water, but once these beverages enter the small intestine their high concentration of sugars gets diluted during a physiological process called osmosis. This process in effect “pulls” water from the body into the small intestine to dilute the sugars these beverages contain. And technically, anything inside the intestine is outside your body. Juice and soda are not only less hydrating, but offer extra sugars and calories that won’t fill us up as much as solid foods, explained Majumdar. If the choice is between soda and water for hydration, go with water every time. After all, our kidneys and liver depend on water to get rid of toxins in our bodies”

From your own article…

If you’re dehydrated, you’re lacking salt. There’s a reason why physically demanding companies provide free drink packets to their crews. They don’t want road crews dying by the side of the road because they slammed water and had no salt on a 100 degree day working next to a machine shooting out molten tar and rock. We aren’t pumping people’s blood full of sterile water. Saline bags are .9% salt for a reason.

Again, you are talking about a specific type of dehydration… hyponatremia is exceedingly rare and is usually a sign of an undiagnosed kidney disease. Your nephrons will usually regulate your thirst in conjunction to the available salts in the body.

Dehydration is not just a lack of salt, it’s an imbalance of salt. Meaning that you can just be low on fluid with too much salt available.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/when-replenishing-fluids-does-milk-beat-water-202211142849

"Unsurprisingly, the ad is sponsored by the milk industry. And while I’d never heard this claim before, the studies behind the idea aren’t particularly new or compelling. "

Finally, the main benefit of water is that it’s neutral. The reason why people don’t tell you to slam a glass of milk or soda if you’re dehydrated is because it can upset your stomach. When concentrated amounts of sugars or fats enter the intestine the dilution process can go overboard and cause diarrhea, which can dangerously dehydrate you further.

Hydration is more complicated than what you are alluding too. Simply stating everything but piss and liquor is better than water is just ridiculous and misleading. In specific scenarios other liquids may provide some advantages, but it’s highly reductive to make that claim so broadly. Especially considering it requires you to separate hydration from kidney health, you know the things that control your thirst in the first place.

Wikileaks was never really a beacon of free speech its always been more of a platform where people can leak information about goverments and other powerful individuals or organizations doing bunch of shady or downright evil stuff behind our back. These often offer rare glimpse behind the scenes allowing us to be little less blind when voting during whather elections comes next.

When WikiLeaks first came about it’s original goal was aimed at leaking information about authoritarian governments, primarily China and some countries in the Middle East. It was pretty big news at the time because assange had wrangled together a team of some pretty high profile Journalist and privacy tech people.

However, most of those people were never really involved in the organization, and were mainly utilized as a marketing scheme. The rest slowly left the organization as works in their fields within WikiLeaks stagnated, or left over security and leadership concerns.

Imo Assange has always been a duplicitous attention seeker. However, if that were illegal, pretty much everyone involved in media would be thrown in a cell. I think his biggest failures that should tarnish his public image is his handling of the leaks. Him rushing to release information against the advise of his security experts, information that hadn’t been properly vetted to protect the whistle blowers from prosecution.

Multiple people have had their lives ruined because he didn’t take the time and effort to protect his sources. And not because they didn’t have the ability to, or lacked the proper protocols, but because Julian didn’t care so long as his name got air time.

You know what’s better than water when you need water? Nearly everything that isn’t alcohol or literal piss.

I mean it really depends on the person and their current condition. The article you linked kinda has an abstract definition of hydration that doesn’t take into account things normally associated with dehydration.

If you are working hard outside and are mildly dehydrated I wouldn’t recommend slamming down a sugary soda with caffeine. Excessive sugar is diluted in the intestines which can cause further dehydration, and caffeine is a diuretic.

Normally this wouldn’t really matter, but if you’re already dehydrated it can make the situation worse.

Water is great, it may not be the most effective hydrator in the world as it doesn’t have the electrolytes and sugars that something like Gatorade has. However, it’s the best thing for your overall kidney and liver health which is what really matters. Most Americans already have an excess of salt, fat, and sugar in their diets, so even after working outside and sweating your ass off you are probably better off just having some water.