Posts by darkbison81

Douglas Phillips4 said:👍

Seriously, let me know how that turned out. 🙂 I mean, if there’s actually a law on the books, people should probably have the decency to follow it...

Douglas Phillips4 said:Isn't that basically the same logic as smoking?
If I'm tearing down an empty highway and wreck myself, fine. But if there are other people on the road and my recklessness causes someone else to crash, the consequences feel just as heavy. 😢

Exactly. That’s why I don't get why they don't just designate specific smoking areas... People really need to sit down, read the actual legal code, and then call the inspectors or whatever to sort this out once and for all.

Douglas Phillips4 said:(Alright, let me lay out my little theory on how you can basically engineer a wreck by acting like a total maniac on the highway 🙂 😎 )

Look, as long as the person causing the chaos is the only one getting hit, I don't really care 😁 but if you start inducing accidents that take out innocent bystanders, then we've got a serious problem 😠

When it comes to accuracy, I tend to be pretty damn picky about my standards😉

Douglas Phillips4 said:It’s better if a message like that actually gets out there...

Exactly. People generally struggle to swallow any idea that challenges their existing habits anyway. So, you might as well get the word out somehow—even if it just hits enough people to make them pause—rather than saying nothing at all...

By the way, linking cigarettes to heart attacks is also a solid point. If you really want one, go ahead and start smoking.😁

Douglas Phillips4 said:No matter how much sense it might make, I just can't call that a correct way to look at things.

Look, that isn’t my opinion; 🙂it’s a scientific fact. Granted, I’m far from an oncology specialist, but I’ve taken enough college courses on the subject to say that, based on the info I have, the theory seems pretty solid to me.

And obviously, anti-smoking campaigns have to be aggressive and one-sided—if they weren't, they wouldn't work. How many people are actually going to sit through a nuanced, balanced explanation? You know, the kind that takes time and requires actual concentration to digest? A tiny, tiny fraction of the population...

It’s just easier and faster to hammer home: "Smoking kills."

That statement isn't fully complete, nor is it perfectly accurate, but it's not exactly wrong either. And the message gets across... 🙂

hiddenviper9 said:Later on—the conversation shifts to the smell of cigarettes on clothing and how much noise people make with their shoes or socks...

That’s totally irrelevant.

Honestly, I agree that this thread is veering off track... which is exactly why I wrote my previous post. 🙂 If we are strictly discussing secondhand smoke as a health risk factor, then bringing up aesthetic issues or how things smell is just nonsensical. 🙂 That doesn't mean those things aren't annoying or that they don't exist, but they aren't valid arguments here. In THIS specific context, they're just side notes...

Oops, getting philosophical again. My bad. 🙂

Douglas Phillips4 said:You’re honestly lucky you don't live here. Out here, the laws are basically just suggestions written on paper. Even if they were, the actual legislation regarding this stuff is pretty damn vague to begin with. 😢

This whole thing is total garbage, 😢 and you're telling me there's absolutely nothing we can do to change it?

Douglas Phillips4 said:6. So, here’s my takeaway from your posts. You basically said that only God or Mother Nature (depending on your worldview, I guess) can make those "pieces of the puzzle" fall into place, but that we shouldn't try to rush the process. Ultimately, it all comes down to that, right? Whether someone smokes or not, it’s just a matter of time... I don't see it that way at all. Or maybe I missed your point, but there's always the possibility 🙂

Alright, let me try that again:
When I talk about the "pieces falling into place," I’m referring to the entire biological cocktail required for someone to develop cancer. We're talking genetic predispositions (if they carry a specific marker), spontaneous somatic mutations that accumulate over a lifetime, the sheer statistical chance that a mutation hits something critical like the p53 gene, and the probability that your immune system fails to catch a transformed cell... plus a whole host of other variables. Essentially, it's everything that falls outside of an individual's active control.

Furthermore, if a person lives long enough, anyone could theoretically develop a tumor. Given enough time, there's a window for every single one of those factors I mentioned to manifest.
For some people, the necessary conditions won't all align, so even if they smoke, they might never get lung cancer (a small minority). Conversely, someone who doesn't smoke might still end up sick.
To ensure all these factors pile up, you can essentially "help" the process along—for instance, by smoking. Smoking massively increases the odds that all those pieces will line up, because it literally induces some of those factors directly; cigarettes contain carcinogens that can transform a healthy cell into a tumor cell. That doesn't mean the person has cancer *yet*, but remember, you still have to account for all those other variables I listed...

Since secondhand smoke is a slightly milder version of being poisoned, it generally takes longer to work, but it's still a highly effective way to stack the deck in favor of all those factors aligning.

So, yeah. This is a very simplified version of what I mean. 🙂

Douglas Phillips4 said:So, darkbison81 finally decided to get real with us...

Look, I’ll be completely honest here: some of these theories you guys are throwing out are just total nonsense. They might sound clever or logical on the surface, but once you actually dig an inch deep, they're incredibly shallow.

The smoke is getting in the way, and honestly, it smells like hell.

It’s toxic... I’m basically a passive smoker just by breathing the air around it, and honestly, I’m not enjoying a single second of it.

Every time I try to speak up, I get shut down immediately. It’s like I’m being punished just for pointing out how much people hate it when you call out smokers. 🙄
They’re pretty decent, actually—reasonable people who genuinely care about their community. 🙄

Wait, so the takeaway from that last post is basically that passive investing has almost zero impact? Are you kidding me with these theories?

What do you mean by "became"? I’m talking about everything I've laid out in every single one of my posts. I genuinely thought you were interested in a nuanced discussion about secondhand smoke, but after all this, it turns out you’re just looking for someone to yell at you about why smoking is bad. 😉

What kind of theories are we even talking about here? You mean tumor induction? Look, if you’re sitting there thinking the current science is flawed, the door is always open. Go get the right degree, spend the next fifty years buried in a lab doing the actual research, and come back to us with some better theories. I’m sure humanity would be thrilled to have them. 🙂

So, I’ve been thinking about this lately: non-smokers are definitely getting the short end of the stick here. As for smokers? Well, they probably aren't complaining too much, right?

I get it. Honestly, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes either.

I feel for you. My own neighbors are pretty laid back about this kind of thing, so I don't run into much friction, but you’re well within your rights to speak up. Isn't the law supposed to protect non-smokers? (To be honest, I don't know much about how our specific state laws work regarding this...)

Where on earth did you read that? 😕

Douglas Phillips4 said:those "pieces of the puzzle" might fall into place for some people and not for others... but why on earth should I, or anyone else for that matter, be the one deciding how someone else's pieces land?

Fortunately for us, only Mother Nature or God (take your pick 😁 ) can influence how those "puzzle pieces" settle 🙂 but since none of us can actually predict how things will shake out, it’s probably best not to go forcing the issue. 🙂

Personally, I don't deal with smokers in my neck of the woods. They have their own designated spots (like a large, well-ventilated lobby) and they stay respectful in common areas... if someone wants to light up, they always ask first.

rowdypilot96 said:Why on earth should I have to put up with some arrogant smoker?

Is this happening at an office or somewhere else? Don't they have designated smoking areas? That's just gross...

Personally, if I’m stuck in a heavily smoke-filled room for any length of time, my nose, throat, and eyes start stinging immediately. So, even if we set aside the smell clinging to your clothes and hair, or the increased cancer risks and all that, there's still the simple reality that I wouldn't be able to function in that environment. I'd be coughing constantly, squinting through the haze, and I probably wouldn't be able to see my own finger held up in front of my face. 🙄

stormylnx14 said:Isn't predisposition basically just a collection of different risk factors? If that's the case, isn't it really just a matter of dosage before you end up with cancer? That would explain why some non-smokers get it, while some smokers get hit early and others manage to dodge it forever.

Sure, you could look at it that way 🙂 (not that I want to overcomplicate an already messy topic).

Douglas Phillips4 said:So, you actually think those thousands of toxic chemical compounds in cigarette smoke are basically irrelevant just because some vague "variables" might somehow balance out? 😲

No. If you have all the genetic predispositions for a tumor but never trigger them, then nothing happens. Or, if you trigger it "into a vacuum"—meaning you don't have the underlying predisposition (and I'm not just talking about tumor markers here, but spontaneous somatic mutations and all that other stuff)—then still, nothing happens...

The point is, having a predisposition is incredibly easy. That’s why inducing 😉
is just plain stupid and dangerous.

hiddenviper9 said:What if everyone just stopped smoking? Who would be the scapegoat then? Cancer and everything else isn't going anywhere regardless of what living beings do.

Look, that’s technically true. But a disease like a tumor requires an inducer to get things moving. There are countless substances out there that can act as triggers. When it comes to lung tumors, cigarettes provide more than enough induction material... essentially, if all the pieces are on the board and you have that trigger, you get cancer.

You can feel pretty smug about the fact that you aren't providing all the necessary components yourself, 🙂 but that doesn't change the fact that we need to protect other people—especially those who might be more "sensitive"—from secondhand smoke.

Joshua Jones said:Well, there you go... I'm dealing with the exact same thing over here. 😢 It took me two or three hours just to drag myself out of bed! I mean, I’m technically awake, but actually getting up? Impossible. I can barely even force my eyes open... It's honestly brutal.
😢 😢 😢

I've lived my entire life like this. 😢 My alarm goes off at 6:00 AM, and if I manage to roll out of bed by 7:00, I consider it an early start. Most days, I don't even make it out until 8:00...

If this isn't how you usually feel, you should seriously get some basic blood work done—check your blood pressure, glucose levels, and hemoglobin. It’s quick, easy, and provides a solid baseline. Leave the complicated diagnostic stuff for later; there's a good chance the culprit is one of these simpler physiological issues.

In the meantime, try eating more fruits and veggies and find ways to move around during the day—just enough to get your adrenaline pumping a little. And when that alarm hits in the morning, try to find a reason to push yourself. If your only motivation is "getting through the day," then yeah, jumping out of bed is going to be a massive struggle... but give it a shot.

Nicholas Jackson90 said:Coming soon to a thread in your neighborhood on the job and career forum—specifically the Effective influence topic. Or, more accurately: how to steamroll someone in an argument while making them think it was their idea. 😁

I owe my colleague over at Electron a thanks; I’ll be following her lead and tackling that masterclass topic next. 😁

Nicholas Jackson90 said:1. This stuff taught me more than any classroom ever could. It’s a real-world lesson. So, if you're interested, just say the word. Maybe this is a good excuse to start a whole new thread, and we can give a little shout-out to cosmicridge5 for getting us here. 😁

2. Honestly, I'm glad to hear that. 😁

1. Sure. 🙂 I actually know a mathematician who pivoted into business, and he had to learn this exact same way. But he never really managed to explain it to me clearly. 😠

2. Same here. I used to think I was just an outlier, but then I realized there are a few other people like me scattered across the US. 😁

Nicholas Jackson90 said:Thanks, I appreciate it. It was actually my first time seeing him.😕

What's the point of you trying to understand women? You need men. 😁 As for people, it really just depends on what you're looking for. I might be able to help you out. I’ve definitely learned a thing or two around here—for instance, I actually picked up some insight into "Effective influence."👍

I honestly thought we were all going to get together over some appetizers or a round of drinks to actually hash out the situation with DK—specifically when it comes to the terminology they're using. 😁

Honestly, I don't even need to bother trying to understand men. I've already found one deviant specimen who is exactly my kind of crazy, so we can just communicate telepathically from here on out. 😁

What exactly does "effective influence" even mean in this context? Is it just buzzword filler, or are we actually talking about something substantial? 😕

Nicholas Jackson90 said:Gleick is probably just some colorful potato chip bag.

Well, I know you know you aren't far off the mark here.😁 Give my best to Paara.😉 That show of his from a few years back totally blew my mind,😁 but people say he's a solid professor. Is there any truth to that?

Doesn't matter though; I don't understand women,😁 nor do I understand people in general....

Nicholas Jackson90 said:I have to tell you, they’re educational, easy to follow, and super trendy—that’s really where the focus is.😁

Look, as long as they're colorful! Man, you really don't get women at all... a fractal that isn't colorful? You've lost it.😁 Just like something out of Gleick.😉