If those companies that say they get other companies to delete your data weren’t just going to turn around and sell their data I might actually sign up for one at this point. Sadly, even the heroes are villains in this story.

I use computer monitors for TVs. Mostly because they’re smaller and I don’t have that much space for stuff. Most have all those features but don’t have a smart interface. I plug them in over HDMI and make sure CEC is enabled so I can turn it on and off with a dumb remote the RasPi. Works pretty well actually.

It’s actually not anything new. It’s called Pumped Storage Hydropower .

This comment is for anyone who is experiencing nuclear-phobia, kinda like I do, to which I strictly mean living with a state of fear or dread about a nuclear apocalypse, this development does puts the world one step closer. It’s okay to be scared by that, I know I am. It doesn’t mean the world is one step away from a nuclear apocalypse. The world has been closer to the brink of nuclear war before and we’re all still here. It’s okay to breathe.

If it were only as easy as flipping a switch. I wish I could be as idealistic as you are right now, I used to be. Part of my journey fighting injustice how I think I best can has been to learn how to hold my idealisms hand and let that lead me. Rather than listen to it’s endless screaming. If I didn’t I would have burnt out long ago.

I guess I just want you to understand that the people I’m speaking for, most of my former professors and my colleagues, share your concerns and are trying. They’re trying to stop testing on animals, they’re trying to stop industry from running ahead of them, they’re trying to protect the environment just as much as humans.

There is so much working against my professors from developing it, to myself and my colleagues trying to enforce the regulations proposed. In this system we need funding and government support to do any of that which we just don’t have. The only ones with enough money to do that are the ones who have the most to lose from us doing our jobs. So it just doesn’t happen.

Oh I absolutely agree that it is extremely stupid that industry is allowed to move faster than what toxicologist can research. It makes me very angry but if I start telling people this I just get called a leftist nut. Everyone assumes that someone is making sure they’re safe. Well I sat in those people’s classes for six years and they do not get enough funding to live up to the publics expectation. Part of me thinks that’s by design, because poorly funded toxicology research is big businesess’ wet dream.

Regardless of how much you and I might want it to be different that’s not how it is right now and there are problems that need to be solved right now. It’s not an either, or, that’s a false dichotomy. Abandoning current toxicology research in order to prioritize advancing research methods means that until those research methods have matured, industry would have an opportunity to go without scrutiny. It’s bad enough nowadays when there is barely enough funding to pay attention, imagine a decade where no one is paying attention to the new things industry comes up with while those methods are developed.

I don’t like animal testing, none of my professors did either. Who do you think taught me to respect and understand why we test on animals. Some of them were doing research into new methods like you described, others were testing new chemicals with established methods. It isn’t a dichotomy, at least in-so-far-as toxicology research is concerned. I don’t have any experience in pharmacology or cosmetics.

I did my undergrad in toxicology which is all I can speak about with any sort of knowledge. What you described is more like what my professors actually did when they told us about studies they have done. They try to use the fewest amount of live specimens possible. They start on a computer (in-silico), then they move onto cultured himan cells (in-vitro), then onto animals (in-vivo). Pharmacology will move onto human testing but toxicology doesn’t. Pathogens don’t selectively choose to damage a heart or liver, they have an effect on the whole body.

The reason why it’s done this way is because toxicology is playing catch up to industry. There are more compounds being produced than researchers have time to examine. It would be nice if a company had to prove that it’s new chemical is safe but unfortunately that type of legislation will never pass in the west. Would you be willing to be dosed with BPA or PFAS to determine if it causes cancer in place of an animal? Without clear evidence that it was companies would still be making water bottles with BPA. You might be tempted to say just look at population data but it’s just not that simple.

In so far as toxicology research is concerned, animals are needed. It would be great if companies would stop removed poisoning the environment and us but unless we have undeniable prove to shove right into their ugly faces that what they’re doing is hurtful, they won’t stop. Right now the only way to do that without causing a ton of human suffering is to test on animals.

Tons of work is being done to reduce the numbers of animals that are tested on and new AI models are really taking off. Eventually though a living thing needs to be subjected to it to ensure our simulations aren’t just removed.

From my very basic understanding, yeah that’s basically what it does. However it accounts for a whole lot more into adding or subtracting from UTC. Timezones aren’t absolute, they’re political. Timezones have weird rules, and history that needs to be somehow expressed in the code to get the right time. That’s what’s sets tz_database apart from just looking at a map and saying it’s +7 UTC.