The scenario is not imaginary. His analogy sucks. The rest of the article isn’t anything remarkable either. Wow, the current digital media landscape is addictive, and addictive things are bad. Can you believe an industry would monetize addictive things? What an incredible observation, never heard that one before.

No, I’m not trolling. Why would I believe this person to know what they’re talking about in a subject I don’t understand well, when I know they’re wrong about a subject I do understand well?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

I’ve heard the name before but I’m not super tuned into this area. The analogy just really struck out for me in the first two paragraphs, monumentally so. If he writes with this amount of conviction about something he clearly has no idea about, I’m not likely to trust anything else that he writes in the same article. It’s important to know your limitations.

I read the first paragraph of this article and I already think it sucks. If heroin was fully legalized, zero restrictions, we’d be much better off than the current situation we have right now with the war on drugs, fentanyl analogs, and xylazine. Full stop.

Second paragraph:

Heroin distribution and sales would quickly become a huge, multibillion-dollar industry. They would become a significant part of GDP, even though heroin harms and often kills those who consume it. Given the increasingly naked corruption of U.S. politics, the heroin industry would be able to purchase massive political influence, enough to block any attempts to limit the harm it does — the harm it knows it does, because heroin industry executives would surely be aware of the damage their products inflict.

This is already happening. Who is this author and why is he so ignorant of the past few decades of opiate problems in the US? There is not a significant fundamental difference between heroin and any other opiate/opioid. I say this as someone who has experimented with many types of them.

Based on this I’m not gonna read the rest of the article because he’s already demonstrated a head-up-ass perspective.

You won’t, because you fundamentally misunderstand what’s happening.

Well, that statement is completely incorrect. The magnetic field doesn’t attract particles, which I stated in my earlier comment. It only guides the particles towards the poles, particles which were already headed towards the planet after being emitted. It does not attract particles (pull, in your words) towards the planet that would otherwise miss it had the magnetic field not existed.

In fact, a stronger magnetic field would be a better shield to deflect particles away from a majority of the planet.

The more factors, the less secure. Each one you add is another potential exploitable authentication method. It’s only as secure as the least secure MFA method you add.

The absolute distance is extremely relevant to how many particles reach the planet, which in turn is extremely relevant to how bright the aurora is.

I don’t think you’re quite understanding the distances involved in what I’m getting at. The particle flux is minuscule, and it’s not the magnetic field that’s attracting particles. It’s only guiding the particles that were already headed towards the planet.

This planet would have great aurorae if it were near a star, but it’s not, so the magnetic field strength is kind of a moot point.

No one:

Me: Once again the “no one:” format demonstrating how pointless it is, as cropping that bit out leads to the same thing.

Both the magnetic field strength and charged particle flux fall off proportional to the square of the distance from the planet / star respectively, so I doubt it gets much of anything even with a strong magnetic field unless it’s also near a star.

I’d also point out that the particles aren’t really attracted by the earths magnetic field, we’re just in the pathway, and the magnetic field funnels them to the poles. It’s more guidance than attraction.

Yes, carcinogenic. Not “just as” carcinogenic.

I am a biochemist. These are not big words to me. I actually read the findings section, not only the abstract.

“Just as carcinogenic” is not demonstrated by that study.

Lithium and lead are drastically different elements.

I mean if you hit a deer with your car, why let all that venison go?

Same as it ever was.

Ever wonder how many wars got started because of an embarrassed little man of a tyrant? Unfortunately we’re doomed to repeat the same mistakes, I suppose we’re only human. All this fancy high tech bullshit changed everything but also didn’t change a thing.

Specifically for amateur radio, HamStudy.org is amazing.

Back when I was in the military I saw one on the sidewalk in Texas as I was stepping forward, too late to abort. It was fine, completely unfazed by my combat boots. It had to fit in between one of the treads, but still. Serious little critters.

No new wars!

This comment made me reach semantic satiation of the word “Hitler” and it’s kinda nice. A word so associated with disgust has ceased to even register as a word in my brain.