My argument wasn’t “vaping isn’t healthy” or “vaping is more harmful than cigarettes”. It was “more research is needed”, which each of those studies I linked support. Thank you, though, for proving my point in your attempt to build a lovely strawman to argue against.

The number of ingredients is irrelevant, especially since the idea that there are “at most” 6 ingredients is simply wrong: https://hub.jhu.edu/2021/10/07/vaping-unknown-chemicals/

A major area of concern for vaping is the fact that vaping generates much higher concentrations of nano-particles compared to regular cigarettes, and therefore may penetrate much further into the lung material (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312322/ and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210147). There are also concerns about contaminants, variations in delivery devices (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312322/), and other confounding factors that require a lot more research to ascertain the long term impact.

As for whether I have a study or information contradicting the conclusion that vaping is safer than smoking, it depends on whether you selectively ignore the parts of the studies that say “more research is needed” (because apparently that’s an “ignorant take”), but searching for “peer reviewed articles electronic cigarettes safer than tobacco” returns these top results (I did not cherry pick in any way, and instead took the top results sequentially):

• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2042098614524430: “In conclusion, toxicological studies have shown significantly lower adverse effects of EC vapor compared with cigarette smoke. Characteristically, the studies performed by using the liquids in their original liquid form have found less favorable results; however, no comparison with tobacco smoke was performed in any of these studies, and they cannot be considered relevant to EC use since the samples were not tested in the form consumed by vapers. More research is needed, including studies on different cell lines such as lung epithelial cells. In addition, it is probably necessary to evaluate a huge number of liquids with different flavors since a minority of them, in an unpredictable manner, appear to raise some concerns when tested in the aerosol form produced by using an EC device.” Granted, it does go on to say that existing evidence shows that vaping is safer than tobacco, but clarifies that there still needs to be more research on some of the unquantified risks of vaping.

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5469426/ This is an older study using a very small sample size. It focuses on e-cigs as a tool for smoking cessation, but also concludes “Similar to cancer risk, there are no published data describing the long-term lung function or cardiovascular effects of e-cigarettes; ongoing surveillance, especially once e-cigarettes are regulated and standardized, will be necessary.”

• https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0129443 This study was primarily measuring how likely e-cigs were to get people to stop using tobacco, rather than comparative safety (despite the title). The conclusion makes clear that it is not known (at the time; this was 9 years ago) if e-cigarettes could be considered “safe”: “Adding e-cigarettes to tobacco smoking did not facilitate smoking cessation or reduction. If e-cigarette safety will be confirmed, however, the use of e-cigarettes alone may facilitate quitters remaining so.”

I’m not sure what your Google search was, but its probably best not to cherry pick a single source to support your claim.

It is premature to declare vaping safer than smoking, as there is relatively little comprehensive research on the long term effect of vaping. The whole “vaping is safer” spiel is not that different than when doctors were paid to tout the health benefits of cigarettes: propaganda not based in conclusive science.

Posting ragebait articles about a platform because you know users will engage.

Lol irony.

Ironic, considering I’m still waiting to hear who determined mail to be right.

I’m confident that the amount of things you cannot imagine is quite substantial; certainly far more than that of an average person.

We advocate for freedom of speech, and not just the limited one currently granted by the 1st amendment of the constitution of the USA.

“People should be able to say whatever they want without having to fear consequences” is a garbage take on “freedom of speech”. Even if you clarify it as “people be able to say whatever they want without having to fear consequences from large organizations”, it is still a garbage take.

a “platform” like mail which has been determined to be a right.

When was mail determined to be a right, and by whom?

I’m just arguing that, for certain very large monopolistic corporations, maybe it should apply as well.

Instead of treating huge corporations that actively suppress competition like they’re a de facto form of government, we should instead… prevent them from getting to the point where their size and market share grants them power over the lives of citizens comparable to that of the government.

“Freedom of speech” doesn’t mean “I should be able to say what I want without any consequences”.

Do you understand how much effort you’re putting into being “right” rather than having an actual discussion?

For context, you started with “EV is bad because it uses coal”, implying that it is worse than ICE vehicles (somehow).

Then you had to change it to “EV is bad because it uses non-renewable energy.”

Then you had to change it to “EV is bad because it uses non-renewable energy and renewable energy, but not really much renewable energy.”

Then you had to change it to “EV is bad because outside of California, which doesn’t count (for some reason), it uses non-renewable energy and renewable energy, but not really much renewable energy.”

Now that someone is pointing out that other places besides California use significant amounts of renewable energy, your argument has become “I only will accept arguments that provide citations, even though my own various, shifting arguments, have provided none.”

This is in no way a good look for you.

The population numbers sort of… even out later in the books.

Your right about them not necessarily relying on the spice melange, but they do rely on the juice of the sapho root to accelerate their thoughts and increase their processing speed. So yeah, they’re still on drugs :)

That’s how defense of this stuff always works. They subtly change the meaning of commonly accepted words and terms. “Service available to the public” becomes “public service” and “Nazis are good” becomes “an opinion” instead of hate speech.

The real problem here is that Twitter/X user’s data can be easily revealed by organizations.

The publicly posted data being easily revealed by organizations is a problem?

Don’t let the cover art discourage you.

Nah, wombats just lure you into sticking your head in the hole they’re hiding in, and then crush your skull with their muscly ass. https://theoatmeal.com/comics/wombats

Okay, that all I can agree with. And I feel like there’s a huge difference between buying items on Amazon, and buying groceries on Amazon. I find it really hard to justify the later, but I can still imagine some circumstances where it would be justified (e.g. someone with a disability who can’t travel/carry groceries, and no other local store has viable delivery options).

It’s a shame. I used to love Amazon. Back when they just sold books they were one of the sites that really highlighted just what the Internet could be. More than a place for entertainment, but a place to obtain things that were otherwise unavailable. Their transition from ‘we sell books’ to ‘we sell everything and we’ll actively destroy anything that might compete with us if we can’ was terrible.

They managed to even screw up the cost of gas for me. I live in a small town that happened to be chosen by Amazon to be one of their major distribution centers. Our area is filled with their delivery trucks, and as a result the cost of gas is a full $0.20 USD more here than if I drive to the next town over.

Fuck Amazon. But I refuse to judge people who shop there as harshly. Judging them requires too many assumptions about their personal circumstances.

And why do you think you have no other choice than Amazon and Walmart in America?

That’s what you said, which is somewhat ambiguous phrasing. It could mean “why do you believe that there are no other choices, because there are?” or it could mean “yes, you have no other choices than those two, but how do you think that happened?”

Given that you started off by arguing that it was infuriating that anyone would ever shop at Amazon, and have been pretty consistent in your other comments that the solution is to just go to “an actual shop”, the first interpretation is much more appropriate to the context.

If you really meant “yes, you have no other choices than those two”, then sure, I’ll accept the back pedaling. It doesn’t change that you are infuriated that anyone would shop at Amazon, and accuse those that do of personally destroying the climate because we are lazy. The fact that you are aware that many people simply don’t have a better option, and yet you still judge them so harshly, only makes you look worse.

The ergonomic keyboards I’ve seen still had offset keyboard rows, rather than the ortholinear setup shown in the tweet linked above. It’s the uniform spacing and grid layout that I’ve never seen before (not to say that means its new; just new to me!).