StoneTemplePython said:
Shouldn't there be a real simple back of the envelope physics / chemistry type of estimate you can do to avoid having erroneous inferences like this?
I liked
@Rive's counterpoint, but I also think we're supposed to teach one how to fish, more than give away fish here...
Note, I speak off-the-top of my head when writing in these threads, so I did think of that problem almost immediately after I posted that message.
That's why I acknowledged that earlier when I re:'d him.
But, re: teaching to fish. A lot of times it's getting a second/third/etc. opinion on something. I don't say this to mean that you or anyone else (I honestly don't know your intentions) say this phrase in an attempt to humiliate or otherwise put me down, but I know it can feel that way. In other words, it comes off sometimes as rude and presumptuous to say to another person that you don't know how to learn on your own (with the "We should teach you to fish rather than offer you one..." sort of saying).
Do keep in mind:
a.) Not everyone is as smart as others and can't figure things out for themselves. It can comes off as super offensive when we hear these sorts of admonishments.
b.) Often, one might just want a better informed or corroborating opinion. I do that a lot with various things. Similarly, we sometimes just want potentially different or missed viewpoints too. It can be dangerous to just go it alone on things. Asking others (and not assuming a prideful, superman mentality) for help for feedback on something can be extremely important in a lot of areas of life.
c.) Sometimes it's about efficiency over self-learning. I agree self-learning is important, but it's not always important. ***The following may or may not apply to what we're talking about here, but I thought I'd throw it in there anyways.
One of my favorite mentors, Steven K. Scott, who is a businessman, author, and motivational speaker (he's done billions of dollars in sales and is the record holder in direct sales marketing success in the U.S. with well-known products like The Total Gym and Lori Davis Hair products) talks about the importance of partnering with others and only using your energy to the fullest on things in life that matter most to you in his books. He says a key component to the highest levels of success in life involve "partnering" with others (i.e., working with or learning from) in areas where you're weak. The average person only has two or three (maybe five at most) really great skills that they're better at than most other people (and, hence, use those for their profession). Most people are not-so-good to terrible at most other things in life. If you know you're not good at something and that thing is essential to your success in something you want to accomplish (for which you may be good at another facet of), then you should partner with someone who has those skills. The biggest mistake would be to try to do those things yourself, as that's hobbled and even led to the death of many otherwise good business ideas and companies. The other point about not using all of your energy on everything you do is another important insight. He says if you try your best at everything in life, you'll burn out. That's why he says he sucks at golf and skiing and doesn't care. He does them for fun. If he invested the same effort and energy into those hobbies as he did his primary business, he'd be burned out and unsuccessful (or not as much) in those things that matter (his family and primary career).
A lot of people in life
can learn a particular skill or figure out some problem on their own, but it's not always the best use of their time/energy/resources. It's much faster and easier to ask others who are more skilled than them. For example, I
could learn to change my own oil and fix various problems with my car. But, it may not be worth my time. I've actually learned to do an oil change before, but have forgotten since middle-school (my neighbor showed me how and we did it together on one of his many, many cars - he was a "car nut," who tried to show me lots of things actually). Nowadays, I'd rather just pay for a mechanic to do the work. I don't want to put in the time and energy to learn and do the work myself. I have zero interest in it.
Similarly, in other areas of life, many times people just want a quick answer to something.
I don't know if this stuff is relevant, but it's what came to mind when thinking of the "Better to teach a man to fish than give him one." maxim. I think that's obviously true for your main profession in life, as you need to be able to problem-solve and show competence in it. But with other things in life, it may not be practical to put a lot of effort into something. Sometimes, you just need to seek a professional and/or it's more efficient to get quick viewpoints from others. Again, I'm not saying that is or isn't applicable here, but just as a general rule of thumb.
I'm reminded of Lawrence Krauss' lecture on Richard Feynman's life that I listened to a couple of years ago, in which he said that if Feynman hadn't been so stubborn with trying to figure things out all by himself (and not reading the research of his peers), he'd perhaps have won multiple Nobel prizes and made full on breakthroughs, as opposed to only being on the cusp of those discoveries working alone.
I also can't imagine putting them in a bathroom... bathrooms have excess moisture by design, due to toilet and shower. By law in CA, I think all full bathrooms have a window or vent (for a reason). Opening a window and putting a box fan in it, will do wonders.
I get a lot of mildew and/or mold in my bathroom window. I think it has something to do with the condensation that forms...It was first window mold/mildew and then a massive mold problem in my bathtub.
I used to open the windows a lot for ventilation, but wonder if it also blew in a lot of mold spores (I know all houses have them anyways, but there's a moldy fence nearby and I wonder if that dang thing blows in lots of mold spores into my bathroom. For now, I don't open that window.
All of that is very straightforward stuff that you should pick up from a little thinking and a mild STEM background.
A much harder / more subtle problem, is the cancer risk. I don't know about silica gel in particular, but there's a lot of nonsense that gets tagged as a cancer risk due to prop 65, combined with the innumeracy of judges and activists.
What!? Who said I was STEM?
I came here originally as a social science and humanities major to seek HELP from you guys for my math/sci. homework! lol
re: cancer warnings - I felt the need to play it safe and not purchase the ones that have the warning. Some Eva Dry products don't have them. The mini doesn't. But they have these disposable pouches (you throw a pouch in a room/location and let the beads fill up and throw the whole pouch away afterwards) that do have the warning. I would consider buying the mini, but not the pouches.
They causes itchy rashes (though usually very manageable by avoiding certain things and using topic Desonide cream). Had some bacterial infection too not too long ago (probably from me scratching my eczema too much and having it get infected).
Appreciate the responses, though!
It's not too bad, though, since I'll be starting a summer internship job with pay in two weeks. 
So, it's a catch 22.
Wish these companies would get their products right!
