1,565 karma · joined April 15, 2016
Also, Velomobiles are way more popular. My unkle (used to?) drives one every day to work, in every weather, 40+ km one way (without electric assist, at least a few years ago). And no, he was never cold, he rather had problems with ventilation ;)
5k or 5.5k, depending on variant.
Although to be practicable (not a hobby), you will have to add quite a few "extras".
But not that bad actually! Makes me wonder how it is built.
In e.g. Austria regional or communal government, or agencies working with them, would gladly pick you up, give you a protected workplace and enlist you to help make all the e-government sites and processes more accessible.
I'm not simply claiming this. I used to work with a 100% blind developer, that had a degree from Uni Innsbruck in either Computer Science or Mathematics, I don't remember really. I could not understand how he managed to get a degree (in the 80ies or 90ies nonetheless), but even if he needed special tools, he was a very important asset in the whole e-government push, especially because he was apparently a very valuable software developer, albeit his challenges.
If now you have something to add to the points made after "Foremost:" and "Second:" your post could have added something to the discussion as well, instead of just attacking my form.
Nobody said that the journal should not have published because it is not interesting. You should instead focus on the given argument of "scientific standards" and the Scientific Method, the implicit rule-set of science (to be fair, you can question that too, but you didn't).
A Journal uses peer review to avoid publishing things that do not conform to a certain base level of scientific standard, e.g. comparing the wrong numbers/things, or ignoring causation vs. correlation, drawing the wrong conclusions, etc. A peer is supposed to flag such things and remind the authors of the flaws.
Foremost: If someone had cancer, that does not mean he would have died immediately. Heck, he could have "survived" it, or at least lived for several more years.
Second: This does not explain the huge numbers of deaths. You can easily compare how many people died of/with lung cancer from 2019 to 2020 and then for 2020 to 2021 and clearly see that COVID made a difference here (called Übersterblichkeit in German, and visible in all COVID-affected countries).
And AFAIK most countries do actually not report a death with COVID, e.g. a car accident, as being caused by COVID.
In other words, this is a common myth from the skeptics department and only serves in undermining COVID-related efforts, even if well intended.
Any foremost protein (maybe some other substances too) in fact. So even proteins that come from the patient's own body could be targeted - cf. Autoimmune diseases.
But depending on the circumstances, some allergic reactions might recede on abstinence, e.g. when the system is overreacting. But usually allergies are immune-responses and don't disappear over night.
E.g. the possibly most prevalent allergies, against pollen, manifest well after kindergarten, or even in teenagers. Until then the system did not care at all about pollen. The reason must be something entirely unrelated to pollen. And there are more and more cases of people developing pollen allergies well after age 50! (But: often you will find other allergies or "pre-symptoms" in kids, e.g. neurodermatitis or milk-protein allergies).
In fact you always develop the allergy on exposure AFAIK - it just might be the first exposure. But the reason is most often completely unrelated to this specific substance/protein.
There are even several known substances that are known to cause allergies to develop on exposure (with high probability). But what you become allergic to is pure chance, e.g. could be the nickel-plated jewelry on your skin which you never had a problem with until then.
Thankfully in psychiatry there is a push for "treating what is bothering you" against the Freudian "dig for the cause" - often patients are not served at all by the tedious and painful search for cause or roots of an itch, they just need a working remedy.
I said "taken to the extreme". Put differently: If you are going to wrap every pair of lines into separate functions as a way to structure your code, you code will end up becoming functions calling functions calling functions - and whenever you try to read the code, you are required to jump through all these redirections.
Where do you draw the line?
What these comments do is give the code structure, and giving an outsider a better/faster view into the code, when he has no internal model for the library/framework/API/language which helps him recognize the statements (this outsider might be the author himself, or "future me").
Not knowing what these lines do, I can at first glance (i.e. skimming through the code) understand the author's intentions, what each line is responsible for. This is simply reduction of mental load and I even do this just for myself when trying to wrap my head around a new library or language.
On the other hand, if you are writing for a (large) internal codebase, where you need to find a tradeoff between reduction of mental load and bloat, such comments can quickly become a nuisance...
Then again, the cost of useless comment is usually much smaller than the cost of mental load (everyone knows how to ignore comments, unless they fill pages...)
All this being said, I can only recommend "The Art of Readable Code" - Boswell [1].
[1] https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/the-art-of/978144931848...
It is never clear cut. But if you never reuse the same code, or it is targeting the wrong abstraction layer (you can't reuse the function without introducing another set of arguments) and you are merely encapsulating two already very readable lines of code, you might end up with a too much redirection and an increase in mental load.
What I'm trying to say is: It might be even harder for the outsider to follow/read the code, just simpler on first glance.
What you consider an "overengineered piece" of paper might be intentional. Maybe you don't need paper - some people do.
Once you have scalable storage for excess energy, renewables and their fluctuations are simply cheaper, safer and greener, right?
Mindless browsing will occupy my attention, keeps me distracted and on the edge, draining my energy and mental capacity, makes me jittery - even if this realization took me quite some time.
A walk in the woods is refreshing and my mind is focused, wandering maybe aimlessly, but well-paced, on its own time, makes me relaxed and open-minded.
We like distraction, our mind craves it, often we don't want to think about what bothers us. But allowing all the random itches that bother us is the only way to address them and let them go.
Also, I have zero, NIL creativity after mindless browsing, I am drained.
Alone with myself and my thoughts on a train or a walk the thoughts are no longer buzzing, they are forming, transforming, becoming real ideas.
The variant that (at the time) is supposed to be built would be 8.6km.
But this is a special situation, a really small gap between the Swiss highway and the Austrian/German highway, so transit had to go through the villages and clogging up everything at the bottlenecks along the border (or in Höchst, Hard, Bregenz, Lustenau, Hohenems, Feldkirch etc.)
AFAIK we still don't know where it will be built, but there has been some progress... EDIT: They agreed upon where! But they don't know when and holding another forum due to public outcry over the chosen path... sigh.
Meanwhile, Switzerland built the connection ~40 years ago [1]
I encountered quite a few myself and was very annoyed. I guess devs took the "usability" side of the question.
EDIT: phrasing
But what I learned the last few years is that I don't miss the things that I thought were "living" when I was young. Drinking or "Nights out" is one of them. Also: Everything "Internet" (Netflix, Youtube, News, ...). Especially when it actually hinders me from experiencing life (it will steal your day).
That does not mean I regret anything. I made my experiences, everyone should, I think this is an important part of growing up for a lot of people.
Nowadays, eating healthy/well, exercise, etc. are the things that make me feel more alive and well - these are the things that make life "better".
But also I have two small kids, so there is no time and space for all these "silly things". And for the same reason I eat to much crap and don't exercise nearly enough for my taste. And I watch way too much YouTube.
Moral: Do your best and try to enjoy it. Nobody can tell you if the bus is waiting for you the next corner. But wether it changes anything if you are drunk at the time is up to you.
Leaving original answer (but please don't be triggered by me failing to read the question correctly):
And you're free to do so.
But don't expect an absolution from a health professional, in the form of a number that is "always entirely safe, under all circumstances".
Alcohol is essentially a poison for the body, which he can tolerate quite well in respectable amounts, compared to other toxins (we can actually "buffer" a certain amount AFAIK).
But talking about lesions in liver tissue growing back without scarring or long-lasting consequences is really out of the safe zone if you ask me. So your questions is clearly rubbing me the wrong way.
Also, sometimes your liver can be weakened or inflamed (without you realizing), and then obviously every drop counts.
There is so much individuality involved (genetics, history, liver health in general), and so much "it depends" (amount of alcohol, size of liver, food intake, ...) that you cannot possibly stick a definitive number to that question.
Also, the question seems dangerous: What are you going to do with an answer? Drink to a certain limit, in good conscience?
The grant hunting, bullshitting, old-stuff-in-new-covers is all the same, but the problems and the topics are just so much more approachable, relevant, interesting, and the community seems to be "nicer".
But then of course, I know people that are in that area an were getting into research, and they did not paint a nice picture. And the community obviously can suck also once you're on the inside. And being a "researcher" without clinic duties is really not easy getting into in Europe it seems. Also, who wants to stop doing clinic completely, when this is what he trained for so long...
There are upsides and downsides to everything - I think it really depends on where your interests are.
And it was seldomly updated, so you could get very aged specs.
If you bought a MacBook 2011/2012 you would typically get an HDD and between 4 and 8GB RAM. Software requirements/demands sky-rocketed shortly after that. On a non-Air you could at least upgrade this yourself, which gave the machine new life ("just like new")
If you bought your MacBook until MID 2012, you're out of luck though.
And 10 years old would be early 2011, and those are also not supported.
Mojave has the same requirements basically, that leaves High Sierra, and High Sierra had a few months of support left (ended Dec 2020), so I just aborted.
And I had to upgrade SSD and RAM 2 and 4 years after buying, it became unusable for work (granted, it was not spec'ed out originally).