• 0 Posts
  • 3 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 16th, 2023

help-circle
  • I think people are too terminally online and use these phrases to justify being an ass to someone not in the know. In reddit it was always a mod getting pissed at someone having a different opinion (and no I’m not talking about being racist as a different opinion) or asking questions because they don’t know about the subject. They cry sealion and ban the person. Other people say I don’t think they were a sealion, and get banned too. Really it seems more like a, “I disagree and have nothing more to say and now will ban you.”

    I think it’s fine to ask questions, and point out if there is a flaw in someone’s logic. If someone wants to stop talking then that’s fine and should be respected. But this comic makes it seem like the lady is racist for no reason and the sea lion is fine until the last 3 panels when the sea lion doesn’t leave after being told to go away.

    I’ve heard this term before from a power mod and I’m surprised that this comes from a webcomic that doesn’t even fit any time I’ve seen someone cry sealion. When I read the Wikipedia page it describes something else than the comic which I can agree more with, the author is quoted as saying, “The core of what I set out to criticize is just the notion that any random patient stranger should feel entitled to as much of someone’s attention as they want.” Idk the rest of the Wikipedia page talks more of mind reading, you can’t tell what someone means online since there is no tone and you don’t know the other person well enough. If they are just doing the first 3 panels then it is fine. The last time I saw a “sealion” happen was when mods of a sub announced a new unpopular rule that they knew people would leave the sub because of and anyone who disagreed were called a sealion and banned.

    Sorry for ranting about this, I just now was reminded of why I hate this term that is usually misused because of your comment. Feel free to ignore me, I don’t think I deserve some random person’s undivided attention, plus arguments/debates stress me out anyway.


  • This has nothing to do with MFA. Reread the article.

    To understand these questions, you have to know how the scam works. Here’s what typically happens: One of my social media accounts goes down. Suddenly — in a way that feels too quick to be a coincidence, though it’s unclear exactly how they might get an account down taken down — a stranger contacts me via Twitter DMs or email. They promise they’ll get my account back if I pay a price. Sometimes, they claim they have an inside man at Meta.

    Performer Abigail Mac has received these messages after losing her account. “It’s people that work at Instagram,” Mac says she believes. “[They’re] extorting them and just stealing their money.”

    In her most recent ordeal, Mac says, Meta took down her account then she received a message from a scammer, offering to retrieve the account for $15,000. They swore the account would disappear forever if she didn’t pay them in 24 hours. She replied that she would get her account back herself.

    “Then they asked me what my budget was,” Mac says. “Every day [they] would knock some money off. It’s such a scam.”

    The scarier scenario occurs when someone messages you are saying, “Hey, save my stuff in case you lose your account.” Then, whoopsie doodle, lo and beyond, your account’s gone. Now, when I receive these messages, my stomach drops.

    The worst part is when I’ve paid these people, it’s often worked. They’ve retrieved my account. I’m thankful for that, but it raises questions about how these people operate and what they know, not just about sex workers’ Instagram accounts, but everyone’s. How do they get the accounts back? Where do they work when they’re not retrieving sex workers’ accounts? How do they communicate with Meta to fix the problem? And why does your account get deleted over and over again once you pay these people?

    “Once you pay, they know you will pay and keep doing it,” Mac says.

    Girls have paid up to $20,000 and have not gotten their accounts back. It’s plausible these scam artists message a girl, report her account, and then contact her via another avenue, such as Twitter or email. But there’s no way to know for sure. For all the talk about the dangers of social media, from teenage anorexia rates to smartphone addiction, the public pays little attention to the harms sex workers face on these sites. (Unless a porn star is fucking a president, you’re not going to see her on the cover of the Wall Street Journal.) We need Meta to investigate the problem and identify what has gone wrong before more people get scammed.


  • Clothing that is UPF 50 can provide protection but unless your wardrobe is filled with these specialized clothing you won’t get the same protection. For instance, a white T-shirt provides only moderate sun protection, with a UPF of about 7. When that T-shirt gets wet, it provides a UPF of only 3. A dark, long-sleeved denim shirt can provide a UPF of about 1,700; in essence, complete sun protection. (https://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-prevention/sun-protection/sun-protective-clothing/)

    It’s recommended to use both sunscreen and sun protective clothing by just about every skin cancer authority (https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/causes-and-prevention/sun-safety/preventing-skin-cancer). I have no idea what data you are referring to that sunscreen is not a good thing, I suspect exposure to fear mongering from the “natural” anti-science crowd. Let me guess, you think sunscreen is a hormonal disruptor even though you would need to use oxybenzone (the “worst” one) sunscreen continuously for 277 years to get the equivalent amount to cause a noticeable hormonal effect - so even oxybenzone is considered safe. Or you think “nano” sunscreen is bad even though the studies so far have found that the nanoparticles don’t get very far into the skin (only to the dead layers of the stratum corneum). It’s possible that nanoparticles will penetrate further if you apply them on broken skin, but they’re currently considered safe.

    Physical vs chemical sunscreens is a debate with a lot of misinformation and fear mongering because people will drink water while not registering water is a filthy cHeMiCaL (half joking). You should be much more concerned where you buy your sunscreen because the US has shitty standards for UVA protection while the other countries have much better UVA systems and standards. I can’t even begin to debunk this but here we go:

    https://labmuffin.com/chemical-vs-physical-sunscreens-the-science-with-video/

    Physical and Chemical work the same

    Physical sunscreen ingredients (more correctly known as inorganic sunscreen ingredients) are zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

    Chemical sunscreen ingredients (more correctly known as organic sunscreen ingredients) are everything else.

    The reason organic (carbon-based) and inorganic (not carbon-based) is a better classification than chemical/physical is that there’s overlap between how they work. Both types work by absorbing UV and turning it into heat. Inorganic sunscreens also scatter and reflect about 5-10% of the incoming UV, as do some particulate organic sunscreens like Tinosorb M, so really they should be classified as both chemical and physical.

    Natural things aren’t better than synthetic, man-made things

    The amount of heat produced from UV by sunscreen is really, imperceptibly tiny. There’s also only a 5% difference in the heat produced by the two types of sunscreens, since physical sunscreens also absorb about 95% of the UV they protect you from.

    Even if they were – physical sunscreens aren’t even natural. They’re processed to get rid of toxic contaminants, and often need to be coated in synthetic chemicals to stop them from being photocatalytic, and prevent them from clumping up and causing patchy protection.

    https://www.kindofstephen.com/physical-vs-chemical-sunscreens-myths/

    Even more detailed explanation

    Chemicals are physical – they have a mass and take up space. On the other end, the “physical” sunscreens titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are chemicals, you can find the elements titanium and zinc on the periodic table.

    In marketing, organic is a label that describes how something is produced – often with a safe-list of chemical treatments and approved practices.

    In chemistry, organic means the chemistry of compounds that contain carbon. Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide don’t contain carbon. They’re made up of metal and oxygen and classified as inorganic.

    Marking the categories as organic and inorganic makes more sense because all of the sunscreen chemicals used contain carbon, except for titanium dioxide and zinc oxide.

    It’s often said that inorganic sunscreens (titanium dioxide and zinc oxide) reflect UV off of the skin and organic sunscreens absorb UV and convert it into heat. In reality, for most of the UV spectrum they work very similarly.

    Organic sunscreens absorb UV because of the way the bonds between their carbon molecules are arranged… The energy from UV light promotes electrons in the conjugated carbon bonds of organic sunscreen molecules from a lower energy state to a higher energy excited state. The excited electrons in the bonds then relax or release the absorbed energy by stretching, vibrating, or bending – this turns that energy into heat.

    Inorganic sunscreens work very similarly – even though their structure is different from organic sunscreens… The principle behind the UV protection is exactly the same as organic sunscreens.

    There is a strong belief that these inorganic metal oxide sunscreens act by reflecting UV light instead of absorbing it, but this isn’t the complete story. UV light is divided into UVB and UVA. UVB is between 280 to 315 or 320 nm and UVA is between 315 or 320 to 400 nm. Inorganic sunscreens predominately absorb in the UVB spectrum and reflect in the long UVA (above 360 nm) and visible spectrum. Only about 5% of UVB light is reflected by inorganic sunscreens and the remainder gets absorbed and converted – just like organic sunscreens.

    Both organic and inorganic sunscreen particles can penetrate into the upper layers of the skin. If and how much they penetrate is dependent on properties like their particle or molecular size as well as the overall sunscreen formula. This isn’t a desired effect and formulators work to reduce the amount that penetrates. Modern organic sunscreens often have larger molecular sizes, chemical and physical properties, or even coatings which make it more difficult for them to penetrate past the surface of the skin.

    Keep in mind that skin penetration doesn’t mean that it’s causing harm to our bodies. There has to be a biological mechanism for it cause an effect. There is a lot current and ongoing research into this area, but we don’t have any strong answers yet.