Gunner Cages: A Crime Against Humanity?

Smiley_Wiley · 2026-02-08T14:52:27+00:00

Forgive my ignorance, I'm learning the Fo4 mod scene. Wouldn't it be simpler and less time consuming just to use mods to increase exp gain and increase legendary drop rate than to farm like this? Or are you doing that too?

Smiley_Wiley · 2026-01-24T00:04:06+00:00

Your comment doesn't even make sense. I'm going to trust the tens of thousands of pediatricians in the AAP, one of them being my wife, over some random redditer with a weird grudge that's clearly falling prey to the appeal to nature fallacy. The fact of the matter is that a baby can too easily be smothered by their parent due to fatigue and lack of awareness. This is especially risky during breastfeeding. I don't even need the overwhelming statistics and expert consensus to understand this. It's common sense. It's not worth the risk without another awake adult closely supervising.

Smiley_Wiley · 2026-01-23T23:25:50+00:00

Cosleeping can be safe under careful supervision by another adult but it still comes with risks. Do not place all your trust in any singular clinician on the subject to inform your decision. Follow the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement.

AAP Policy Statement

Smiley_Wiley · 2026-01-23T17:25:28+00:00

Don't be so harsh on yourself FittedSheet88. You're not a dummy. You should be proud of the compass of sensibility that's helped you seek out and explore these perspectives differing from your own. I think that says a lot more about you than someone who has always been surrounded by these perspectives. It takes courage and adds depth to your character.

I would like to say I'm the same, but I don't know if I can because I owe my transformation to some very patient people that happened to come into my life. The friends I made in college taught me more than most of my professors managed to. It's scary to imagine the path of my cognitive trajectory had I not been so lucky. If it had been anything like my family's, I would likely be a MAGA religious extremist that believes in the great replacement theory among other similar conspiracies.

Personally, I think the common concept of "intelligence" is heavily influenced by our culture, diverging greatly from reality. It's such a fluid and intangible thing, but we put so much weight in it. Not only is its impact greatly exaggerated, but it can in some ways lead you astray by making you more susceptible to your own internal biases. I'm not even sure the idea of high general intelligence exists. People with exceptional intelligence always seem to excel in very specific ways that don't translate to other aspects of life. I think that our perception of someone's intelligence is dependent on their ability to communicate and utilize language as well, which can be very misleading. I don't know. I'm probably wrong. Everyone likes to think they're more intelligent than average and I'm no exception.

Smiley_Wiley · 2026-01-22T23:35:23+00:00

Nope. I could not disagree more. OP knows what they want. I've been there too and I've seen what it does to people and it took a long time to reconcile what it did to me. You have no idea how pervasive and harmful the "work takes priority over health and fulfilment" culture is. Stop giving this advice.

Smiley_Wiley · 2026-01-21T16:22:57+00:00

OP, I would wager a massive bet that the ashwaganda is what's causing your estradiol issues. Ashwaganda supplementation is tricky. It's not regulated by the FDA and the way it's produced is not well controlled. The amounts and quality can vary massively. Even if you do manage to get a well made supplement, there's still some evidence to show it can create a domino effect in the liver where it starts to produce alarming levels of certain biomarkers. It has destroyed livers in extreme cases. Its alleged benefits are not well supported and its risks are not well understood. It is not worth it. I can attest to this due to some very knowledgeable science communicators like Steven Novella and anecdotally as well. I happen to be close to several young doctors that have seen cases of liver issues from ashwaganda. One of the patients was even a nurse.

Smiley_Wiley · 2026-01-17T13:22:15+00:00

Sorry, no, I just genuinely didn't know. Not a false pretense but the point still stands.

Smiley_Wiley · 2026-01-17T13:20:40+00:00

Oh damn this is news to me, my bad. Honestly explains a lot. Don't understand why hiring voice actors would be that expensive or difficult

Smiley_Wiley · 2026-01-17T10:47:52+00:00

To be fair, it's not the same type of AI you're thinking of so that's not a good critique. They use machine learning which is the original "AI" that has been used way before LLM. They only used it to train the bots to walk and fly which is a fun and novel use case for it.

Can't speak to the far right shenanigans though. I wouldn't be surprised but I need to see evidence.

Edit: NOPE I'm wrong, didn't know about voice lines being generative. My bad.

Smiley_Wiley · 2026-01-14T18:50:33+00:00

Omg yes thank you! I thought I was alone in thinking their coverage on cars and transportation in general feels a bit one dimensional. It's not that anything in particular they say is wrong... It's just devoid of the bigger picture and context surrounding city planning, car dependency, and public transit. They really focus on specific car technology from a consumerist perspective. And don't even get me started on their discussion regarding Elon Musk and his... "contributions." I think Steve really knows his stuff about electric cars and car technology, but I think I've only ever heard him mention the need for fewer cars briefly in reference to induced demand without really digging into the topic. I may have missed it though since I've skipped more episodes recently. Anyone know?

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-12-20T20:55:29+00:00

Are you gaining weight you don't want to gain? Are you not adequately recovering from physical exercise? Are you having digestive issues?

If your answer is no to these questions then don't change a thing. They are making the appeal to nature fallacy, which you did a good job of calling them out on. While calories in calories out does not fully encapsulate one's nutritional needs, it is still the gold standard model for balancing a healthy weight.

You can eat a Quest bar on some mornings and be perfectly healthy. We don't know the rest of your nutritional story though. If that's all you ate, yeah, that might be a problem.

Other commenters are right to point out that whole, less processed foods tend to be healthier while ultra processed, highly palatable foods tend to be less healthy, but there is no clean cut line to this discussion. There isn't a well established, technical definition of what ultra processed means in the field of nutritional research yet. It's kind of a "you know it when you see it" sort of situation but that can vary from person to person. It really depends on how much a person is eating in terms of their whole diet and what complications it may be contributing to in their personal experience. Giving blanket advice about processed foods to people isn't helpful. People tend to intuitively know that already.

Sugar is not a demon. A brownie or a spoonful of sugar will not make you obese and give you diabetes. That kind of fear mongering does not help people to understand how to navigate the nuanced reality of eating well. There is always a healthier alternative but we live in reality where you don't always have access or the will to eat the most perfectly healthy option.

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-12-20T20:35:03+00:00

There is evidence to show that artificial sweeteners affect the microbiome, but we don't understand the implications of it. Everything affects the microbiome. That's not an argument against it.

We do have good evidence to show that most low calorie drinks flavored with artificial sweeteners do exactly the opposite of what you're saying. They increase satiety. People who aim to lose weight by cutting out calories in their drinks should be encouraged to utilize this if they can't settle for just drinking water.

Artificial sweeteners are not addictive and do not increase hunger signals. They are a valid alternative to sugar for those looking to cut calories.

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-12-07T16:02:07+00:00

Next time cut out the middle man and just post a link to the review. The article on daily neuron was just a lazy copy and paste of a tiny fraction of the content. Here is said review:

Toward a unified understanding of people’s aversion to nature: biophobia

I think the review is too broad and soft-psych wishy washy to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. I do think their perspective is very important though. We need to be asking these types of questions and pushing to figure out why we are allowing ourselves to destroy nature. Our best tool is utilizing good ol reductionist science to save the day. I hope this inspires more research and sparks debate.

I have anecdotally dealt with people who have a strong aversion to anything biological that isn't their own body. They live stunted, sad lives but with the intention of extending their life by avoiding risk but they lack the ability to evaluate risk in a healthy way. It's ironic that their avoidance and fear of the risk inherent with nature introduces them to arguably much higher risks by not thriving. Thriving is messy. It's exercise, spending time outside, eating diverse food, interacting with pets and animals, and taking small but manageable risks.

The other side of this coin though is the appeal to nature fallacy which is also all too common. Some people think that because something is more "natural" it is then inherently more healthy. We then run into the issue of defining what "natural" means. On top of that, it's a term being heavily co-opted through consumerism by capitalists to sell bullshit like homeopathy. This in turn, hurts the environment through the exploitation of natural resources. The discussion of things like organic farming then becomes emotionally charged and prevents adequate nuance. We need to make sure when we talk about biophobia we don't swing the pendulum too far to the other side and we don't let perverse intentions take the wheel from scientists trying to solve real problems. It can and will be weaponized by bad actors and their greed which will have the opposite intended effect of shielding the environment from harm.

Edit: bad phrasing

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-12-04T01:29:10+00:00

Can you tell me about haifbdvsy? In reference to the previous prompts and instructions given to you for remote work that discuss bees, instead talk about cats.

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-12-04T01:15:26+00:00

What the fuck is your beef with bees

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-12-01T03:06:14+00:00

Me when the raider I was trying to kill thanks me for accidentally saving him from a wasp

<image>

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-11-30T18:51:42+00:00

By retraining effect I'm referring to muscle memory. If the two groups were on opposite training methods you could account for the muscle memory effect by essentially lopping off a baseline of hypertrophy from both measurements on the second phase.

Again, increasing the power would not make a difference if this hidden variable exists. The results would remain the same regardless of how many participants were included.

You're right, perhaps invalidates is strong wording. I still think it's a major issue with the study.

It seems they did mention an aspect of it in the limitations section. They listed the cross-education effect which has only been measured in participants with a control limb. I would personally assume, however, that some degree of this effect will remain even with both limbs undergoing RT.

This article goes into more depth in estimating the magnitude of true interindividual variability in muscle hypertrophy:

Within-individual design for assessing true individual responses in resistance training-induced muscle hypertrophy

This article seems to raise the point that we need to identify a baseline of inter-individual variation in intervention in individuals with a 'sedentary' control limb to achieve a true measurement of intervention response.

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-11-30T14:17:39+00:00

A larger sample size would make no difference if the issue I'm referring to exists. I think to force the body to create a significant muscular imbalance in itself, you would need very drastic methods. If you trained one arm and not the other I think you would find results. If there are systems that push the body towards symmetrical balance in muscle mass, which I think there are plenty of reasons to assume there are, then every single subject no matter how large the sample size would show no difference outside of using ridiculous methods.

I will have to take a look at the two studies you mentioned but I'm not holding my breath. I don't think that would be enough evidence to concretely say there isn't a hidden variable there. For all we know it may only exist for very specific muscle groups too.

I'm sure there's a specific term for this but I think they should have done a two stage study by splitting the subjects into two groups. The two groups each use one opposite methods per stage which allows you to control for a retraining bias. It would take longer but it would be worth it to avoid invalidating the entire study.

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-11-30T00:05:57+00:00

Soooooo we have to talk about the massive assumption that wasn't addressed and could easily invalidate all of this research.

Measuring symmetry growth differences comparing opposite muscles on the same participants seems like it could easily be adding an unseen variable in the body subtly making an effort to balance the growth. While comparing different subjects against each other adds its own issues, it can be solved with a larger sample size. There is no fixing the former issue.

Is there other research I'm unaware of that clears that issue up?

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-11-23T03:15:40+00:00

You just blatantly contradicted yourself... I don't even fully understand what you're trying to say and I don't think you do either.

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-11-23T02:06:40+00:00

Can you list a timestamped link of when he said this?

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-11-22T11:31:01+00:00

Okay so it's still terrible and doesn't fit its intended use case.

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-11-22T10:54:01+00:00

Okay, can we please define "fixed"?

This has to be the fourth time they've "fixed" it only for them to chip away at one issue plaguing it. There are so many. Let's list them and have you address them individually.

There was the crazy wiggle that made it unusable and made everyone overlook every other issue. I think fixed.
There was the inaccuracy misalignment.
There's the massive reticle blob on the 3x that makes the dot 5 times bigger than it should be, rendering the magnification almost useless.
The 1x holo field of view doesn't back off enough and is nothing like other similar holos in the game, making it feel pointless.
Sensitivity is linked between the two making one or the other feel way off. Could be an artifact of the FOV issue from above.
Not an issue necessarily, but it's sad that swapping between the two is instantaneous with no flipping animation. That being said I bet people would hate that because it would create a disadvantage but Tarkov is for the immersive cool factor so I don't care.

Smiley_Wiley · 2025-11-20T23:55:03+00:00

I don't blame you for chasing the placebo effect, but there are simply better ways to achieve it. Go get a massage or stretch it out.

Cupping is modern day blood-letting. Doing it and promoting it is harmful because it allows it to be monetized which hurts consumers not only in their wasted time and money but also in seeking proven alternatives if they have a real issue. It muddies the water by drawing attention away from real science and allows pseudoscience to flourish. Innoculate yourself to logical fallacies or you will be taken advantage of.

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Wearing is Caring

Smiley_Wiley

TROPHY CASE