Saik0

Or you can accept that it’s a typo… and not freak out about a simple error that didn’t diminish your understanding of their comment.

Good thing no one did that?

You did.

Damage to what? There ain’t gonna be anything left of the car either way.

Factually wrong. ICE cars are much much easier to put out. Often times ICE engine fires can put themselves out. And since they burn slower anyway, it’s more likely you can escape the fire in of itself. Eg. if the fire occurs from a runway combustion in the chamber and the engine locks up starving the combustion chamber from oxygen.

That’s an extremely obscure and cherry-picked scenario to make your point.

Not really? There’s a lot of bridges on the planet… There’s lots of tunnels on the planet. There’s lots of infrastructure that is a part of our roadways or are close enough to roadways to be affected. Tunnels are actually an even better problem to discuss. Heavy metal toxicity will stick around a lot longer and cause much more problems than an ICE engine that can actually be doused out 1/10th of the way through the burn.

Thermal mass is not relevant. You don’t die from metal contact, you die from smoke inhalation.

More things between you and the fire = more protection overall… period. And you want to talk about people being disingenuous?

“Brother” putting words in people’s mouth is literally definition of bad faith.

I was not speaking for terms of “life”. Though life certainly is affected by the problems.

Lithium fires cause immensely more damage than ICE fires do. Hell just think of a benign situation like a car catch fire under a bridge. A BEV is more likely to structurally damage the bridge than an ICE fire would.

Lithium fires burn much hotter and spread much faster since it’s self-oxidizing. I’ll take an ICE fire any day since they will burn slower just by it’s very nature. I will have more protection by sheer thermal mass in between me and the firey bit (the engine) than I do would with an EV where the battery is literally underneath the entire passenger cabin.

It’s well known that BEV fires are much more destructive. The fact that they happen less often doesn’t fix the fact that it ends up being a wash all around.

Edit: Eg, more often x less damage = less often x more damage

100 fires that you can actually put out is better than 1 you can’t.

Simply using AI isn’t an issue… Allowing it to take over in a way that accelerates the removal of the knowledge from our pools of knowledge is a problem. Allowing companies to use AI as a direct replacement of actual medical professionals will remove knowledge from society. We already know that we can’t use AI to fuel more AI learning… the models implode. In order to continue learning more from medicine, we need to keep pushing for human learning and understanding.

Funny that you agree with me and apparently see useful discussion to have here… but downvote me even though the comment certainly added to the discussion.

Oh, and next time don’t put words into someone’s mouth, very much a bad faith action that harms meaningful discussion. I never said we should ban it or never use it. A better answer would be to legislate that doctors must still oversee, or must be the approving authority. That AI can never have a final say in someone’s care and that research must never be sourced from AI sources. All I said, is that if we continue what we’re doing and rely on AI in any meaningful capacity, we will run into problems. Especially in the context of the comment I responded to which opined upon corporation controlled AI.

FFS… they can’t even run a vending machine. https://www.anthropic.com/research/project-vend-1

Oh… and actually I would consider the 85% that it gets to be pretty poor considering that the AI was likely trained on the full breadth of NEJM information. Doctors don’t have that ability to retain and train on 100% of all knowledge of the NEJM, so mistaking things makes sense for them. It doesn’t make sense for something that was trained on NEJM data to screw up on an NEJM case.

My stance is the same for all AI. I’ll use it to generate basic code for me. I’ll never run that without review. Or to jumpstart research into a topic… and validate the information presented with outside direct sources.

TL;DR: Tool is good… Source is bad.

And the risk is that if we rely on AI in any meaningful capacity, it will eventually erode away the expertise who would be knowledgeable enough to detect the problems that the future AI may create/ignore. This assumes even best case where AI isn’t being specifically tampered with.

802.11a was 5ghz, 802.11b was 2.4ghz. Both developed at the same time.

802.11g was 2.4ghz and extended b since 2.4 took off faster than 5ghz in the market.

Since g, n onwards has been used across both bands.

Since 802.11ax we now have 6ghz.

Citizenship is already required to vote in state […] elections.

This is incorrect. The law you think you’re referencing by this is only applicable to Federal positions. Several states explicitly allow non-citizen voting in local elections. Many have no laws on the books at all addressing it. Only 15 states explicitly prohibit non-citizen voting for local positions.

https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States

This fact alone should mandate that the federal level maintains their own registrations. The State and Federal levels have different applicable voter rolls because the state doesn’t have the same requirements as the federal elections.

The m50 is a full face mask…

Plus your original claim was that razor bumps would negatively impact the fit, not short length beards. You’re moving the goalposts.

No it wasn’t… but you go ahead and keep lying to yourself. You can scroll up and read it for yourself.

And to preempt an argument… “there’s no study that says beards/razor bumps interfere with gas masks”… There are. Most of them say minimal beards/hair is fine (less than 1/16th of an inch) to get a mask seal, where 1/8 can already lead to issues. But it’s understudied. The risk of getting it wrong is people’s lives.

Note that the quoted section is not “me” saying it, but a response to that general topic/discussion.

But we’ve already discussed this ad nauseam, so you can stop following me around now.

Yeah it wasn’t an OSHA study that I was referencing…

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29283316

With military articles like https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-beards-break-gas-mask-seal/ stating

The 2018 study showed that facial hair negatively influences the fit factor for half-face negative-pressure respirators as the hair gets longer and more dense. However, beard-wearers can still “achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area,” the study authors wrote. In fact, 98% of the study participants who had an eighth-inch of beard passed the fit test. Those results are encouraging because the respirators used in the study are pretty close to the M-50 gas masks used in the military today in terms of material and fit, Ritchie said.

So 2 out of 100 people using masks that are relatively similar to the military M50 would be at risk at 1/8th inch beard. Which is not a whole lot of hair… Like 3-4 days of growth (for me). 1/16 or less seemed to be 100% rates… But the big caveat here is that the fit-test doesn’t adequately capture the rigor and activity that one might do in the military… So it seems logical that much more leakage will happen at every level.

But OSHA, ANSI, every branch of the DoD, and every study (though minimal) agrees with the fact that beard hair in of itself is a no go.

Example navy document… https://www.med.navy.mil/Portals/62/Documents/NMFA/NMCPHC/root/Industrial Hygiene/RESPIRATOR-SPECIAL-PROBLEMS.pdf?ver=Ng19UESJUtWmwvoHSABW-w%3D%3D There’s a fun graph on table 2.

Eh one person being crazy isn’t personal… I get there’s crazies out there.

It’s all good… Just wild that someone can in one breath claim there’s reading comprehension issues then in the next sentence quote the regulation that proves them wrong thinking they’re right…

It’s scary that people like them are touching chemicals (according to them). Literally just now…

OSHA doesn’t care as long as it does not impede function of the seal.

Then quotes “respirators shall not be worn when facial hair comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face” and completely misses the fact that ANY amount of hair would come between the sealing surface and the face… This is the inside of the mask, the red is the areas that touch/seal against your face… The entire chin/cheek area would be touching hair.

I’m actually just disappointed in myself that it took me so long to realize that the discussion just wasn’t going to go anywhere…

It’s funny because Canada ALSO looked into the same stuff… and apparently came to the same conclusion that something else has to be used to get a sufficient seal. But Noooo! I must be wrong!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=bpNKS-W0xDQ

Their answer was to just add an entire fucking hood to create a snug fit around the neck… Not sure I’m a fan of that… But even in this video some of those beards are pretty short.

At this point we’re getting nowhere… When you say shit like “With chemical weapons?”… Yes we’re talking about literal war… where soldiers are the ones following these policies. This is literally the primary place chemical weapons are used as far as all of known recorded history.

OSHA, ANSI, all branches of DOD and the study agree with me… You can argue whatever you want, I’m disengaging.

OSHA paragraph (g)(1) of 29 CFR 1910.134 ANSI Z88.10

You basically admitted to breaking OSHA rules though. So congrats!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29283316/ from 2018 says there’s problems with even really short lengths of beard…

But you’re correct in that I don’t have any evidence that the military found or validated the same findings internally. I think it’s more likely than not though.

Edit: Actually I do have some minor proof that they know there’s issues… But it’s covered in the same “it’s really understudied” caveat that I put in the post itself. Not worth really discussing IMO.

Edit2: I’d even disbelieve that Trump knows enough about the military to find out that they could use this to be frank…

Lmfao. You’re complaining about downvotes when people use them correctly. Remember downvotes are supposed to be used to measure how relevant/useful a topic is to a conversation. Unfortunately your feelings about specific service members, or the group as a whole is irrelevant to the discussion about the grooming rules of the military.

Just remember, you think everyone else needs to get a life… You came to this post knowing that you dislike the military specifically to spew random hatred at people who didn’t even interact with you.

I mean its right there in your own example “…to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.”

Just so you know though… that was in the definition for “quote” not source… but I’ve changed the verbiage.

Whatever float your boat. Have a pleasant evening!

So your mask didn’t work then…?

Wouldn’t know. Didn’t try to wear it without being clean shaven (or close enough/stubble).

you are exhaustingly pedantic…

Because I’m choosing to ignore something that you could have linked to? Sure… I’m pedantic then.

I don’t really think one could really claim that a 2% reduction in effectiveness quantifies as beards break gas mask seals.

out of thousands of soldiers? out of thousands of applications of the mask during an attack? 2% is a large number…

Again, you haven’t substantiated your claim about bumps effecting seals… You haven’t even substantiated that beards break seals.

The sourced document that I provided and clearly you read proved to you that beards will break seals. From the study “Beard length and areal density, but not coarseness, were statistically significant predictors of fit”. If length and density were not relevant to the matter then they would have stated so. But it is. So it is. Poor fit is a bad seal. The study showed no issue for up to 0.063 inches of hair… pull out a caliper and check that length… That is VERY short. I can grow that in probably 2-3 days. Hell even 0.125 is pretty short… and that’s where there’s already fall off and failures in getting seals. You are now arguing that it’s okay for 2% of military members to die during a chemical attack just because they want to have a bit more than stubble… This is a crazy stance to accept.

So no, you can’t claim it would save lives. Plus, the majority of people serving in the military arent in combat positions.

Can’t choose what gets attacked… The enemy chooses that.

That doesn’t have anything to do with your facial hair…does it?

I didn’t bring it up did I? You did.

I don’t have a beard atm, but I would be just as confident doing that with or without the beard.

I have to assume that this is “not at all” confidence for both scenarios then.

Honestly though I’m still reeling from you comparing your job of just handling some chemicals to an airborne chemical attack situation that would aerosolise the chemical…

Cool then you must accept my previous statement of

General Grievous says “TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”

It’s a quote, attributed to a name. Right?

Edit: Would you feel better if I change the verbiage to “I wasn’t given a good source” or “validated source”?

Quote

to repeat (a passage, phrase, etc.) from a book, speech, or the like, as by way of authority, illustration, etc. […] to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.

Source

any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin.

The above are quotes… from a source… in this case the sources being https://www.dictionary.com/browse/quote and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/source

The problem with simply using a name as a “source” in this context… This lemmy user didn’t talk to that Lt. Col. so that lemmy user can’t be a source to say that the Col said anything… They took that quote from somewhere else… and didn’t cite that source. So it goes unsourced as the origin of where the quote is derived was not disclosed. Much the same as we both know that General Grievous from my previous comment is a fictional character and definitely didn’t say anything of that sort… Yet I “quoted” it… with no source to prove that anything was ever actually said. Quoting something without a citation to the source where you obtain the quote is effectively pointless on the internet.

Edit: Google shows a number of sources for the quote… https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-beards-break-gas-mask-seal/ being one of them.

This same article goes on to show the same study that I posted elsewhere though… with a bizarre stance on the results though…

These anecdotes all regard oxygen masks for aviators, so it would be too bold to extrapolate that the same rings true for gas masks, Ritchie explained. Still, it’s a start, and there is also a recent study from the civilian world that could indicate positive outcomes for beard-hopefuls in the U.S. military. The 2018 study showed that facial hair negatively influences the fit factor for half-face negative-pressure respirators as the hair gets longer and more dense. However, beard-wearers can still “achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area,” the study authors wrote. In fact, 98% of the study participants who had an eighth-inch of beard passed the fit test. Those results are encouraging because the respirators used in the study are pretty close to the M-50 gas masks used in the military today in terms of material and fit, Ritchie said.

Not sure why 98% is acceptable to them… but is what it is. I don’t particularly find the number acceptable considering it’s entirely preventable deaths that could be stopped.

See… I provided the source… and the quote. There is no concern about me having made shit up because you can see it for yourself without hunting for the source yourself.