johnday

Yep - not only is there no catch right now, but they literally can never add one. The SRD is released under CC-BY-4.0.

The only point of contention is what happens to their new product, One D&D, which will probably retain some nasty payment structure, and almost certainly not be OGL'd. That's fine though - if they build a walled garden around One D&D, they simply won't be able to compete against the open community of 5e.

> Pandoc is Haskell so it compiles to a fairly efficient binary.

This is nebulous. Haskell's compiled binaries are not ideal, for a number of reasons.[^1] GHC does very little to optimise for many typical metrics of "efficient". The binaries it produces are enormous because it (unavoidably) bundles the runtime along with the program itself, and there is a lot of empty space in the binaries. Shrinking them can improve startup times significantly especially on spinning rust drives.

That said, Haskell programs are at least _compiled_, and they do result in binaries which, if well written, can result in running times comparable to (or, sometimes, shorter than) your average hand-rolled C code that achieves the same goals.

Of course, none of this casts any shadow on the fact that Pandoc is, indeed, an excellently engineered piece of software that stands as a testament to the value of Haskell for real-world business logic and problem solving.

[^1]: This problem is fairly well-understood in the Haskell community: https://dixonary.co.uk/small

If you specify that you just want bog-standard markdown then it will not generate smart quotes. To wit:

- `pandoc foo.tex -t markdown foo.md` will not produce smart quotes.

- `pandoc foo.tex -t markdown-smart foo.md` will produce smart quotes.

Ublock makes it trivial to block the panel. I have a rule set to automatically hide it as if it were an ad (which, in some sense, it is)

A monad is a computational context, where the nature of that context is determined by two things: the shape of the data structure corresponding to it, and the definition of (>>=) which handles sequencing of two computations in that context.

Anything more specific than that should be handled case-by-case until you build an intuition for how any given monad will behave.

The trial size is not too small to be statistically significant. It may warrant further investigation by scientists in the field of clinical nutrition.

However, it is too small and insignificant for Hacker News readers to make meaningful use of, and it would be incorrect for them to read anything into the results presented. That is the difference.

> If it's clearly not worth HN readers' time, how did it get published in "The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition"?

This comment is extremely funny.

I heard a rumour that the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition might be aimed at scientists working on clinical nutrition, who could make meaningful use of this result - and not the readers of Hacker News.

I am saying that lay readers on Hacker News should not draw conclusions from this study on 17 people. Do you disagree?

In this case, previous research and theoretical expectations would indicate only a small effect, if any. This is covered in the introduction to the paper, which I'm sure you have read.

This is clinical nutrition. There are so many confounding factors that it is not reasonable to draw any conclusions about how the body works (especially as a layman reader on HN) from a study that tested 17 people. Indeed, their own introduction claims that previous larger studies have found no correlation between meal plans and effects on the body, at least wrt caloric expenditure.

> These comments are always so hilarious. It demonstrates a significant lack of understand of how statistics actually works.

I do have a PhD, but thank you for your input anyway.

In fact, planning ahead (when done properly) maximises the chance that you can be flexible.

It's hard to adapt and change flexibly if you're busy dealing with the upshot of yesterday's unforeseen disaster.

n=17, so read nothing into this result.

Also, what they tested is having no fixed eating schedule. The effects (if any) of skipping breakfast every day consistently are not measured.

Worse - the seeming intent of WotC is to effectively cancel the previous version, which mean anything that's already written including v1.0 could no longer be legally distributed or sold.

If builders are mandated to make new homes able to access the fastest speed available (usually gigabit), then there is competition to provide that fastest speed for the cheapest price. This mandate enhances competition in the ISP space.

> Or can they really revoke that licensing on previously published content?

It depends entirely on your definition of "can".

If you mean, is this action supported by law, then no. If you mean, is this action supported by WotC's own historic interpretation of their own license, then no. If you mean, can they force the hand of smaller creators by threat of litigation, then certainly they can.

They would also have to convince a court that Paragraph 9 is intended to be restrictive, rather than permissive. Nowhere does it say that only authorized licenses can be used, and it seems obviously wrong for a license to preclude its own use.

I disagree strongly. It's entirely possible to be temporarily handicapped as the result of some kind of injury. There's a reason you can get temporary handicap parking permits.

If you think that Mastodon cannot be bought and ruined by billionaires, you are wrong.

It's all too easy to imagine a (medium-term) future in which the largest Mastodon instance (or something highly compatible with it) will have more than half of the population of Mastodon in it, include advertisements in-feed, and make policy decisions that affect the rest of the Fediverse.

Having just finished (sort of) a PhD in computer science, very similar experience. I actually had to take a three month break, and nearly a second one, in the process because it was so easy to get distracted, overwhelmed and undersupported.

If you want to find out what monads are most like (and least like) you can use the website https://monadsare.fun/. You can also add your own opinions.

On the other hand, it appears that being rich does excuse criminal behavior - that is, if you hire a lot of people and get them to work in an office, and they commit crimes, the company gets fined and you don't go to prison (almost always).

That might be your understanding of "the point of not eating meat", but other people have plenty of other views.

> NHS spending 2009/2010 [...]

The numbers you cite represent a real-terms fall after inflation - despite the population growing about 8% in that time - AND a reduction as a proportion of GDP.

> It must be nice to be able to spend the same money twice. [...]

Meaningless.

> People dying right now waiting for ambulances. [...]

Yes, well observed. I do know that. The fact that more do not is frankly miraculous - and the fact that many do right now is more testament to chronic underfunding of other public services, especially elder care and social services.

> So your plan is to put all your eggs into one basket (i.e. state-run health care)

No. You have invented that line of thinking. In the UK state and private healthcare coexist. The only way to put all the eggs in one basket would be to erase the public provision of services which, in case you hadn't noticed, is exactly what the conservatives are trying to do.

Many pieces of critical infrastructure (hospitals, for example) have enormous backup diesel generators, for one.

It is possible to generate electricity from sources other than fossil fuels.

It is not possible to drive a combustion engine from sources other than fossil fuels (except in very rare circumstances).

Removing fossil-fuel burning cars from the road reduces the national fuel burden, making the generation of electricity cheaper.

What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

Yes, under a pro-spending, forward-looking government (such as the one we had from roughly 1997 to 2010), staffed public services improved and a trajectory was laid down for future improvements.

Under pro-austerity, myopic governments (such as the one we had from 2010 until now), public services have been rotting from the inside.

It's not difficult to draw a straight line from one to the other. Pouring money into "diversity" is certainly nothing to do with it, and that goes double for our current reigning party.

For what it's worth, it's a testament to the overall resilience of the NHS as a service that it has broadly managed to weather the storm of long-term underfunding and is likely going to continue on track until a forward-looking government is able to come back and breathe life back into it again. Roll on 2024.

Non-meat eaters are behind skeumorphic meat alternatives for the same reason car detractors are generally in favour of electric cars.

Moving people away from the old sources weakens the entrenched power of those who benefit from the old way (factory farms and fossil fuel companies, respectively), massively helping with one first-order problem (animal cruelty and carbon emissions, respectively) and opening the way towards further improvements that would have been blockaded by those entrenched powers.

On all of the Goldilocks planets we have so far been able to image with the resolution needed to determine the presence of life, we have determined the presence of life.

That is not mathematically rigorous, but it is, from the Bayesian perspective, enough to move the needle.

If we are talking about solar installations on land, rather than in the built environment, the W/$ also needs to factor in the cost of the land itself, which is at a premium in many places including across Europe. On that basis there is scope for an increased efficiency to lower the cost delta.

Surely it is more efficient to store the braking energy in cars for acceleration, which then reduces the amount of fossil fuels burned in the first place? (AIUI this already exists)

In fact i'm not sure why that wouldn't also apply to the trains...