monkeydreams

Australian giant earthworms are larger than this by far.

This is why I shrugged when I misread this as "30cm worm fossil... found in Gippsland".

I do love me the Karmais. It was a rare joy to see that their range had spread again a few years ago as they were (and still are) very close to extinct.

> The vagueness is seen as a feature, not a bug. The kid is supposed to read between the lines and find out what the problems are really about.

Pity the poor child who is capable of thinking both inductively and reductively. Such lax testing standards reminds me of the story of the WWII cryptographer in Cryptonomicon who is asked to work out how long a ship would take to travel down the river, comes up with a new theory of fluid dynamics, and flunks the test.

> I have always had trouble reconciling the "tidal stresses rip everything apart" with the idea that "everything hits the center in finite time, thus infinite density and singularity".

From whose perspective? Two astronauts, a watcher and a faller, have two very different experiences.

> Do the photons nearer the center pull away from the photons further out?

I believe their wavelengths increase toward infinity. They don't move more quickly away from one another but, rather, become red shifted.

But I'm just a layman so my guess is as good as yours.

December in Melbourne (and most of Australia) is a wind-down month. Over the week between Christmas and New Years many jobs essentially stop as we have three public holidays (which will always fall on week-days) across six days and people tend to take the opportunity to travel and enjoy the nicer part of summer. People just don't put in the work in December.

> which implies our assumptions about distance of things in the universe are wrong.

There are two easy interpretations. One of these is imagining a new entity; aliens. The other is to imagine that humans are, essentially, human and falliable and are chasing lense flares and radar glitches.

One of these interpretations is much more likely than the other.

I don't doubt the existence of aliens. I just doubt that UFOs are aliens.

> If aliens don’t exist, why are defense contractors trying so hard to shut down a bill that simply says “show us what you know about aliens”?

Convince me that you have told me everything that you know about aliens. If not, i will force you to open up your IP for scrutiny and, possibly, any passing Russian ambassadors.

All stories have a moral. That is why humans love them so much.

I was with you 100% until this point:

> it's a full on ecosystem that experiences impacts from laying large farms on top of it.

You think that the Saudi government, with the extremist clerics holding a knife to their throats, their citizenry on life-long unemployment welfare, with their drive to continue to make climate change worse, who spill oil on the sand and billow smoke into their skies, give one tiny iota of a shit about a delicate desert ecosystem?

My point was rather that the person with $600k of shares has more options than a person with $600k of housing wealth.

> You get to keep the money when you move to a less expensive area. Or you retire and downsize.

I live in a satellite township to one of the poorest suburbs in Melbourne, Australia. My house is tiny, too small for the four of us, and has cost us nearly $100k just to make it weather-tight (also with $10k of solar panels). So, in total, we have spent nearly $800k for a small home that is too small for our needs.

If I were to move somewhere less expensive I would not be able to do my job. As it is I have to spend 3 hours a day (minimum, some days it can be up to 5 hours if there are train issues) commuting to my place of work.

Australia is a huge country with a handful of large cities with amenities and only hundreds of small towns which do not. The only places where housing is on par with US towns (i.e. 150k-300k) may be in the middle of the outback, 10 hours drive from the nearest city, and be so ramshackle and run-down as to be unlivable.

Wealth is only useful if it increases the net options of the wealth holder. In the case of housing wealth - if base level housing is expensive - then owning a home is less of a measure of wealth than it is a balwark against the cost of renting and a bet on the ongoing increase in the cost of housing.

If you sell your house the only option is to re-enter the housing market through a different, equally expensive, door. You can't repurpose the money for any other purpose.

The only time it becomes "wealth" is when parents die, leaving their children with a suddenly valuable asset.

Oh, they will try ( I'm looking at you, Dell), but you can quite easily stick by your guns and refuse to accept anything other than product delivery. If they have taken your money they have to provide the goods or an appropriate replacement.

If they keep refusing you can start reporting them to various authorities such as ACCC and they start wearing penalties and have to deliver anyway.

Understanding why it took medical experts so long to realise that masks were important is a saga in its own right. It's not a case of hypocrisy as such, as the fact it went against the core belief of clinicians about what separates a serious person of medicine from a quack.

The beliefs closest to our hearts receive the least inspection.

> I’d like to see Democrats ask their wealthy donors to give that up.

What about Republican's wealthy donors, or Green's wealthy donors? Or are you suggesting this is just a problem with the others?

My daughter suffers from functional seizures due to FND and we do something similar with counting. When she is suffering from a complex motor tic we will ask her to count at a "comfortable speed" - which is always 100+ counts per minute. She will then slow down the counting until we reach 60 counts per minute at which point she has usually transitioned to a less intrusive tic or she has ceased ticcing altogether.

> I just hammered a solution like any Ape with the shakes would need!

This is an underrated approach. Following hunches and suspicions often leads to solutions that a pure evidence-based approach might miss or delay; especially if your suspicion goes against the prevaling wisdom.

> It’s every bit as strange as it sounds.

Nope. Much, much stranger.

My team have a very wide and complex domain of work; essentially we cover all of the domain of public health administration - patient management through to billing through to regulatory reporting, etc, etc. My team can be presenting formal advice for changes to statutory inpatient reporting one day, then troubleshooting a billing algorithm the next day, and then writing a FHIR parser the day after.

In light of this I budget the following time for each of them:

1 hour a fortnight for general chat (what I refer to as temperature taking) to see where each of them are at in terms of morale, etc.

1/2 hour a fortnight for 1:1 catch-up covering administrative requirements (leave, review of metrics, etc, etc).

1 hour a fortnight (1/2 per week) for metric collection and review; are they having trouble with specific elements of their domain, are certain managers, stakeholders, customers, etc, holding things up. Their work tickets vary wildly in complexity and scope so this is the absolute minimum I can spend to know where each person is up to professionally speaking.

1 hour a fortnight for mentoring, training, etc. Generally speaking the more skilled staff will contact me more often to "pick my brain" regarding how to approach certain technical/personnal challenges, how to link data across our datasets, who to contact for advice on this or that regulatory or statutory requirement.

And about half an hour per person, per fortnight reviewing their changes or service requests as I am primary CAB representative for my products - and these items are key outputs of the work they deliver.

So, in essence, four hours per team member per fortnight. Very little hand-holding for such a widely dispersed team, and they remain engaged and focused on their tasks with minimum disruption.

I have 10 direct reports across 2 teams, with responsibility for a number of actual deliverable work pieces external to these staff.

10 direct reports is about half a week's work at a bare minimum without development, process improvement, etc. 20 is insane and would lead to skill atrophy and team dissatisfaction in short order.

> Godot is much less featured but extremely easy to learn imo.

Also, for 2D, it is sooooo much easier to implement. No messing around with orthographical cameras, no tilemaps appearing with random lines, colours, etc. And 2D performance exceeds Unity's.

Yes. It doesn't have the asset store quantity behind it yet however the actual development side of things is quick and relatively simple.

Which is what public officials do because perfect is the enemy of good, but better is still better.

Ideally he probably wanted 100% compliance. And if he could get 70% rather than 60%, so much the better.

> However this is one of the many reasons why there are housing shortages in many areas.

Yes, wealth inequality and land development practices are reasons why housing is in such short supply.

> 25 or 6 to 4 by Chicago (get 2 whole mins for this one)

Three, if you misinterpret it as I did..

3:35 3:34 3:54

I suspect that the point of this technology is to experience false positives, thereby sowing further discord and distrust. They will find signals everywhere, if they are even indeed interested in bothering to filter for them, and will claim this is evidence that the next election is being stolen.

> If you want to have a maximum effect on the design of a new engineering system, learn to draw. Engineers always wind up designing the vehicle to look like the initial artist's concept.

This is a key truth that works in a number of contexts. If you want to make sure the new security policy won't break your workflows, offer to write the first draft. If you want to ensure the new automation system will work for your team's requirements - offer to chair the requirements meetings.

Humans are lazy, though some of them move around a lot in an attempt to mask this. If you get in early and set the parameters of an enterprise, you influence every iteration of that enterprise until its dying day.

Agreed. This is further warming, and we have made it worse.

> Whatever country you live in could so something in the future they don't like

When Australia invades a close neighbour and commits war-crimes against the civilian population, I will happily accept the closing of my Namecheap account.

One of the biggest frustrations I had with Twitter is those periodic decisions to swap my feed back to algorithmic. I would always find myself staring at a tweet I had seen before but which was hugely popular, or at something from some celeb I'm supposed to give a shit about.

What function do critics serve? A critical analysis of a book or movie is entirely unlinked to whether or not the piece is enjoyed by its audience. Why should the audience care what a critic says if they enjoyed a film? Indeed, should they feel ashamed that they enjoyed something that some snobby wanker told them they should shun?

So what point do critics serve?

The only critics whose work I enjoy are either a) enjoyers of the same genres and pieces I enjoy, and who compile vicious and humorous snipes at pieces I do not, or b) who don't tell me why I should love or hate a piece, but instead explain the critical elements I may not understand or might have missed without judgement. And, out of these two types, the impact of team b) lasts much longer.