Confusion

It's a big deal to other people. That is all that matters.

That lovely harmonious structure where lions kill cubs because they want to impregnate the mother, where bugs literally stab-rape others to procreate and where animals regularly die of hunger because the predator-prey cycle is at a predator low?

It seems great if you're only looking at the nice parts.

Everyone wonders whether to quit or break up sometimes. That of course doesn't mean you should do so. The title is miseading. The first line of second paragraph states that data was collected on people that were 'deeply unsure' about something. Quite a lot depends on how much you are actually considering it. Unless you are sure the data in the study is representative for your situation, this study doesn't help much.

Contra Betteridge's law of headlines.

  You know.. dividing is like breaking something up [..]

No. What it is 'like' is totally irrelevant and actively harmful to consider if you want to be able to get anything serious done with your programming language. This is not a place to start philosophizing. For consistent arithmetic it is important to know which axioms are fulfilled. Division needs to be a mathematically clearly defined operation.

So according to you, 0*0 = 0, thus 0/0 = 0?

If Monty would open the door where the car is, the decision whether to switch wouldn't be much of a gamble and there wouldn't be much entertainment in this part of the game show. So of course Monty knows where the car is. There is nothing mysterious or unclear about that.

This is just a hard question that is hard to get right and there is no shame in getting it wrong if you have to come up with the answer from scratch, never having heard such a puzzle before. There is no shame in not 'getting' it either. There is shame in allowing not 'getting' it to determine your conclusions.

Don't sweeten the deal. With the regular odds, after 12 games you will only be ahead ~61% of the time. You have to play a larger number of games to be relatively sure you win and the other accepts they must be wrong. The number of games increases by quite a bit if you sweeten the deal.

We don't know the samples in the article are representative of the feedback. In fact, I would expect the authors to cherry pick the feedback for entertainment purposes.

I believe the OP is right, but providing uncontroversial evidence of that is hard. You need a thorough classification of the feedback in a number of sufficiently comparable cases, involving both men and women, to provide hard evidence. And even with hard evidence in hand the conclusions could be ignored; cf. climate change.

This isn't a debate that can be settled by rational evidence.

Why do you believe there is no sequence of events that could end with an ice cube in the middle of a sun?

One scenario I would not rule out is a large icy comet moving at large speed straight for a sun. Is there no combination of size and speed for which that would result in a small ice cube in the centre of a sun?

Good article, but I don't understand why the word 'inclusive' is in the title.

I’m not sure. I know the bioavailability of magnesium citrate is much better than that of magnesium oxide, due to the bad solubility in water of the latter (and supplements with magnesium oxide are thus next to useless). That suggests Mg ions already present should be readily absorbed.

Some folks in the anti-aging community are taking it daily, not because they have trouble sleeping, but exactly because there seem to be a number of small health benefits of taking melaton8n that are not mediated by better sleeping.

Are you sure? It’s sold in every drug store in the Netherlands. I usually buy 500 tablets of 0.1 mg each.

Magnesium is important, many people are deficient, supplementation is cheap and supplementation is very unlikely to cause harm (as long as you keep it to max 300 mg of elemental Mg (e.g. 2g of magnesium citrate) a day). Like with vitamin D, you should have very good reasons not to chose to take a magnesium supplement.

In cases such as these fines are usually determined based on the estimated profits, exactly to ensure deterrence.

You are right; I hadn't realized BackBlaze was also offering cloud storage and thought this was about their backup product.

  Which means every customer suffers data loss 

They suffer partial backup loss.

The customer only suffers data loss if they lost their 'master' copy of the data as well during the outage. Iff they don't have a secondary backup solution.

That’s not because you’re mathematically illiterate (though that may be true), but because it’s a bad title.

There's no need to lay the blame at 'culture' and 'society'. The problem is that you only need a thousand assholes in the million that read your story to cause major problems. Even in the most amazing culture and society you may expect 1 in a 1000 to be an asshole.

I think most humans are reasonable people. Many are even great people, no matter how much you may disagree with them about many small things. The problem is just the 1 asshole in a 1000 that has an outsized influence.

A piece of advice often given to people is "don't be the smartest person in your team", because then you don't have anyone to learn from.

I think that advice is wrong, because:

1) there are many different skills you can improve and you are probably not the most skilled one in the team in all of them

2) even if you are the most skilled, it doesn't mean you can't learn from less skilled people

3) 'smartest' is a strange criterion, because if there is one thing you can't learn, it's becoming more intelligent

However, if you truly believe there isn't much you can learn in your current work any more, possibly because of the skill levels of your teammates, switching to a different job is probably a good idea.

Some people wouldn't be able to do it and it would be good for them to think about this and realize it, but I hope you don't seriously believe that /humanity/ wouldn't be be able to do it. That vastly underestimates the amount of exactly this kind of problem solving that goes on every day, all over the world.

Don't underestimate humanity by forgetting to look outside of your bubble.

  Humans can't perceive a lot of things

More things than any other organism. Already more than most organisms using our biological sense organs. Our sight and hearing are pretty good, even by animal standards. But then we developed tools to transcode signals not directly observable by our biological sense organs. We perceive more than all other organisms combined.

  we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species.

We are the only ones that partially attempt to live in harmony with other species and partially succeed. All others care nothing for any other species than their own. And often not even that.

  We are pretty awful.

We are awesome and can become even more amazing.

Awesome, thanks for your response!

I wonder whether this means we should not expect any more performance improvements on a < Java 10 JVM. That would be good to know, as that influences what I can expect for code running at a place that just upgraded to Java 8 and probably won’t switch to 10+ for many years to come.

Allowing yourself to be dragged into the same argument over and over again, because some people are just not listening (creationism, flat earthers, moon hoax believers, ...) is a waste of time. Publicly reminding the readers about the majority view on the situation and then letting the argument go is fine as a response.

(And yes, the majority view is that Rand is not worthy of any special attention as either a philosopher, political theorist, economist or author. Not more worthy than any other random member of those groups of people.)

Killing newborn cubs and impregnating the mother with your own is also very natural and efficient. I hope you agree it's also very wrong and that the argument from nature is an amazingly awful argument.

Is your buddy one of the very few beating the market or is he one of the many with clients who would be better of just tracking the S&P 500? Because if the latter, he is just as much of a clown, just one whose strategies by accident happen to be less bad for their clients.

The number of ‘wealth managers’ who add value for their clients (which can also be done by reducing risk in exchange for lower yields or in several other ways) is very small and the remainder are leeches.

That’s a sensible first level response. But you need to continue thinking. A first response hardly ever cuts it. Criticize your responses. See other responses for the result.

Certainly: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/natrium

And those are also mostly the countries using Kalium: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/kalium