The FDA just hates flavored nicotine products because they're appealing (to both adults and children), and the FDA doesn't want nicotine products to be appealing (because nicotine is perceived to be a public health problem on the scale of tobacco).
Weed disposables are a whole rabbit hole by themselves.
You want to buy a disposable? Ok, here, $20 and you're done.
But if you want to make the oil at home? Ok, $2000 for lights, timers, nutrients, seeds, and a grow tent. Plus another ~$10,000 for a basic short path distillation setup. And honestly to make anything close to what you get in the disposables, you'll need to hire an expert with experience. And you need a lot of space for your new secret lab. For 99.999% of people, it's super not worth it to make at home.
Your home grow prices are high (even setting aside that you can just buy flower instead of the disposable vape). The right range is hundreds of dollars. And I'm sure making good oil costs somewhat more, but you can make crappy dab sludge (wax?) with some scissors, $10 of isopropyl alcohol, and a baking dish ("QWISO"), and that sludge can be loaded in some kinds of reusable vape.
Im talking about making full melt distillate. Crappy dab sludge can't go in a cart. It requires actual distillation to make what they put in the carts. QWISO is a joke.
I promise you, if it was easy, you would see more people making carts. I tried C02, water wash, sifting, heat press, everything you can think of. Its nowhere near the same. And that's just for the bare minimum distillate. We're not even talking about live resin or anything fancy.
You basically need a small factory to get close to the quality of the carts.
And my home grow prices are low. You cant just grow 2 or 4 plants if you want even a small steady supply of full melt wax. Like, 20 plants minimum is more close. And they have to be good. Living soil, aeroponic, whatever you want.
And that's if you can get actually good yield. I've seen people get such bad yield that they turn 1 pound of flower into less than 3 grams of wax. That's why you need an expert. Even putting together a successful distillation operation is no joke. Besides chemistry knowledge, you need lots of "industrial equipment" knowledge. We're not talking about using a heat press or a curling iron to make "dabs". We're talking about making the real shit.
To be honest 10k is in the range of the cheapest alibaba eqipment. Most commercial outfits, even smaller ones, use much more expensive equipment.
This is why people prefer to just buy it from the store for $20.
> It's a story and the readers perception changes over the course of reading the book.
You're referring to casual reading, but writers and people who have an interest and motivation to read deeply review, analyze, and summarize books under lenses and reflect on them; for technique as much as themes, messages, how well they capture a milieu, etc. So that's quite a bit more than "no human"!
This is no joke. I picked up a 3 pound package of garden variety 80/20 ground beef last week and it was over $20. Maybe I just don't buy it often enough to notice, but that seems far higher than even a few months ago. I would have expected to buy a modest cut of steak for that price.
First, pre-cut isn't that much more expensive. Second, cutting is an accessibility thing now? A kitchen knife and 5 minute YouTube video should have anyone being to chop/dice without much trouble. And once they learn they will only get faster/better at it allowing them to use whole veggies adding more variety.
Yes, it's a boon esp. for old people who live alone, have mobility or sight issues, and don't trust themselves to hold a knife. It's also a convenience thing, but as you said, the general population can cut things just fine and won't suffer much without it; which isn't the case for this growing demographic.
Whole Foods fresh vegetables prices are comparable to elsewhere, same with some dairy. However, everything else carries a premium and for budget minded people you need to avoid it.
The pre-chopped coleslaw mix is like 3 bucks for a huge bag. 1 pound of pre-sliced frozen peppers I think is $2. Some of it depends on where you’re shopping, I’m sure this stuff would be 50-100% more at Whole Foods the next town over.
I'm a bit peeved at this caricaturization of earlier eras. In fact, significant fields of modern philosophy received great innovation by churchmen, and they were of course constantly attempting to reconcile Christian dogma with Greek and especially Aristotelian thought.
One prominent example was formal logic, which was significantly developed in the middle ages, but received scant attention in the Renaissance.
They developed a great deal of formal logic, but looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroco#:~:text=In%20the%20term... (with the hindsight from Boolean logic, admittedly!) it seems more like they were mostly slathering on the tech debt. How am I mistaken?
Speaking of reconciliation, might I interest you in a reconciliation of Aquinas and Spinoza, by way of Galois Theory?
> Abelard was the greatest logician since Antiquity: he devised a purely truth-functional propositional logic, recognizing the distinction between force and content we associate with Frege, and worked out a complete theory of entailment as it functions in argument (which we now take as the theory of logical consequence). His logical system is flawed in its handling of topical inference, but that should not prevent our recognition of Abelard’s achievements.
and you might be more familiar with Ockham's Razor. There are others, but you can do your own research if you're interested. There was a lot of work that needed to be done in between Aristotle's incomplete Syllogisms and the incomplete understanding of propositional logic that Sophists used, that helped birth Frege's Begriffsschrift.
OK, so so far I think I can use a similar application of Galois Theory to relate Abelard's exstinctiva square of opposition and his separativa square.
I haven't quite figured out how Alberic's argument goes through in Abelard's logic. but can clearly see that as the latter denies ex impossibili quodlibet something has to break. (for eiq merely observes that if False is True, then everything at least as true as False —ie everything— is True. In other words you have a degenerate situation, in which False == True)
Ok I think I see what you mean, you think these philosophers describe systems that partly capture a fully elaborated system, and you can draw imperfect correspondences between them. But I don't see why you want to shoehorn them into being Galois correspondences under... what exactly.
[almost all Galois correspondences are imperfect; they're just the "best" imperfect correspondence, in some sense. (the ones that actually are bijections are the perfect ones, in that not only are R=RLR and L=LRL, but RL=1=LR)]
> But I don't see why
For fun? Because "Algebraic Theology" is a grammatical english noun phrase that up until recently seems to have been uninhabited? To create a model in which Spinoza is not Pantheist? All of the above?
1. in your original statement, you just name-dropped philosophers' names assuming that I'd understand what aspect of their work you were thinking of. Similarly, you can't say "use Galois theory" when you are actually thinking of drawing Galois correspondences between lattice-like structures.
2. Don't forget that notions like and Galois connections are today well-defined notions in terms of modern-day mathematical objects in turn relying on first-order logic or similar... whereas they were just beginning to explicate parts of logic.
Right, I'm not saying they should've come up with it; I'm just saying that knowing what we know now it's possible to reconcile them.
(in my original statement, I didn't want to go into detail in case you weren't interested; typing costs my time, and the last two times I've attempted to discuss this on HN it's been crickets)
> [Aquinas reconciled with Spinoza] is kind of bad faith.
How so? I'm dead serious; Algolia will confirm — and you sound like part of the small audience that would actually know what the differences to be reconciled are.
Be back after (making a few other replies and) reading up on Abelard. Is this the same Abelard as Sic et Non?
How is this an appropriate rejoinder? Inequality in education and the variability of fortunes persisted throughout Imperial and post-Medieval times. Rather, if we acknowledge that the rural person in Italy was still illiterate during the Enlightenment, then my point still stands; the rural laity was just as "mindless".
In the case of the Black Death, an appropriate characterization of it did not gain currency until well after the heyday of the Enlightenment.
This has little bearing on the argument I was making, but I'd like to note that religion had a great incentive to teach abstract notions to the laity (and they did) as the Christian God and its dogma are extremely abstract in contrast to most agrarian notions.
On the abstraction front, I'll confirm that if you go back far enough in just about any line on the Mathematics Genealogy Project, you get to DDs (some Christian, some Islamic).
As a flexitarian, I've had to think quite a lot about how to get enough bioavailable protein while moderating my carb consumption and digestive upset due to beans, and to do so in a sustainable manner factoring in convenience and lack of leisure. I certainly won't recommend anything but lean meat and dairy as protein staples to people who aren't used to watching what they eat.
I’m fairly certain that the “odd” behaviour is that of the extremists who hijacked the original concept to promote the idea that being fat is good.
I’d consider calling it “odd” to be an understatement. I always thought such extreme positions were a bizarre denial of the negative impacts that obesity can have on personal well-being and quality of life. Having said that, I only ever encountered such views on the Internet; never in real life.
I don't think you've thought through the sentiment "But that’s the job of the parents, not the state" very well. Parents frequently want limited Internet access for their older preteen/early teen children, don't trust the private sector to implement this limited Internet access, and don't have the time to enforce this limited access themselves as they have to go to work and their children have to go to school anyway (and their parents want this limited access for them in school as well).
There are also easier options of no personal Internet access, and unrestricted access, but I suppose these are not very good for this stage of development.
As citizens we like to delegate aspects of our lives to the government; for example, I'm responsible for commuting to work on time, but we have delegated the maintenance of roads or public transport to the government, and this is something that could also be done by the private sector (private roads, private transportation), and ends up as a constant negotiation between citizen and government. Some polities like Germany and I think Sweden have subsidized education for children in exchange for mandatory public schooling by an institution either owned by the state or extremely highly regulated by the state.
Note that the word "coordinate" used here feels a bit disingenuous to me, because that's how one might refer to the nth property defining a mathematical object or another.
For example: The third coordinate of the rational number 1/2 is a bijection.
Coordinate here actually means: third property in the definition of a rational number in Lean. Here, this property is the statement that the denominator 2 is not zero. This is not so absurd, if we define a rational number as a tuple consisting of a natural number for the numerator (property 1) and an integer for the denominator (property 2), with the added restrictions that the denominator is not the integer zero (property 3), and that the numerator and denominator are in least terms (property 4).
But the part where the proof that the denominator is nonzero can be viewed as a bijective function, is to me indeed type-theoretic weirdness. If I'm not wrong, it's just the proof viewed as a zero-argument function. (proofs for theorems that begin with e.g. forall are functions that take arguments).
Lean defines a != b as a = b => False, so it seems that we have a function from proofs of a = b to proofs of False. I guess this being bijective means that there are no proofs of a = b, since there are no proofs of False, which is an equivalent way of looking at a != b.
reply