You are fucking insane. The three were merely examples. What I said in my original statement was "Yet in every metric I've ever seen" this was later shortened to "by all metrics" condensing the text in order to focus on the insanity of your statements.

I've said nothing about disproving racism. It is always this constant garbage with you just pulling shit out of your ass. My commentary was about casting shade on the notion racism is causing the effects enumerated in the study. My statement was "This seems to directly cut against your racism theory." It was not racism or anything else is disproven. I never said that or anything even remotely like it. You keep making this shit up which is why I think you are a nutcase.

What you said and what I responded to is the following statement:

"Even using them doesn't make you racist. But there is good evidence to show that using them does disproportionate harm to racial minorities that ended up living where they did because of the pressures of institutional racism."

My response was "In this particular study somehow native Americans were least exposed while Asians get the shortest end of the stick beating out Hispanics and Blacks in exposure. Yet in every metric I've ever seen Asians consistently come out ahead of every other ethnic group including whites in crime, median income and life expectancy. This seems to directly cut against your racism theory."

This statement is saying no actually those with the highest exposure are likely not getting the shortest
end of the stick cuz racism. They are getting the shortest end of the stick because they prefer living in an urban environment.

You are a nutjob. I'm sure there are people who are living in polluted areas because racist something or other. I never asserted otherwise.

What I did say is what seems to be controlling here given the admission that 96% of the pollution is *point of use* is the urban vs rural divide generally. This is evidenced by the complete inversion of Native Americans vs. Asians in the pollution data in this study. Native Americans tend to be amongst the poorest with lowest life expectancy while Asians are the opposite yet Native Americans have the least pollution exposure and Asians suffer the most in this study. This cuts against the story that pollution exposure is being driven by those living where they did because institutional racism.

The reason I believe you are a nutcase is you keep hearing shit that was never said and you keep making shit up. This is a persistent issue with you. Looking at your posting history here it is always the same shit with you over and over and over and over again.

I'm legitimately thinking your a crazy person, a basket case. You admit to saying people end up in a shitty place that exposes them to disproportionate harm cuz racism.

When I point out Asians have it worse than the other ethnicities in this paper yet by all metrics they do disproportionately better than every other ethnic group you ignore this evidence against the premise of racism causing disproportionate harm WRT pollution exposure in this study as a "strawman".

Now you are talking about "orthogonal to redlining" and before that it was "Nothing I said had anything to do with the economic situation of any of the cohorts" you can't even keep your own story straight.

You're a nutcase.

It's 2025 and the buzzword of the day is zero trust.

What you said was the following: "But there is good evidence to show that using them does disproportionate harm to racial minorities that ended up living where they did because of the pressures of institutional racism."

If you didn't mean this to say you end up in a shitty place because racism and that shitty place exposes you to "disproportionate harm" then what did you intend your statement to say? What else does it mean to end up living in a place that causes disproportionate harm because institutional racism?

Please explain what it is you are trying to say.

The "glaring fucking error" is your absurd statements.

In this particular study somehow native Americans were least exposed while Asians get the shortest end of the stick beating out Hispanics and Blacks in exposure. Yet in every metric I've ever seen Asians consistently come out ahead of every other ethnic group including whites in crime, median income and life expectancy. This seems to directly cut against your racism theory.

If you combine the studies assertion **96%** of the pollution being **end use** and compare the end use map on pg4 of the study with any map of US population density this really all just devolves into a rural vs urban thing. Asians tend to prefer urban living while native Americans tend to prefer rural living which explains the spread and the general sources of exposure differences.

All of the studies I've ever seen show urban dwellers enjoying higher life expectancy than their rural counterparts. Given this particular study isn't based on collecting and correlating real world health data but simply calculating health outcomes from prebaked lookup tables of expected harms per quantity of pollution exposure it is basically just a reflection of existing dogma that doesn't add anything substantive to the existing body of evidence.

Personally I've found myself repeatedly disappointed by PM 2.5 studies which make claims of massive health impacts from particulate pollution in particular and yet fail to do simple shit like controlling for age and other relevant factors (e.g. physical exercise, diets) prevalent in urban vs rural settings.

While pollution likely does have substantive impacts on health outcomes it would not surprise me if most of the presumed effects are merely failures to adjust for confounders.

"We determine the health burden of air pollution from each major O&G lifecycle stage by estimating specific adverse health outcomes associated with O&G activities with known statistical relationships between air pollution exposure and health risk (23â"29)."

In other words they are not actually collecting and analyzing correlations between pollution levels and health they are calculating impacts from a table of assumptions.

I won't touch a device with Google services so doesn't really matter to me yet I find these excuses exceedingly lame. Everything is ALWAYS for your own security. The Google play store is an absolute cesspit of everything must be free malware.

Personally I always use adb install to install apps on my phone. So much easier and faster than screwing around with tiny screens and on screen keyboards. Also not having to deal with automatic updates that randomly break shit intentionally or otherwise is priceless.

Those who believe these things should spend more time pricing required technology out and not ignoring or otherwise neglecting that long tail required to keep the lights on 24x7.

Sure it is cheap and easy to put enough panels on the roof to collect more energy than you will ever use in a year yet the costs of such things are literally rounding errors compared to resources required to convert this into energy available on demand.

This is wishful thinking. It is economically feasible to run the grid entirely on nuclear or entirely on coal. The same cannot be said for solar + ESS which is completely infeasible given currently available technology.

Where I live electricity is dirt cheap as most of it comes from hydro.

What matters is total cost of electricity including all relevant capital expenditures not "solar is cheap for me".

Since solar is so cheap when can we expect to start paying less for power? Why do markets with high concentrations of solar have high energy costs?

This is throwing generic arguments on a wall and hoping something will stick.

You said "Meanwhile, Firefox stopped new versions for 7/8/8.1 at version 115 and will stop updating that old version at the end of the year or so"

The reference you provided does NOT support your statement. If you wish to go beyond this and you have no specific objective evidence to support your conclusion all you are doing is stating a personal opinion.

What technical one would that be? Windows 7 is also 64-bit. "For example" fails to provide relevant evidence to support your assertion. LibreOffice is part of a switch to Linux desktop campaign https://endof10.org/ which is very much ideological in nature.

Not only is this irrelevant to LibreOffice your own link doesn't even say what you assert it does. It says nothing about stopping updating.

"Mozilla will provide security updates for Firefox 115 ESR until at least 115.27.0esr in August 2025, when the position will be re-evaluated. "

He has spoken out in the past in Russia about Russian surveillance laws.

The thing I can't stand the most is hypocrisy.