It’s where a guy is raising both their hands with big captions “absolute cinema” (the meme is usually used when something funny or engaging is happening)

Interestingly, in my search for interesting rockish and punkish music, I stumbled across an artist called Kino, a Soviet-era Russian band (that sounds really good, you should check it out!). On the Kino-related subreddits, I found edited versions of the meme that replaces the man with Viktor Tsoi, the now deceased singer from Kino (RIP to him, car accident at a young age) and the caption is “absolute KINO”, since the band is named after the Russian word for “cinema”. This alternate Kino variant of the meme has cropped up in a few other places too, funnily enough.

Ooh yeah Prusa is great! The upgradeability of their printers sounds super cool. I unfortunately have a Bambu printer, and although they sell repair parts, they are going very anti-consumer with recent changes, blocking third party software (so I have mine set to LAN only mode, primarily to continue using OrcaSlicer)

Oh no, the ducks have two heads each! /s

Seriously though, this photo looks awesome! Super cool

I think that a majority of users on the internet down vote if they see content that is not relevant, breaks the community rules, or simply not very nice.

p.s. “no stupid questions” is a play on the phrase “There are no stupid questions, Timmy!”, but of course you still need to be polite and follow the rules

OK!

deleted by creator

I understand that, modern advertising bots are a pain, but I promise I’m not one of those! I’m just a person who’s interested in cool tech and stuff. If it bothers you, do I need to remove the reference to Gulikit?

frongt noted that the fluoride is beneficial (for preventing tooth decay), while you state that the study denies this. This is untrue, as it just shows that fluoride doesn’t affect IQ (which primarily focuses on measuring logical thinking). It does not look at how it protects against cavities, there are plenty of studies on that already!

It’s the same thing as if you tried to give an IQ test to someone who, in the past, has had a bacterial infection. Then, when the person is perfectly healthy, you give them an IQ test once, then some antibiotics, then another IQ test giving the same result as the first. You would not conclude that antibiotics are ineffective and should be banned!

Your argument would replace bacterial infection with cavities and antibiotics with fluoridised water. Like the example with antibiotics, it is not a reasonable conclusion to state that no change to IQ = fluoridation in water is ineffective.

…what does that mean? How can something be both artificial and organic?

edit: To note, I’m not a Gulikit bot/advertiser/marketer. There are some things that I don’t like about the KK3 Max controller, like how it doesn’t have a removeable faceplate like many other controllers at a similar price range (e.g. GameSir Super Nova).

@CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world @fallaciousBasis@lemmy.world @pelespirit@sh.itjust.works @MrFappy@lemmy.world

Here you go

Arguing with internet people took many hours away from my life, so now I will redirect any silly discussion to this comment instead.

For your information if you think fluoridation of water is bad:

Fluoride in the water is the opposite of bad, it’s good for your teeth. It’s in toothpaste for a reason! There is no reasonable evidence that fluoride causes any major health problems, in fact, the fluoridation of water is dubbed as one of the largest public health accomplishments in a while. In addition, the fluoride added to water is miniscule, tiny, far far too low in concentration to be toxic. 0.7-1.2 mg / L is the range that most countries that implement water fluoridation add to their water supply. For reference, the WHO recommends 1.5 mg / L as the upper limit. Additionally, in many places, the groundwater has fluoride levels a bit higher than that.It also occurs in plenty of foods naturally too (fruits, seafood, spinach, etc.)

Some more information of fluoride:

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/11195-fluoride

https://www.cdc.gov/oral-health/prevention/about-fluoride.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000291652334718X

In many countries, particularly in developing nations, fluoridation of water is too expensive (since you need the infrastructure for it), and fluoride toothpastes are preferred instead. But in industrialised countries, where infrastructure for managing the water supply already exists, fluoridation of water is more effective.

Ireland and England both implement the fluoridation of water. In particular, 73% of Ireland’s population drinks fluoridised water

https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2016/04/13/water-fluoridation-what-it-is-and-how-it-helps-dental-health/ (UK) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4081215/ (Ireland)

Additionally, so does Canada:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/healthy-living/fluoride-factsheet.html https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/community-water-fluoridation-across-canada.html

Other solutions to provide fluoride have also been pursued, such as in toothpastes (already mentioned), iodized salts, and milk. They each have varying effectiveness depending on the country.

TLDR:

• Fluoride added to water is too low to pose any significant health problems
• There are no studies to suggest that the 0.5-1.5 mg / L range that the WHO promotes is dangerous
• It’s not just the U.S., fluoridisation of water is present in Ireland, England, and Canada
• For the countries that do not pursue adding it to water, fluoridation is done through toothpastes, iodized salts, and milk
• Different strategies of fluoridation are pursued because some are more effective than others for that given region (e.g. toothpastes are more viable than treatment of water in developing nations)
• Fluoride is already present in many natural sources (fruits, veg, groundwater, etc.) and is safe in the recommended low concentrations (need to reiterate this!)

much of Western Europe

Correction added to my comment, it looks like that for most of Western Europe, fluoridation in water is not common. That was a mistake and I acknowledge that, and I have edited my comment to reflect that.

However, Ireland and England both implement the fluoridation of water. In particular, 73% of Ireland’s population drinks fluoridised water

https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2016/04/13/water-fluoridation-what-it-is-and-how-it-helps-dental-health/ (UK) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4081215/ (Ireland)

Additionally, so does Canada:

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/healthy-living/fluoride-factsheet.html https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/community-water-fluoridation-across-canada.html

Why not? Or more specifically, why is this insufficient in the US?

Well, for one, tap water is readily available in the U.S., making fluoride super accessible to a large portion of the population! Also, fluoride toothpastes exist in the U.S. too, why can’t we have both? Both are effective at preventing tooth decay, perhaps toothpaste moreso (and there are studies that show that, you can easily search for yourself I think), but both help to prevent cavities.

The study suggests no change in IQ values, not no change when it comes to protecting your teeth. To copy an example from a previous comment:

IQ only measures the ability to solve problems and pattern-match. And I would assume IQ tests are taken after cavities are dealt with. It’s the same thing as if you tried to give an IQ test to someone who, in the past, has had a bacterial infection. Then, when the person is perfectly healthy, you give them an IQ test once, then some antibiotics, then another IQ test giving the same result as the first. You would not conclude that antibiotics are ineffective and should be banned!

Decreasing number of cavities in children != increasing IQ

IQ only measures the ability to solve problems and pattern-match. And I would assume IQ tests are taken after cavities are dealt with.

To give an example, it’s the same thing as if you tried to give an IQ test to someone who, in the past, has had a bacterial infection. Then, when the person is perfectly healthy, you give them an IQ test once, then some antibiotics, then another IQ test giving the same result as the first. You would not conclude that antibiotics are ineffective and should be banned!

The reason isn’t cost, it’s not that expensive to add fluoride.

In many countries, particularly in developing nations, fluoridation of water is too expensive (since you need the infrastructure for it), and fluoride toothpastes are preferred instead. But in industrialised countries, where infrastructure for managing the water supply already exists, fluoridation of water is more effective. Places where tap water is more readily available (like the U.S., much of Western Europe, Canada, Ireland, etc.) will also be more likely to adopt the fluoridation of water.

The reason is we wouldn’t be adding anything to drinking water if there were better alternatives. If we started again with today’s standards, no scientist would recommend fluoridated drinking water.

Fluoridation of water still helps to prevent tooth decay, and in regions where it is cost-effective, it is a great benefit to public health! Of course, fluoride toothpastes are great, but it’s not the best solution for everywhere.

So what’s the benefit then?

Protection against tooth decay? I’m not sure I understand your point. That is a pretty big health benefit, I think, not sure why you think it’s not a positive effect. There are plenty of studies as to how fluoride (in the water or as toothpaste) can protect against cavities.

I will reiterate my point that fluoride levels in water is too low to be dangerous, as the WHO recommends a maximum of 1.5 mg / L for fluoridation of water, while most countries that implement it use a concentration of 0.7-1.2 mg / L. Additionally, fluoride is also naturally present in many fruits, seafood, etc. as well as many groundwater sources that are perfectly safe to consume.

edit: I think I understand what you are talking about. Yes, fluoride does not increase nor decrease IQ levels. Its main job is to protect against tooth decay. But that is still a public health benefit, no?

the first major study in fluoride, the Grand Rapids study would never hold up to today’s standards. It was not a blind study and cavity detection is subjective.

There has been many more studies on fluoride, none of which have shown that that the low concentrations of fluoride added to drinking water has any negative health effect. Not just the one, always check multiple sources!

Also drinking water is a poor way to deliver fluoride

It depends on the area you’re dealing with. In some countries, it’s more cost effective to put fluoride in the water supply, while in others, fluoride toothpastes are more effective. In Germany, they put fluoride in iodized salt!

English really is a funny language

Got it, I edited my comment