1,220 karma · joined January 5, 2012
Screening is a very complicated topic and being overly aggressive with screening can really hurt patients. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNzQ_sLGIuA
Or do you simply not support using scientific evidence and/or harm reduction to guide medical policy? What do you propose should be used instead in that case?
Words starting out as factual and neutral, then acquiring a negative connotation, then falling out of use except as insults is literally a tale as old as time.
> The word "idiot" comes from the Greek noun ἰδιώτης idiōtēs 'a private person, individual' (as opposed to the state), 'a private citizen' (as opposed to someone with a political office), 'a common man', 'a person lacking professional skill, layman', later 'unskilled', 'ignorant', derived from the adjective ἴδιος idios 'personal' (not public, not shared). In Latin, idiota was borrowed in the meaning 'uneducated', 'ignorant', 'common',[5] and in Late Latin came to mean 'crude, illiterate, ignorant'. In French, it kept the meaning of 'illiterate', 'ignorant', and added the meaning 'stupid' in the 13th century. In English, it added the meaning 'mentally deficient' in the 14th century.
> The word shit appears to have originally been a euphemism for defecation in Pre-Germanic, as the Proto-Indo-European root *sḱeyd-, from which it was derived, meant 'to cut off'.
> In the 20th century, where the old euphemisms lavatory (a place where one washes) or toilet (a place where one dresses[20]) had grown from widespread usage (e.g., in the United States) to being synonymous with the crude act they sought to deflect, they were sometimes replaced with bathroom (a place where one bathes), washroom (a place where one washes), or restroom (a place where one rests)
Sounds great! If the company wants to make a difference in a not evil-ish way, you could start by improving the working conditions of the 2000 workers building your factory.
https://www-breakit-se.translate.goog/artikel/32182/kritiken...
https://arbetet-se.translate.goog/2021/11/03/facken-larmar-o...
https://www-svd-se.translate.goog/a/MLmoqB/northvolt-bygget-...
https://www-svd-se.translate.goog/a/Epjxol/northvolt-far-har...
I would also like to point out that your insinuation that mostly "obscure Amazon insects" face extinction is false and misleading.
Even by your contrived standard of "would you see them?" the extinctions will be remarkable. The world's coral reefs are visited and seen by almost 70 million tourists each year. Over half the reefs are already dead, and 90% of all reefs are estimated to be lost in less than 30 years. Of course the ecological disaster of losing the reefs will be worse than the lost sights. This is just a single example.
The oil cannot be unburnt. The glaciers cannot be refrozen. The species cannot be made unextinct. At least not in any human lifespan.
I think the powerups seem to be bait here. I've won all but one of the last 12ish games by never taking any powerups and simply waiting for the opponent to reveal themselves by taking them. The only time I used a powerup was to pounce onto a bomb when I suspected the enemy was close and about to take it.
The powerups are often useless unless you already know the position of the opponent, which you most likely won't if they don't reveal themselves by picking up one of their own or clearly move towards them. And when you take a powerup it's easy for an invisible opponent to quickly track you down and pounce you from an unknown/ambiguous direction without you having much opportunity to react.
If you get a sense the enemy are generally moving towards a non-bomb powerup by the tiles they step on, you can even prepare for it by simply staying around the powerup tile and pounce them the moment they pick it up, without exposing yourself to any risk if you are wrong.
If both players avoid powerups I suspect it mostly would become a game of chance (unless one player carelessly steps upon a combination of tiles that reveals their position).
The way powerups permanently changes the board by marking the tiles is a good idea in theory, but right now it adds another huge weakness to using a powerup. Your opponent will be able to very effectively track you even AFTER you used the powerups by using the marked tiles in your vicinity. I would change it, maybe by only giving the information about the marked tiles to the player using the powerup.
I would also make it harder to move onto tiles you've stepped on before, to increase the ability to narrow down an opponent over time even if they try to remain hidden.
[1] https://www.diabettech.com/cgm/high-temperatures-extreme-con...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/dexcom/comments/eyq5h0/hot_and_cold...
I suspect the author has come to this conclusion from CGM data, and therefore also that it is wrong (or at least not a very significant effect).
I also have T1D, and CGMs like Freestyle Libre (and probably also Dexcom) includes a temperature sensor and adjusts its readings based on the external temperature to increase accuracy. I think the changes in blood sugar levels during hot showers (etc) is probably due to the sensor not adjusting quickly enough to the rapid change in temperature, and not a physiological response.
For example, if I go directly from room temperature to my cold balcony, the CGM value will immediately make a huge jump upwards with the next reading, but then quickly revert back down again within the following readings. Considering the 15 minute lag time between plasma glucose and the interstitial readings of the sensor, its unlikely the sensor is immediately measuring a change in plasma glucose – it's simply (over)reacting and adjusting to the new temperature (since the thermometer won't have such a long lag time).
Very hot environments, such as a hot sauna, also makes my CGM readings completely inaccurate.
Certainly not 'definitely' true.
"To our knowledge, there are no data on the potential influences of aspartame on the human gut microbiome. It is hard to understand how aspartame influences the gut microbiota because this NNS is rapidly hydrolyzed in the small intestine. In fact, even with the ingestion of very high doses of aspartame (>200 mg/kg), no aspartame is found in the blood because of its rapid breakdown. Upon ingestion, aspartame breaks down into residual components, including aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol and their components, which are readily absorbed so that they do not reach the large bowel."
Effects of Sweeteners on the Gut Microbiota: A Review of Experimental Studies and Clinical Trials: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6363527/
They are comparable to to the question "But if you want to live a happy life, why not inject yourself with heroin and feel super happy for a few hours? It would be the best way to live a happy life today."
Upholding personal rights, predictability and principles will maximise human happiness in the long term, while optimising for short-term happiness will often cause suffering in the long term.
Some examples:
> Say you’re a surgeon. You have 5 patients who need organ transplants, plus 1 healthy patient who is compatible with the other 5. Should you murder the healthy patient so you can distribute his organs, thus saving 5 lives?
A society where people are deathly afraid of sending loved ones to the hospital, for fear they might be killed and used for organ harvesting, will lead to the collapse of healthcare and cause far more suffering than temporarily increasing the supply of organs will prevent.
> You’re the sheriff in a town where people are upset about a recent crime. If no one is punished, there will be riots. You can’t find the real criminal. Should you frame an innocent person, causing him to be unjustly punished, thus preventing the greater harm that would be caused by the riots?
If this framing of the innocent is discovered, which is not unlikely, it will lead to complete distrust in law enforcement, and over time the corruption of law enforcement will cause far more suffering than stopping this specific riot will prevent. And the unjust punishment might cause riots for a different reason, anyway.
This might even match 1-to-1 with your intuition, if your intuition is "This seems logical on paper, but I don't want to live in a society where this happens, so I'm against it."
TL;DR: We live in a society.
The question is comparable to a gun with infinitely many chambers, each with a 1/80 chance of containing a bullet: How many times on average can you point it at your head and pull the trigger? The differences are that you have no guarantee that the first 80 chambers will contain exactly 1 bullet, that more than one chamber can contain a bullet, and that you can pull the trigger more than 80 times.
Consider a simple linear PDE such as the heat equation du/dt = Δu + f(t). On a square or a circle you can solve this analytically in the frequency domain using separation of variables. But as soon as you consider an arbitrary domain (say, shaped like an elephant) you can no longer solve it in the frequency domain and need to use iterative numerical approximations.
Sure. But that is true for most linear systems of PDEs as well. It has very little to do with nonlinearity. And my point is that it does not contradict universality as defined in the article, as was claimed by the author.
When you discretize a continuous equation for numerical analysis, you always make sure to use a consistent discretization. The point of a consistent discretization is that it can be proven its solution will converge to the exact solution of the continuous equation as the step size approaches 0.
Consistent discretizations are possible even for nonlinear equations.
Either way we are simply discussing limitations of a chosen numerical method, which doesn't really support the arguments in the article.
The double pendulum is not "unexplainable" or "inexplicable behavior", in fact is is explained very well in this very article. It just requires an infinite degree of precision if you desire to simulate it numerically with infinitesimal error. It's (an easily explained) limitation of the numerical methods used, not a lack of explanatory power. It does not contradict universality as defined in the article.
In the same way the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is easily explained and understood, even if expressing it in the base-ten numeral system would require infinite digits.
The suggested equivalence between linear/nonlinear phenomena and inside/outside human perception was also tenuous and poorly justified.
The sections on computers includes an article matter-of-factly informing about a virus being found on 3000 computers. Calling the virus a time bomb is not hysteria - it was literally designed to be one. And surely computer viruses are an even bigger problem today?
The clipping titled "Perils of the lazy age", which predicts that people sitting down in front of the television instead of chopping firewood will make people "unable to stand on their own feet" sure is obnoxiously written, but the sentiment is not wrong: Obesity and cardiovascular disease is basically an epidemic today.
If these are some of the best examples of past hysteria, I guess we should listen more to those we consider hysterical today?
Of course the routing to my website was broken, and needed a fix.
But if the routing to my website is broken, Chrome clearly should not choose present the broken URL to the user as the location of my website.
You cannot ensure every domain on the internet remains working at all times. But you can ensure your browser will not trick you into sharing a broken domain with others, by falsely presenting it as working to you.
I'm curious, can you think of a good reason to hide only www?
If you visit "news.ycombinator.com", Safari will correctly show "news.ycombinator.com", not the (different) website "ycombinator.com". Unless the subdomain is www, of course, which is hidden.
Safari always hides the path following the domain name, which is probably what you are thinking of.
But the fact that someone has implemented a solution doesn't make it okay for Chrome to lie to the user, in my opinion.
But I don't think it's reasonable we should have to play these mind games with the browser because they have arbitrarily decided "www" is always equivalent to the root domain for everyone.
But I think it's equally important that the user can trust their browser to show them the correct URL for the website they are visiting, not a "best guess".