clairity

it does provide rotational stability (along with the PCL, between the femur and tibia; the condyles help here too) but it’s primarily job is lateral stability in the front-to-back direction, because without that, you cannot negotiate uneven terrain at all. this is vividly illustrated in a dissection by manipulating the knee with and without cutting the ACL. with no ACL, the knee is a wobbly mess, especially in the front to back (ventral-dorsal) direction.

ACL injuries have long been known to be worse in women because of anatomical differences in weight distribution relative to hip to femur to tibia angles, both statically but especially in motion.

it's less about what foods to eat and more about eating much less: one modest-sized meal a day. that's all we "need". we eat too much of everything and our bodies are not evolved for such excess. this is literally the biggest bang for buck for chronic diseases like this, but also the hardest thing to do because of socio-cultural considerations. it also takes some time to train your digestive system down to that level.

once you have amounts under control, then you can taper off the processed foods, especially sugary things like soda/juice (fruit is ok because it comes with fiber), salty things like chips/frozen dinners, and bread/rice products (a little whole grain here and there is ok). minimize processed foods but don't worry too much about the mix of foods otherwise (protein/fat is fine, just don't overeat).

then taper up anaerobic exercise to 2-3 times a week. find a sport or activity you like (e.g., tennis) and pay for an organized league/class so that you stay committed. (aerobic) walking, for instance, is not typically strenuous enough for your body to process the excess nutrients and improve cardiovascular fitness, which is what's needed to help keep heart disease under control. you can start with walking if you're in bad shape, but you'll want to graduate to anaerobic exercise as soon as you can.

no one should worry about CO₂ at all in their homes or offices. only workers in certain industries/factories, where CO₂ can get several orders of magnitude higher, need to be concerned at all about it. you (here and in your marketing materials) are stoking needless anxiety over a gas that life on earth literally requires.

pollutants, on the other hand, and particularly particulate matter (especially chemicals that we've manufactured recently in human history), do have proven negative health consequences and should be monitored and mitigated in the home and office. it's estimated that over a million people a year die prematurely of respiratory and cardiovascular complications due to pollution.

in short, a lack of CO₂ monitoring in favor of PM and VOCs by ikea should be seen as a plus, not a minus here.

note that VOCs are typically estimated from cheap CO₂ sensors, and are likely to be highly unreliable as a result, but more accurate (and more expensive) VOC sensing is possible, e.g., https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/revac-2021-01...

now that physical branches are not really a differentiator of big banks, a couple hours of your time spread out over a couple months is totally worth the switch to a credit union in lower fees, better service, and supporting a more local economy.

it's completely, undeniably worth it. unless you're a real big shot (worth millions in assets to the bank) who doesn't have to deal with the dehumanizing aspects of corporate "customer service", there is zero reason to be with anything other than a small local bank/credit union.

i've played with nesting on firefox and, much like the :has() selector, it seems good enough for the 80% case, so i wish they'd unflag it so we could get the clock started on having it be commonplace in a year or two to use it confidently.

safari and chrome have had :has() for a while, but it's behind a flag in firefox. the firefox version is good enough that i wish they'd unflag it already (as in, it's good enough to handle this particular input/label issue for instance, but not really complex selector combinations and edge cases).

yah, would be nice if it were baked into html itself, but at least the javascript isn't complicated, and can be put in an `onclick` attribute:

  <button onclick="document.querySelector('#my-dialog').showModal();">open my dialog</button>

visible is a good deal as long as your area isn't oversubscribed for verizon (luckily mine isn't).

any reason why the watches have to be completely standalone? does the family setup not work for having multiple watches managed by one phone?

real world boston was the only reality tv show i watched more or less all the way through. it was fun while it lasted but once it was over, reality tv felt "done" and i didn't really want to watch much more of it. i still don't understand the lasting appeal tbh.

again, CO₂ doesn't matter, despite the mediopolitical hysteria over it. it's a gas that life depends on and is well-adapted to. but pollution has been killing millions of people a year for at least a hundred years already and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. generation and transportation account for the majority of that pollution.

instead you get to breathe in that sweet, sweet tire dust, which hybrids and EVs tend to make more of because they're typically heavier than their ICE counterparts.

but until the electrical grid is moved to cleaner sources (including nuclear for baseload), it doesn't make much difference what you drive. with the current distribution of generation, we'd be mostly shifting the pollution from tailpipes to smokestacks (especially at the margin) rather than getting rid of it--coal emissions are many times worse than tailpipe emissions, not to mention the pollution from coal, oil & gas extraction.

and pollution is exactly what we should be worried about, not CO₂, which is the worst sort of distraction when trying to make sense of the environmental dangers we're creating (it muddies the waters to create uncertainty and inaction).

that's an astute observation. i think the current administration designed this legislation for maximum airtime by trying to go all-in on debt forgiveness, without any conviction about whether it could actually withstand challenge.

if they were interested in actually helping the disadvantaged, then there are plenty of workarounds, like forgiving the interest and fees on student loans rather than forgiving principal. this would be more impervious to the idea that the executive branch was trying to wholesale rewrite legislation, rather than tweaking it on the margin, which was part of the court's rationale in this case.

you've done a great job on the overall UI/UX, but as always, for me the question is where and how the product fits in the overall marketplace. this is true even for free/open source products, as it's hard to maintain momentum on stuff no one else really notices or uses.

is there a pain for managing content for technical writers? yes, probably. not many products target this niche. is the pain big enough to overcome inertia? that seems questionable, but perhaps it is big enough. i doubt large businesses would even look at a fledgling product like this, as it doesn't solve enough pain for them. it seems that there might be a market in small-to-medium-sized technical businesses that have like 1 technical writer and a few guest postings to use a platform like this.

but does it make sense to target developers at all? perhaps for initial marketing, but i'd conjecture that devs mainly just want to get something out on one platform (whether their own blog, or dev.to, or whatever) and perhaps secondarily on twitter (or similar) for more reach and discussion. it seems to be an uphill battle to get them to switch over to a completely different tool that requires integration to get content flowing to all the right places (which is what a headless cms requires).

in any case, the positioning as a headless CMS falls flat to me. that seems to be leading with a technical detail ("headless") rather than the pain and the solution. my off-the-cuff suggestion is something more like "Content Automation" as the descriptor. similar to "Marketing Automation" (e.g., buffer, hubspot) yours is a CMS plus and an automation platform (in the making). it helps people crank out technical content and put it in all the right places to be seen by the people you want to target.

i don't have rigorous data at hand, but browsers and mobile hardware are now good enough that most apps are just fine being developed using cross-platform web tech rather than java or swift. plus, apps no longer attract and retain users as they once did (we're past the hype cycle). native mobile, as a result, has retreated to domains where the tighter integration has benefits, like games, health, IoT, etc. even apple is loosening its iron grip over its app store as the tradeoff between integration and flexibility no longer makes sense for most apps. apple now focuses more on content and on integrating more functionality into iOS itself because of that.

not sure what point you're making here, but my point was that there is room for little PE, but not big PE, because little PE can have the effect of making capital more efficient for the overall economy. it's the same with arbitrage--a little arbitrage is good for the economy, but large, systemic arbitrage is extractive for no overall benefit.

the principal-agent problem emerges in any business where professional managers are employed (which usually happens when a business gets too big for its britches), so it's not PE-specific.

to be clear, PE isn't always purely extractive, but when it is, it can be highly destructive. sometimes a business is so mismanaged that debt (and the pressure it adds) and new management is all that is needed to right the ship.

PE itself is a bloated industry because we have too much money being extracted out of the real economy going into the pockets of the already wealthy who don't know what to do with it, so they hand it to a money manager (i.e., PE) to make more money for them, not knowing what to do with those potential future earnings either. this is the kind of economic inefficiency that concentrations of capital brings, in direct refutation of the common economic argument that the wealthy are better at investing money (i.e., more capital efficient, which in turn supposedly adds more real productivity to the economy).

small, local amounts of wealth are more capital efficient, but large, distant amounts are not.

thanks for that tip, i have PYREX measuring cups bought over 20 years ago that are still going strong, but this is good to know if i ever need to replace them with the same quality product.

i think if rails continues to push hotwire (turbo + stimulus, and perhaps strada?) and get a coherent story on view components, it will continue to take mindshare from the js hype of the last decade. mobile dev is in decline, and browser makers just released web notifications, web app support, webtransport, page transitions, etc., so the backend has largely reached parity for cross-platform development. no longer is json the natural data exchange medium for apps, but rather chucks of html that can be plopped right into the dom without js having to massage the response into shape on the frontend. js can return to being a frontend scripting language, its natural habitat, rather than being shoehorned into being a do-it-all platform language.

spacex, as far as i can tell, is a research company that launches satellites to fuel its space exploration research. the research side couldn't stand alone, as that's not a viable business in itself, so the satellite business is really the core "business" here. the making of rocket engines could possibly be outsourced (or turned into a separate business), but those customized engines are integral to its competitive advantage in more efficiently sending satellites into space than its competitors (and in sending people to colonize mars, its long-term mission). core competencies like that aren't separate businesses; they're the business itself. if spacex decided to write its own accounting software and then sell it to others, then you'd have a breach of the single business focus.

apple, however, is in something like a dozen different businesses that are completely viable as stand-alone entities that don't gain much from being consolidated (brand value, for instance, can be franchised if a unified brand face is desired, like mcdonald's does). incidentally, apple wasn't a hardware company that morphed into software, but rather, it was always a computer marketing business (then more broadly consumer electronics, and now encroaching upon consumer entertainment). nest is a good example of what a spin-out company in an apple breakup might look like.

of course, but i'd argue that too much of a single field is usually a case of a company that's actually in multiple businesses (see the mcdonald's example in a sibling thread).

my simplified perspective is a melding of the brandeisian (big is bad) and the chicago schools (economic efficiency for the win!), touched on in the article, so i certainly have no problems with synthesis in matters of antitrust. =)

mcdonald's is actually a good example. it's at least 3 businesses on top of the nominal one of fast food: franchising, supply chain, and real estate. franchisees pay for access to the mcdonald's brand, trademarks, and shared marketing. in addition, mcdonald's corporate provides complete supply chain support, so franchisees buy all of their food and materials through mcdonald's itself or from its approved suppliers. mcdonald's corporate also owns the real estate that many franchises sit atop, so it's a landlord to boot.

it'd be easy to split those businesses into separate ones, as it's plainly obvious that all three businesses can viably stand alone, apart from serving fast food. you might argue that that'd dilute the brand value because the product wouldn't be as uniform, but you just have to look at the international variation to realize that that's not so important to brand value.

strictly speaking, a monopoly by itself is probably not a positive externality, since it isn't external, other than the regulatory permissiveness that allows it. to me a vertical monopoly isn't necessarily a single business, even if the stack as a whole principally delivers a single type of good or service.

if a layer in the stack can thrive on its own as an independent ecosystem, then that's a "separate business", and trust busters should look askew at conglomerations across such boundaries. independent companies will make the whole industry more efficient in the long run, because of competition. in such a configuration, companies can make deals with each other across stack boundaries and even invest in each other as long as a controlling interest hasn't been reached.

ma bell for instance vertically integrated telegraph, telephone, transmission, real estate, consumer phones, answering services, and who knows how many other whole businesses together to form its monopoly. many, if not all, of those could have been thriving markets on their own.

tl;dr: the author wants antitrust action to focus on private equity rather than tech (and oh look, he runs a tech consultancy!). the evidence presented isn't entirely wrong (at least the parts i skimmed), but it's certainly highly selective, in service of reaching a desired conclusion. the digression into different schools of thought on antitrust is a waste of time, to put it mildly (and it is two posts mashed together, contrary to the author's explicit disclamation).

antitrust is really simple in my view: companies should principally be in one line of business[0] as that's the most efficient configuration for the economy as a whole. some of those businesses will be larger than others as a natural consequence of the given industry (e.g., capital-intensive businesses like aerospace), but no business should be larger than it needs to be (in the long-term; short-term dynamism is "inefficient" but promotes longer-term optimality).

that's because companies that are too big inevitably develop internal inefficiencies (e.g., bureaucratizing and politicizing) and suffer from diseconomies of scale, like the coordination problem (the topic of mythical man month). they also develop external inefficiencies, like looking for regulatory leverage via lobbying, arbitraging labor across jurisdictions, or settling into rent-seeking. right-sized companies, those that must focus first and foremost on market competition, don't have time for that sort of bullshit.

[0]: the hard part being the delineation, but it basically boils down to any business that can remain a going concern without positive externalities helping them along (which is not consolidated businesses in the US, including all the major telecoms, defense, education, biotech, oil & gas, etc.). private equity plays in all of these industries but it's silly to think that it's PE that is causing poor economic outcomes, so much so that we solely target PE for antitrust action.

yes, i should clarify that LA has a pretty effective no-kill cat rescue network (even sending rescues to other states for adoption), so most cats here are neutered, chipped, vaccinated, and tattooed when rescued and adopted out (e.g., my sweet little rescue cat). but there are also dedicated TNR volunteers who strictly neuter and release stray cats and employ the ear-clipping method for that reason (easier to see from distance).

ear-clipping isn't foolproof though, since many feral cats will not sit still long enough or let you get close enough for you to observe a clipped ear. that said, plenty of stray cats are relative docile and friendly, and totally adoptable by simply picking them up and taking them home (which is what one of my neighbors did).

here, they now give neutered cats a tattoo on the belly (~1cm green line) instead of clipping. this is a bit more humane and becoming more the standard nowadays i believe.

any recommendations for a crash course in cardiology for the motivated learner? (randomly searching the internet being really inefficient for this type of targeted learning. motivated, as in, diagnosed with a significant coronary artery blockage.)

note that it's a 66.5 W・hr battery. aluminum is pliable too.

no, helicopters in LA (and "eyes in the sky" in general) don't contribute at all to effective policing or safety. they actually entice showboats to create a spectacle so they get on tv. this creates more public danger. and there have been a number of chases where the suspect was lost even so.

but all you need in these instances is an incontrovertible photo of the suspect and the car/license plate, witnesses of the crime, and effective investigation, just like any other criminal case. the helicopter is there for cops to show off and waste disproportional money better spend on investigation.

first responders are trained to assess situations quickly, so "situational awareness" has very marginal benefit (not zero, but also not much) in all of the use cases you cite. the extra overhead is simply not worth it in most cases. like legged robots, drones are a technology looking for a market, but there really isn't much market out there.

we don't need more surveillance tech. we need more dogged and trustworthy investigators and first responders.

all of apple's recent growth is coming from its content ("services") business, which means it's hot to track you for advertising purposes. passkeys provide another stone in their walled garden to be able to track you but keep others from doing so as effectively, which on balance contributes to its competitive advantage.

make no mistake that this is the direction apple is headed. it's been clear for the last 5 years or so, since hardware sales have leveled off. perhaps the goggles will dampen the velocity a bit, but i'm very skeptical that the AR/VR market is mature enough to have that effect in the near future.

i agree, looks neat, but i wouldn't get one. seems like a product in search of a market. AR/VR is just to immature of a market ("too early") for an apple-sized company, and i think this one will be a pretty big flop in the near-future.