slaymaker1907

Besides passwords, I know EMDR is basically an attempt at an antimemetic for PTSD. However, one thing I’ve wondered about that therapy is how effective it is at also reducing the behaviors of PTSD.

I had almost total disassociative amnesia after sexual abuse by an older friend in elementary school, possibly Jr High. While I remembered the friend, I still don’t really remember the abuse and know about it until my parents warned me about this person moving back while I was in high school. However, I was still very sensitive regarding any nudity (even with sexual partners) and personal space until I spent some time with a therapist.

I think the memories of the abuse were truly gone and not repressed, recovery of repressed memories seems to be pseudoscience. However, it doesn’t seem implausible to lose only the episodic memory of the trauma.

This is so shitty, imagine taking 30% from donations to creators. It should only be 30% from the money that Patreon itself makes off of subscriptions.

One thing that I think would dramatically improve the routine screening numbers at doctors' offices would be to try and take it after the patient has been sitting down for a few minutes waiting for the doctor after the other vitals have been taken. If I'm going to sit around for 15m+ anyways, why not use some of that time to let BP stabilize?

Luckily, we have *.test. I’ve used that one quite a bit.

I heard they wanted to change it to just ADD in the DSM5, but it would apparently cause a lot of trouble in various statutes that specifically reference ADHD.

I don't know, erythritol is the one where they found this alarming association when they weren't even expecting it. Couple that with new research showing that the effect occurred *in every subject* and I personally think there's enough evidence to say that there is no known safe amount of erythritol to consume. These studies look extremely different than your typical "hur dur, XYZ is toxic or ABC is a superfood!!!" garbage studies.

After all the fiascos of companies changing the license on stuff, I’m a fan of what Linux. No copyright assignment and lots of contributors so relicensing is nearly impossible.

I tried writing in this "safe" way for quite a while, but I found the number of bugs I wrote was much higher and took way longer than just using railroad-style error handling via early returns.

The problem with having an explicit else for every if block is that the complexity of trying to remember the current context just explodes. I think a reasonable reframe of this rule would be "Every if-conditional block either returns early or it has a matching else block". The pattern of "if (cond) { do special handling }" is definitely way more dangerous than early return and makes it much harder to reason about.

Their justification is here https://github.com/abseil/abseil-cpp/issues/720

However, I personally disagree with them since I think it's really important to have _some_ basic reproducibility for things like reproducing the results of a randomized test. In that case, I'm going to avoid changing as much as possible anyways.

I’m not really sure how you fix it. Considering it specifically calls out being the default option on iOS, we can assume that’s going to change. However, I could also see Chrome’s market dominance challenged. Maybe they’ll be forced to somehow split that off and Chrome will need to be funded through some combination of donations or selling its own ads/data.

I had to fight with numerous doctors to finally get treated for scabies despite having extremely severe symptoms and despite my partner at the time having scabies. My immune system was apparently good enough to keep it from being easily detected under a microscope, but lo and behold, I had complete symptom remission once the dermatologist I saw went ahead and prescribed an antiparasitic anyways.

Maybe for a basic eye exam, but they're also checking for things like glaucoma. Glaucoma in particular is tricky because you may not notice early on, but any damage done to your eyes before treatment is permanent.

In my experience, the cost for glasses/contacts is mostly in actually buying them anyways. Therefore, I just go get my eye exam done and then just buy them online for much cheaper than any retail store. Supposedly the cheap online glasses aren't as good, but they're good enough in my experience and then I don't feel quite so bad when I inevitably lose them somewhere.

I think you're reading "at this time" as "never" when in reality, they want to do that separately since that sort of conversion is a huge undertaking in its own right.

Additionally, separating it into two steps allows them to more easily launch this as a preview feature, get feedback, and then commit to a design before trying to overhaul the whole standard library. If they try and do it all at once, that gives them little room to actually iterate on the feature.

As someone who has written Java in industry, I'd rather dynamic checks only happen when I explicitly ask for it and have everything else done statically. Bean validation works great since while the object might be incorrect temporarily, I know it's valid as soon as I validate it explicitly (or it gets validated by the framework before entering my code).

In fact, I'd even prefer Objects.requireNonNull(s) be used instead since that's even more explicit than the cast in the last case. However, I'd also like for there to be an Objects.unsafeForceNonNull(s) that just bypasses any explicit check unless there's some sort of optimization that would otherwise prevent. The unsafe method lets you implement your own requireNonNull without adding a bunch of complicated static analysis.

There are legitimate reasons to pull in someone after hours, but it really has to be catastrophic. I'd 100% want to be called in if I deployed something knocking out 911 service for a whole state and I was the only one with the knowledge to actually fix it in a timely manner. However, most problems are not like that and are either able to be delayed until an actual business day or can be solved by someone else.

You would probably want to use RefCell instead of Cell. It allows you to safely upgrade into a &mut using only a constant reference to RefCell, but it dynamically verifies that it's actually safe using ref counting. The ref counting also isn't too expensive since it isn't atomic.

There's another reason: we need to do string stuff and we absolutely can't stall. Malloc always has some chance of stalling due to heap fragmentation. The leaf function requirement is also not necessary. You just have to make sure you don't alloca too much memory given how much is remaining on the stack and roughly how much memory you know subsequent calls will take.

It's not all that much worse than using a huge, static stack allocation. In fact, there are cases where alloca is safer since you can take into account how much stack memory you already have available before incrementing the stack pointer.

You should check out Scribble which uses Racket. It has a bunch of different renderers including HTML and Markdown. However, unlike Markdown, you can easily write extensions for it in Lisp, even within the document itself. https://docs.racket-lang.org/scribble/running.html#%28part._...

I suppose that makes it inappropriate for something like rendering comments, but it's a great way to write documents. I used it a lot for writing papers since there's a lot less boilerplate and was much easier to use than TeX.

There's a debate on how unsafe/unsound this technique actually is. https://github.com/ogxd/gxhash/issues/82

I definitely see the conundrum since the dangerous code is such a huge performance gain.

Unless you explicitly set your clock speed/voltage, it's overclocking, I can almost guarantee it. There has been extreme carelessness from MOBO manufacturers on top of Intel's problems.

To be fair, I think a lot of the benefits of public transit go to people who aren't even using it. When you make it easier to go somewhere, more people will go there which is good for business at that somewhere. There are also the benefits of reduced traffic for those who do end up driving.

That's only true of macros created for the purpose of reducing boilerplate code. However, the best macros actually reduce errors and improve code quality by enforcing invariants more than can be done without macros.

Actually, banks use eventually consistent systems in many cases. They'd rather let a few customers overdraw a bit than stop a customer from being able to buy something on their card when they have the funds for it.

3 models and a bunch of sizes as well. The Giant Propel Advanced SL 0 has 6 different size options. Even for cheap bikes, it’s common to have a small, medium, and large frame size.

As far as restricting technology, stopping at 70s tech seems really arbitrary. There are already rules and regulations for what you can use.

One final note: I’m pretty sure UCI would get a big lawsuit if they mandated one bike from a particular manufacturer due to antitrust concerns.

The trouble is that people have different preferences for different equipment and by mandating one particular bike, you disadvantage a lot people based on who does better on a particular bike and aren't judging people solely based on who is the better cyclist. Consider the absurd extension of using exactly the same equipment where even the size of the bike is exactly the same, saddle height is the same, pedal length is the same, etc. There will be maybe one person who that is ideal with and whole lot more people suffering injuries from riding incorrectly sized bikes.

Therefore, since we can't all have exactly the same bikes, we need to come up with a definition of what is "fair" to adjust for the bike that someone races on. Sure, this allows for some degree creative engineering, but is that really a bad thing so long as money doesn't become the determining factor of who wins? It pushes the science of bikes forward and eventually that new tech will make its way to everyone, including amateur cyclists.

The first two require a lot more effort in video editing than creating a forum post. Plus, it’s just going to be digested and regurgitated for the masses by people much better at communicating technical information.

Interesting, I hadn’t heard about the Pentium overlocking issues. My theory on the current issue that running chips for long periods of time at 100C is not good for chip longevity, but voltages could also be an issue. I came up with this theory last summer when I built my rig with a 13900k, though I was doing it with the intention of trying to set things up so the CPU could last 10 years.

Anecdotally, my CPU has been a champ and I haven’t noticed any stability issues despite doing both a lot of gaming and a lot of compiling on it. I lost a bit of performance but not much setting a power limit of 150W.

I’m not even sure Microsoft could actually restrict 3rd party code running in kernel mode like that from a legal perspective. There are a certain requirements about documenting interfaces in Windows from the 90s antitrust stuff.

One potential positive is that it may help foster actual cooperation between the parties when a new problem arises that really needs some solution not covered by existing law instead of just relying on the executive to fix things. Once you start cooperating on some things, it's much easier to cooperate on more difficult issues.

Most politicians are not extremists who would rather see the US become a failed state than cooperate with their political opponents. It would be like a (mentally healthy) married couple choosing homelessness because they disagree over what color the walls should be.

Yes, sleeves weren't much of a thing until the 2000s and they do seem to make a big difference in my experience.