npts2020

I was recently given a humidor and one of the recommendations is to use distilled water or propylene glycol (PG) to hydrate the sponges inside. Unfortunately, I have Dipropylene Glycol (DPG) on hand for making incense but not PG. From my experience and meager knowledge of chemistry, in general, it seems to me one could be substituted for the other for most applications but I have been able to find nothing about doing so in a humidor. I know DPG is slightly more viscous than PG and has a little higher boiling point but have no idea whether the difference is enough to significantly affect performance in a humidor or if DPG would actually even work. If anyone knows a definitive answer to the question of whether DPG can be used instead of PG or even where to begin researching this, feedback would be appreciated.

Obviously, but it has been my experience that exact precision only exists in theoretical discussions and not in the real world.

necro=dead. Meaning the thread has been long abandoned (6 1/2 years in this case), especially one started by a member no longer/never responsive on the site.

If you are trying to kill something bigger than a mouse or squirrel, I don't think it would be a good idea to try and stab it with a knife unless you are wearing some kind of protection. Most animals are not very amenable to strange humans approaching them, even (or maybe especially) if severely injured so may lash out at you.

Those Chinese peasants aren't doing too badly, in less than a lifetime they have gone from being basically a third world colony to contending for being the biggest economic power in the world.

Degrowth is an academic and social movement critical of the concept of growth in gross domestic product as a measure of human and economic development.[1][2][3]The idea of degrowth is based on ideas and research from economic anthropology, ecological economics, environmental sciences, and development studies. It argues that modern capitalism's unitary focus on growth causes widespread ecological damage and is unnecessary for the further increase of human living standards.[4][5][6] Degrowth theory has been met with both academic acclaim and considerable criticism.[7][8][9] Degrowth's main argument is that an infinite expansion of the economy is fundamentally contradictory to the finiteness of material resources on Earth. It argues that economic growth measured by GDP should be abandoned as a policy objective. Policy should instead focus on economic and social metrics such as life expectancy, health, education, housing, and ecologically sustainable work as indicators of both ecosystems and human well-being.[10] Degrowth theorists posit that this would increase human living standards and ecological preservation even as GDP growth slows.[11][12][3] Degrowth theory is highly critical of free market capitalism, and it highlights the importance of extensive public services, care work, self-organization, commons, relational goods, community, and work sharing.[13][14] Degrowth theory partly orients itself as a critique of green capitalism or as a radical alternative to the market-based, sustainable development goal (SDG) model of addressing ecological overshoot and environmental collapse.[15]

Obviously, you have never heard of degrowth economics.

You can claim anything you like but it's a fact that carbon levels (and probably most other kinds of pollution) increased every year since the levels have been measured regardless of whether there has been an economic downturn or not. The sole possible exception may have been a brief time during the covid-19 pandemic when basically everything in the world was shut down so I don't see your argument that an economic downturn might be good for the environment being particularly strong.

If the goal was really to level the playing field and not to just transfer wealth, it seems to me the US would be much farther ahead to drop the idea of tariffs and just require that EVERY product and service bought or sold in the country follow US law from conception to exploration, extraction, refinement, manufacture, assembly, transport, storage and sale. If companies had to; pay at least US minimum wage, (no matter where they were located), allow unions, follow environmental laws, etc, it would take away nearly all of the incentive to be offshore to begin with and allow workers in the poor countries to afford to buy things beyond a subsistence existence.

So you are claiming everyone will be affected equally? I don't see where I ever wrote that anyone would be unaffected.

But a thought struck me, would the resultant contraction actually help the planet and our ability to survive the economist? I'm not sure that it will help the planet much since the people most insulated from any economic collapse are the ones who consume the most resources.

I didn't get anything, at least on the email account I logged in with.

I was going to mention phthalates since that is the only one I frequently use (specifically diethyl phthalate) that, if I am not mistaken, are banned in the EU for cosmetic uses but not in the US.

Will be interesting to see when he can find the time to do that, between golfing, tweeting, and negotiating tariffs with some 200 countries...

In general, cosmetics and body care products are relatively benign since anything that causes obvious problems is quickly restricted or taken off the market. It would be a lot easier to discuss particular ingredients because there are so many (I have several hundred chemicals just for making body oils and fragrances).

Fox News reporting?

Unfortunately, There doesn't seem to be any prohibition against Trump having someone else elected President with him as VP and running things anyway.

Might as well ask Red Green what to do next. At least Red manages to fix things (sort of), even if it takes many rolls of duct tape.

This is only one of the many things The Donald and his administration are extreme hypocrites about. For his entire life he has used "due process" to wait out the courts on judgments but they aren't willing to give others that same right...

Well, a war would definitely stimulate one of the biggest parts of the US manufacturing base i.e. building instruments of war. And we won't even have to export them for the manufacturers to make a profit.

I had some friends accidentally remove some of their wallpaper making maple syrup indoors (you have to boil it down between 40-70/1, so lots of steam).

This is why Trump hates academia...those woke eggheads keep telling him his "stable genius" ravings are fantasy.

I like books about history and just finished one of the best I have ever read; "The Great Monkey Trial" by L Sprague de Camp. While an old book, the parallels to what is going on today is interesting. Written with the style and clarity sci-fi fans have loved for decades, de Camp chronicles the Scopes Monkey Trial from the passing of the law forbidding the teaching of evolution in Tennessee to the final appeal upholding his conviction. The book is filled with descriptions of ongoing events and great quotes and narratives from the likes of Clarence Darrow, William Jennings Bryan and newspapermen like H L Mencken (if you don't know who he is, I highly recommend looking up some of his writings, especially on politics).

It's a Brioni suit and silk necktietie, isn't it?

I suppose "fair" is a bit in the eye of the beholder so what I mean by it is that the rules are exactly the same for everyone. We can quibble about any of the numbers I use (mostly from the IRS) but they can be adjusted as necessary to get a more accurate result, what its important is the general construct of the tax system being proposed. As in any undertaking, there must be initial assumptions made about the parameters being used. For this I am assuming 153 million US taxpayers who earn collectively $14.7 trillion plus corporate profits of $12 trillion every year. Also, assuming that the feds spend $7 trillion each year and a total deficit of $37 trillion. Other assumptions can be figured as necessary.. The first part of the proposal is that since "corporations are people" they should pay taxes at the same rate as people. As of 2023, about 85% of the federal revenues were income and payroll taxes, so it seems obvious to me that they currently do not. The second part is that there should be no deductions, period. If the federal government sees something deserving of money, they can fund it directly. The final part is that everyone will pay taxes at the same rate. Nobody would pay any federal tax on the first $20,000 they make in a year, making about $3 trillion exempt from taxation, and I can assume about 36 million people will end up owing nothing. The next $20,000 ($20,000-$40,000) would be taxed at 1%. If there are 35 million more people that will owe no further tax after this, we will have collected about $20 billion on the first $6 trillion in nationwide earnings. From $40,000-$60,000 taxes would be at 2 1/2%. From $60,000-$100,000 taxes would be 5%. From $100,000-$200,000, taxes would be at 10%. From $200,000-$500,000 taxes would be at 20%. From $500,000-$1,000,000 taxes would be at 33%. Anything over $1,000,000 would be taxed at 50%, this category affecting about 500,000 filers and contributing about a trillion dollars to the treasury. All told, income tax would come to around $4 trillion, not too far from what it is now. However, when you take into account corporate taxes, they would pay only a little less than half of the $12 trillion they made in profits if they paid at the same rate as everyone else. That means the treasury would take in around $10 trillion a year. This would pay the federal deficit off in around 10-15 years with no cuts in government spending (except no deductions would automatically cut the budget a fair amount) and we then could then give tax breaks to the wealthy with no ill effects.