Pat @Pat@qoto.org

@Acer

新加坡
日本
多哥
冰岛
丹麦
列支敦士登
布坦
奥地利
新西兰

-
Here's a link to the archive of that video...

https://www.c-span.org/video/?526807-2/washington-journal-news-headlines-viewer-calls&event=526807&playEvent

@timely_pace

Are these equations extensible to a 3+1 spacetime?

@sakhavi

Her (2013)

This one is 100% true.

Depleted uranium is what is left over after most of the U-235 is removed from naturally occurring uranium. It is mostly U-238, which is non-fissionable (it can’t support a chain reaction). There are other metals that are more dense than depleted uranium, but they are more expensive, so they use depleted uranium and add a small amount of other metals to make it a hardened alloy.

Uranium-238 has a very long half-life of billions of years, so it decays very slowly and produces very little radiation. All of the radiation from U-238 is alpha radiation, which does not penetrate very well – it can be stopped by a sheet a paper and only travels a few inches in air. Some of the daughter isotopes in the uranium decay series produce beta and gamma radiation but the majority of radiation in the complete decay of uranium to a stable isotope is in the form of alpha radiation. Only the surface of the rounds will actually emit alpha radiation into the air, and that radiation will only travel a few inches.

So nearly all of the radiation from depleted uranium will be converted to heat before it reaches any of the soldiers inside a vehicle that is carrying depleted uranium ammo. This heat will contribute a small portion of the heat within the vehicle but, for example, in a tank most of the heat will come from the putt-putt engine used to power the vehicle. In fact the body heat from the soldiers produces more heat energy than the radiation from the decay of the uranium in the ammo rounds.

There is a potential danger though from the depleted uranium rounds (beyond their use as a deadly weapon). If microscopic pieces of the depleted uranium are dislodged from the material and become airborne, like when the shells are bumped together or scraped, then those airborne particles can be breathed in and become lodged in the lungs or ingested into the digestive system. In that case then the alpha particles can strike tissue and damage DNA which could cause cancer. If a sliver of the metal penetrates the skin, that can also potentially cause damage to the DNA of the tissue it is in contact with.

Also, one of the daughter elements in the decay of uranium is radon, which is a gas. So when the radon is produced it can be released into the air inside the vehicle. Since radon has a half-life of about four days, it can decay into polonium particles in the air (which have a half-life of about a month) and the radon and polonium can accumulate in the vehicle and get into the lungs where it can damage tissue. If the vehicle is well ventilated then there is little risk of that happening.

OK, there’s more but this way too long already...

#Patsplaining

@admitsWrongIfProven

>"Hmm, truth be told here that it is used all over the globe because one nation has military bases all over the globe? Am i getting this right?"

No. Depleted uranium is a byproduct from the refinement of uranium for nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Nations that process uranium for those purposes will produce depleted uranium.

Lots of countries use depleted uranium for projectiles.

-
Right now on CSPANs Washington Journal, a discussion about what "woke" means...

https://www.c-span.org/event/?526807/washington-journal-03272023

#CSPAN #woke #racism

#TruthBeTold

Depleted uranium is used by military units all over the globe as projectiles for various guns used in aircraft and armored vehicles. The advantage of using uranium is that it has a higher density than lead or other metals so that the projectile can deliver more force on impact. Also, the nuclear radiation from the decay of the stored uranium ammo rounds in the vehicles helps to keep the soldiers warm.

- - -
#TruthBeTold = A statement that is logically or literally true (or partly true), but seems to imply something that isn’t true or is just plain weird. (for rhetoric, logic or propaganda studies… or just for fun)

#uranium #nuclear #ammo #military #tank #gun #HotStuff

(public domain image)

@freemo

I don’t know about your mom and other elderly friends, but on average old people do just fine.

As far as anecdotal cases go, I’m very old and I think I do well even with my dyslexia and other communication disorder (which I’ve had my entire life). I think most here on qoto would be surprised to learn how old I am. I don’t think they’d have a clue about my age unless I mentioned it or provided contextual cues in my toots. I’ve recently had an IQ test and I’m still above the 90th percentile. So everyone is an individual and each case is unique.

@freemo

>”Go back just a few hundred years and children fairly young were treated as adults, and were quite capable.
Most kids would be more than capable by 12 if they were actually given the freedom and responsibility.”

Perhaps in certain environments some 12-year-olds would be able to fend for themselves, find food, cook, build shelter; but most wouldn’t. And very few would be able to operate in the modern world, enter into contracts, etc. I don’t think very many children under 13 have been granted emancipation by a court.

>”The cognitive decline is steady as shown in the chart I shared, everyone will regress to incompetence if you carry the curve out, its just that most people die long before hand.”

Thank you for confirming what I said, ”But if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead.”

There is another significant difference -- for those adults who become incompetent when they are older, they have competence beforehand so they can direct their care, make advanced directives, plan out an end game. Children who have not yet become competent never had competence and therefore can’t make those decisions for themselves.

@2ck

@freemo

>”This isnt a fundemental difference atall..”

Yes, there is a fundamental difference.

>”...everyone without exception, assuming they live to be old enough, will eventually get to a point they cant do much more than cry and poop...”

That’s flat out wrong. Most people are mentally competent until they are on their death bed.

For young people, 100% of them are not competent when they are first born and during the first couple of years of life. A tiny fraction will become fully competent during their childhood.

Also, for young people the age is set. It starts at zero. For old people they may be competent when they are over 100 years old and remain so until they die, or they may get Alzheimer disease at 50. There is no set age and there is no certainty that they will ever become mentally incompetent. With young people it is certain – 100% of young people are incompetent during their first few years.

That’s the fundamental difference.

So to say that “all old people should be denied right X” or “everyone over age X should lose certain rights”, is a sweeping and inaccurate generalization, whereas one can say with certainty that “everyone under two years old is incompetent to take care of themselves.”

>”While i agree with this in principle in reallity this isnt what you think based on what you already said. You feel the parents should have the right to determine this and dictate it. Which means the child never really has the right at all, a parent permits them and has the full power over them.”

If a parent recognizes a kid’s right to do something, then they have the right to do it. And if they mess up, the parent can take that right away. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t have that right at all.

Adults have rights, but if they commit a serious crime, some of those rights can be taken away. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t have those rights before they were taken away.

>”No if you truly felt this way then a 10 year old could walk up to the DMV and get a license without their parents involved at all.…”

A license is different than a fundamental right. A driver’s license is a permit to use certain public property (roadways). It is not uncommon to see a 10-year-old driving farm equipment on a family farm (if they can reach the pedals), and it is up to the parent to decide if they are ready to do that because it is on private property. But with the public roadways, the rest of society is involved, so public law determines the rules for issuing driver’s licenses to young people.

@2ck

@freemo

We're in general agreement about the rights of children. By the time they are old enough to do something without risking harm to themselves or others, then they should be allowed to do it, and making that determination should be the parent’s call (unless the parents are causing substantial harm themselves).

There’s a fundamental difference, though, between children and old people – everyone is born without the capacity to do much more than cry and poop, so no one can exercise most of those rights when they are very young. But if someone takes care of their health they most likely will have the capacity to exercise rights up until they are dying or dead. And the disease that causes most of the cases of incompetence is Alzheimer disease, which is usually diagnosed while people are still functional and can voluntarily submit to care.

So there is quite a difference between the recognition of the rights of young people (children) and old people (adults).

I think it should be based of each individual’s behavior and capacity. When a person is starting out in life, then rights are recognized as they demonstrate that they are ready and capable to exercise them. After a right has been recognized for an individual, then no one should be able to take it away without demonstrating that they are incapable and that they could cause actual harm to themselves or others. And the bar for making these determinations should be a high bar, both to initially recognize rights for children, or to take them away from adults.

@2ck

@freemo @2ck

My objection is primarily about people feeling that it’s ok to make derogatory comments about old people, when they would never make the same type of comments about someone’s race or religion.

Regarding rights for young people, people acquire specific rights as they get older. Newborns have the right to life and to live without being harmed, for example. Some of those are determined by the parents and others are defined by law. In the US, this process of acquiring recognition of rights and privileges continues until a person reaches the age 35, when all of their rights and privileges are fully recognized.

@freemo

Apparently you didn't read my toot.

@freemo

My dad let me drive a car when I was 12. And I had my own gun when I was eight years old. It’s up to the parents to raise their kids. If you ask children if they would rather be on their own or live under their parent's supervision, the vast majority will live with their parents. Those who don't want that, end up as runaways.

Once someone has reached emancipation, they are free and society should treat them equally whether they are old or young, black or white, Jew or gentile.

I understand that your OP was meant to be a joke, but what if you substituted another group in place of "old people" as I indicated in my toot. Would that be ok? Of course not. Then why do you think it is ok to discriminate against old people?

-
Here’s an excellent discussion about the meaning and origins of the concept of being woke.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1771197870?t=01h08m51s

It’s about 20 minutes.

#woke #racism #inclusion #justice #blm #word

@freemo

It's not funny.

@freemo

>"...old people really should not be allowed on the internet."

How about Jews? Black people? Asperger's?

@peterdrake

Trains? >100 cars

Bikes? (no motor ;)

HotWheels?

@trinsec @freemo @acjay

I'd go just to see this...