...Not that much... 3ish liters spread out over the day is good. Too much water will strip your body of electrolytes and salt.
I recently upped my water intake and can report that my skin and mood feel better. I caffeinate with a strong coffee and 2 cups of tea in the morning, and around 12 I switch to pint glasses of water every 2 hours or so until 6-7 o'clock.
That's an advantage - it means you're not sitting e.g. at a computer monitor and keyboard for too long. Getting up twice an hour (to pee or not) greatly reduces the potential for ergonomic harm that desk jobs - especially computer use -are known for.
If you're peeing that much then evidently your body is not using all that water you're consuming. Either it's more than you need, or you're lacking in electrolytes and should increase electrolyte intake alongside the water.
Parent is correct. NHS sources say upto 7 times during the day is normal and "Every 3 to 4 hours is considered healthy. Going every 1 to 2 hours usually means you either have an overactive bladder or are drinking too much at once."
Saying every 30 minutes is normal is just the same as advocating drinking too much water
I’m not arguing that 100% of water consumed can be retained, just that peeing every 30 minutes means you have an unnecessarily large surplus. This is simply a truth.
I think the opposite. Automation and scale made it possible to cheaply influence way more people. Information bubbles mean people are more convinced than ever.
Before you had one big influencer, usually the state, manipulating the news of your country. The alternative players were more trustworthy, because they had to if they wanted to keep credibility.
Now, any big company can buy a narrative when they need one. No reputation matters. No memory. No consequences for the long run.
> Before you had one big influencer, usually the state, manipulating the news of your country. The alternative players were more trustworthy, because they had to if they wanted to keep credibility.
There isn't much in the way of evidence that is true. What we discovered when the internet came around is that the major players in the public sphere are generally low-credibility and just keep repeating that they are credible over and over again. As more diverse alternatives appear with the internet that narrative has been struggling. The new replacements have proven to be low-quality and a lot better than what they are overtaking.
The US discourse is a fascinating example of this where the traditional narrative setters may have gone legitimately crazy trying to rationalise how they're part of the reasonable and credible crowd and they just got rolled by Trump screaming that they were liars and that Mexico was going to pay for a border wall. That's what US voters thought looked like a better bet than these traditionally credible alternatives.
You have much less control over what the government does than choosing your job. I have rejected job offers from both facebook and google. If FAANGS want you, you have the choice of employers. And you chose.
You literally work for a guy who, talking about the user data he dubiously acquired, that said "they trust me, dumb fucks".
It's hard to feel sorry for workers who chose that road, the writing was on the wall.
And to be very well paid to create the biggest spying tech on the planet, making doomscroll addictive, ads that serve scams, AI slop everywhere, and being accused of having participated in election manipulation.
At some point, I call it poetic justice, and I wish there were more of that.
Believe it or not, I agree. I don't sleep particularly great, but I went in clear eyed that in the worst case I'd be helping a company that should not own "the next platform" attempt to do exactly that.
But in the best case, I'd be working in a low ROI area -- actively draining money from the parts of the company that are most malicious -- primarily ensuring that assembly lines and skills at Goertek stay hot to carry the XR devices I'm passionate about through a nadir in the broader industry's investment. A mercenary agreement for the company and myself to both advance our goals.
Yeah, I'm inclined to think people can grow. There's a reason juveniles convicted of crimes, even serious crimes, should be given a second chance and are given a second chance in most civilized places.
College is where things start to firm up for most people, though. I don't think I've ever known anyone who was a terrible person in college who turned out good.
I just grow tired of hearing people trot out a thing Zuck said in college, when there are so many far worse things he's said and done since then, and with the weight of tremendous wealth and influence backing them.
The thing he said in college was shitty, and indicative of a spoiled, entitled, child of wealth and privilege, but saying it was basically harmless. Worse things might be said at the corner sports bar on any given night in any city in the country.
With solar sometimes producing a lot of energy when you don't need it or can't store it, having a cheap hardware to produce hydrogen from it is quite nice.
Natural gaz may be cheap, but you can't beat free.
For this setup, the price of the hardware was a limiting factor.
I would say your question needs to be expanded to "Is this a valuable & efficient way to store energy which can be scaled to any location?". The pumped options aren't. Batteries are cost-effective for time-of-day shifting, but not long term. Electrolysis and gas tank storage can be built in any climate, any terrain. Then benefit from economies of scale while the others are stuck in niches.
