Confusion

The problem isn’t addresses being a few (tens of) meters off.

I don't agree hearing and balance are the same sensory organ. They are two separate organs, just very near each other and indeed resembling each other, which explains why they are near each other.

The thought I was expressing is that there seems to be no separate organ at all here and that seems unexpected to me. I would expect there to at least be something like a specialized region. Not just that the eye in general happens to also have this ability.

It seems suspicious that this would be hiding in the eyes. A separate specialized organ would be more like the other senses.

Not necessarily. You can measure things in ways that add energy: e.g. radar waves contribute a tiny bit of energy to the things they bounce off. Yet they measure where objects are.

You can also measure some things in ways that add exactly 0 energy. If some quantum system absorbs exactly nothing of a certain wavelength, that tells you something about the system.

Corn is much lower than it was 8 years ago, steel is at the same level as it was in 2018/2019, lumber only up 50% from last peak in 2018 (and price fluctuates a lot currently).

Theoretically, yes. In practice their UI simply may not have that option and you don’t just build something like that reliably on such short notice.

Ironically, you obviously didn't read the OP, as it clearly mentions people could at least bother to read the, free, abstract.

One way of discovering what increases property X is testing that some change decreases property X.

Another way of discovering what increases property X is testing that some change indeed increases property X, while also discovering it decreases property Y.

While attempting to increase both X and Y, they made an intermediate with increased X and decreased Y. Perhaps it seemed a promising starting point to also increase Y.

I don't get the surprise. This is all par for the course in research.

You have obviously not actually read the article and are railing against a strawman.

The third of your ‘easiest explanations’ is pretty much the third explanation offered in the article. The article is an object level description of what happened, with little to no speculation, apart from three tentative explanations, and does not endorse any remarkable claims about how the world operates.

You have invented that ‘implication’; nothing in the article even hints at that being the obvious implication and it’s entirely unclear what you “don’t believe” to people that have actually read the full article.

It seems to me that you can’t conclude that speeding causes accidents from these statistics. If people speed 30% of the time, then accidents will involve speeding 30% of the time if speeding doesn’t influence the risk at all. I would also expect the amount of speeding to matter a lot.

You are improving your productivity by 'doing something else', such as 'walking for several hours in the forest'.

Banging your head against a problem for several hours while not making any progress is frustrating. Not because you are 'unproductive' in the sense of producing value for your employer or customers, but because you are 'unproductive' in the sense of not achieving the progress you desire.

Thus we want to improve our productivity. Not because we need to be productive in a capitalist sense, but because we want to be productive to have the feeling of achieving something.

Whether increasing your productivity comes in the form of going for a walk or getting rid of distractions doesn't change that.

Finding a $20 bill on Times Square

Indeed, because I'm not arguing any position in the debate, but offering an observation whose truthfulness anyone can judge on their own.

The parent, on the other hand, was responding to someone in an attempt to prove them wrong. By not saying anything that engaged with what the grandparent said, they failed at that.

So I know what I am, but what are you?

Your comment is devoid of argument.

Related: The first few milliseconds of an HTTPS connection (http://www.moserware.com/2009/06/first-few-milliseconds-of-h...)

Of course it is, that's exactly the point. 'Eventual consistency' is the name for situations where a race condition is acceptable and even a feature. It doesn't matter whether it are threads, processes or entirely different computers that are racing. Whether the data is shared via CPU cache, memory, disk or a network. We don't call it "failed eventual consistency" when a data race occurs.

Examples in the literature? This is not a bloody academic exercise?!

I use the term 'race condition' about once a week to point out something may happen before or after something else, because the things are happening in parallel.

Simple example:

me: I just uploaded the file to our shared dropbox

you, refreshing: I don't see it yet

me: race condition

There is currently a court case against a drugs kingpin where one of the reputable newspapers does mention his full name, but each time followed by "-- the suspect's lawyer has indicated the suspect has no objection to his full name being used" (once per article of course)

I think it's just someone, possibly a non native speaker, mixing "reaping the benefits of" and "plucking the fruits of"

This did not happen.

Yes, we learned the difference between Thai basil and regular basil in Thailand, which was before she started attempting to make her own curry :).

I'm not sure if there's cardamom in the curry, but it's definitely in the cupboard (both powdered and whole cardamom pods), so if it should be there, I expect it is.

Sometimes it just needs carefully sussing out the secret ingredient.

My wife has been trying to make green curry for years, but it was never as good as the Thai stuff. Then she followed the advice of a professional chef to not replace the kaffir limes by just any limes and actually try to obtain kaffir limes (which are bitter and not useful except for their peel). Boom! Her green curry is now as good as any in Thailand. Just changing the limes made a world of difference.

Spare display for $90 that I can install myself? Starts throwing money their way

People generalize personal experience and anecdotes they have heard. People may also generalize to cultures they think are similar without evidence.

It’s like you’re reading my mind. This matches my experience closely and is exactly what I first thought of when I saw this topic.

  “so far it has been tested only in simulated laboratory 
  conditions rather than in actual use”

As with the weekly ‘battery breakthrough’: wake me when it turns out to work in practice and production can be scaled.

Yup, back in 2003 I was doing experimental work on creating better EUV mirrors and the amount of reflection achieved was way too low to support any machine with a design similar to UV machines. You needed either a (much) higher intensity source or fewer mirrors.

I've been out of that loop for a while, so I don't know how the design of the EUV machines turned out.

For measles, herd immunity requires a 95% vaccination rate. So where there are outbreaks they have apparently dropped below that. Would the entire population drop below that, at least 5% of the entire population would get measles. Since a lot more than 0.2% would suffer nasty side effects from measles, I said 1 in 10k, because even if it were 1 in 10k, the country would be better off with more than 95% getting vaccinations.

I thought I could riff on olliej’s obviously sardonic comment, but as you I seem to have miscalculated how the comment is read.

Yeah, even if it had like a 1 in 10000 rate of nasty side effects, it would still be a lot less risky than the measles.

His stories are also about robots running amok, so obviously he didn't think the 3 laws were a solution to that problem.