I have some better quality kitchen knives I like keeping sharp.

I use a two-sided whetstone 400/2000 grit for basic shaping (400 is akin to those rolling sharpeners, to be used only when you fucked up real bad), a leather strop with green sharpening paste (~6000-8000 grit) glued to a piece of wood, a plain leather strop, and a honing steel.

Green sharpening paste is most of what I ever use, a couple of strokes weekly (more realistically about 20 once a month), and maybe polish it up with the plain leather strop. Keeps the knives wicked sharp, and then I just hone them after each use.

Sometimes I do stupid things and get burrs in my edge (like cleaving frozen bone), that’s where the 2000 grit saves me.

400 I guess is for when the apocalypse comes or your kids decided to practice chef’s knife throwing into scrap metal. It’s nice to know I can remake a whole edge, but rarely used.

Written with ChatGPT no doubt

Lol, indoctrinated much?

We will still expend energy, thus satisfying the gods of thermodynamics.

My list is quite different than the ones currently in the thread.

The boring ones:

Creating a vaccine or other cloaking to make humans invisible to ticks & mosquitoes. A separate project would be to do the same for parasites.

Enacting strict pollution/carbon limits and mandatory circular economy everywhere in the world.

Researching, trialing and Enacting a sustainable post-capitalist system everywhere in the world.

Developing solar energy until covering global energy demands, including a power network that can transport energy from the sunny side and/or orbit everywhere.

The slightly more ambitious:

Establish self-sustainable colonies living on off-earth resources, most probably also situated off-earth.

Create a Dyson swarm with enough energy output for in-system exploration, mining, colonisation, and terraforming.

Perfect matter replicators.

I have some other ideas as well, but those would be a start.

Mostly spam, porn, and recipes it seems from the traffic.

Would be ironic if an unexpected strike would set something off on their side.

Unfortunately I don’t agree.

Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.

Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.

You’re right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.

🤣

@toboggonablaze is essentially correct, but let me try explain it in a slightly different way.

Lasers do a bunch of things to basically shoot a stream of photons at something. There’s basically two ways you can affect how much energy comes out of a laser, you can make the stream denser (more photons per second) - called intensity, or you can increase the energy in each photon.

The weird part about photon energy is that higher energy photons are of a different “color”, where red is lower than green, is lower than blue, is lower than gamma rays, etc.

So changing the color of a laser already means you’ve changed how much energy it can output.

Then there’s another part of your question: how lead gets heated up. Different materials respond differently to different types/wavelengths of light, an example you might be familiar with is that glass panes let through visible light, but not the heat from the sun, or that water also is see through, but can easily be microwaved (by microwaves - low frequency light).

Basically, a material can be more or less “translucent” in certain frequencies. I’d like to look lead up for you, but Google isn’t cooperating today. But basically, there are frequencies that lead will be more and less susceptible to.

That’s probably not what you meant with the question, but if that’s the application you want to use the laser for, you might want to take it into consideration.

So, in summary: color is energy, intensity is energy, you can change both independently, so your question doesn’t quite make sense.

Also, different targets will heat differently, also not making it a fair comparison.

Your last response wasn’t constructive, and this one does even less to further a discussion. I’ll just end this here.

Have a nice rest of your existence.

There are a lot more changes influencing your perception of reality than just sensory development.

I’d agree, but those are enough to clearly demonstrate a mechanism for changed perception in the proposed time span. The underlying question is question begging and whataboutism, so I think I’ve provided an overly generous answer to a dishonest question.

That’s dependent on your consciousness being limited to your physical body. Who’s to say that your consciousness wasn’t limited so a pantheistic deity could interact with itself. Both theories are equally unscientific as you can’t disprove what happens before or after life

As we can reliably affect consciousness though manipulating the body, it’s well established that it’s contingent on the body.

And as we can map consciousness happening in the body down to individual neurons firing, where would a non-corporeal consciousness interact with a body?

You calling these reliably reproducible facts unscientific belies a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

Though naturalism might not be the only way to investigate the universe, we have yet to encounter any reliable other paradigms. And even if we would discover them, naturalism would still be part of science, we’d just add the other paradigms to the areas they’re useful, like we’ve done with psychology, sociology, and even quantum physics.

A difficult question for unfalsifiable hypotheses is that if they’re unfalsifiable, they are also undetectable, and as such no different from figments of imagination. Why should I believe your imagination when my imaginary friend says not to?

I feel different today as my sensory as well as sensory processing organs have developed.

Being dead, just as before being born, I possess no such organs and expect not to “feel”.

But my position isn’t the interesting one, @RadicalEagle suggested something I interpreted as still having perception beyond life, and I was wondering if that excludes having perception before life, and how that ties into their metaphysics.

Is there any reason to feel different after you’ve died than before you were born?

Yes, very much so, many many things.

MBTI most definitely takes magnitude into account. It’s bullshit for many other reasons, including not being reliably measurable.

How long food lasts in a fridge will also depend on your climate, cooling speed (as mentioned elsewhere), fridge cleanliness, and how much you use your fridge.

Keeping everything covered with lids/clingfilm and/or everything vegetarian/vegan will also prolong fridge life. Keeping out ethylene (bananas, apples) from your fridge also helps.

I just had a soup batch in a few covered jars stay good for 9 days. In summertime things sometimes go bad in a single day.

The best measure is your own senses, if the food smells or looks bad, it probably is. And even then you can sometimes recook it (wilted vegetables can often be used in soup, stew, or even pie), especially if you catch it early.

Also here’s a neat summary with some other tips and tricks.

Not really true, it’s part of religious shame propaganda in 12 step programs to make you more susceptible to conversion.

Might be effective in the short term, but has many other negative psychological effects.

Secular rehab programs are equally or more effective, and require no such shame or disempowerment.

102 times