blindmute

I disagree with your interpretation of primarily in regards to my comments. My comments are about a wide range of things, and when in ideological threads (curiously permitted constantly) they are primarily satire. They are also pretty much always in response to another ideological post; I am not creating ideology discussion out of thin air. So I'm just going to make a new account.

You're ignoring the method by which these things are dated. First, if a date was written on the page (extremely rare), it may well have been after the date change happened. The vast majority of writings from the time are dated to known events, like eclipses, or by reference to other known things ("20 years ago, when Joe was born" and then finding Joe's birth records).

If calendars really did advance 300 years, we are living past the advance. That means that when we see a writing reference an eclipse that we know happened in what we call 900, it doesn't actually tell us anything about the calendar having moved or not. It only tells us that something was observed 1122 years ago. That could be 900 years after 0AD, or it could be 600.

Actually, almost every instance of dating anything back then depends upon few relative date calculations which are "known". The eclipse happened 1000 years ago, so that is year 1022, and this writing referencing it is from 1022, and so this scholar writing a generation later is from 1082. This inscribed rock was found under 1100 years of dust, so the people living here were from 922, and their language existed at that time, and all records we find from this civilization are now known to be from the early 900s. Now we can claim to have evidence that there was thriving commerce in the 900s with hundreds of written records about it, so of course the dates weren't changed.

If you dig into the records people cite as evidence against the phantom time hypothesis, the vast majority of them (literally every one that I've seen) is using indirect dating in this way, which doesn't mean anything.

What is react query's role here ?

Its role is to do everything you just said in one package, plus other networking features. It fetches, updates the store, subscribes the components, caches the responses, performantly rerenders. It allows configuration of when to refetch, how to cache, polling, pagination, infinite scroll, etc etc via a simple API.

Nothing is stopping you from writing all this yourself, but libs exist for a reason. It's a terribly useful networking package. If you just use a generic store and write a fetcher yourself, you have to at the very least write logic for when to (re)fetch and for persisting the responses to the store.

An external service fetcher doesn't have integration with React because the entire tree potentially needs to know when the data changed. Once you write the code to subscribe to those changes where necessary, you've basically invented another state library.

It's a great benefit for a component to be able to specify what data it needs from remote without worrying about if an ancestor or sibling also needed it. React query will only fetch once the unique queries in the whole tree.

Without this feature, every component needing remote data D must share a parent ancestor fetching D for all of them, even when the children are not conceptually related. Adding another component higher in the tree means you have to hoist the fetcher up to that level, etc. React query is an incredible upgrade to anything else I've used over the years.

My reasoning is that the coffee will cool in a curve having high rate of temperature change at first, and slower later in a long tail until it reaches room temp. Adding the cream will "remove" a fixed amount of "heat units". The heat of the cup can be graphed as heat/time and it will look like exponential decay.

If you remove those units at the start, you've reduced the starting temp a bit, but you haven't much changed the long tail of the cooling. You essentially just started the coffee at a slightly cooler temperature, but this doesn't affect the curve much. Or to think of it another way, the change in temperature at the start corresponds to a small amount of X axis (time) on the curve.

If you add the cream later, the temperature reduction corresponds to a larger amount of time on the curve. This means the temperature will be lower than the above.

So to my intuition, cream first should yield hotter coffee

It's not about per capita, it's about total. We can not only reduce their resource usage, but also produce less food ourselves, all for free. It's win-win.

It would also help the planet greatly if we stopped sending aid to Africa and other poor nations. Without our help, their populations would decline quite a bit, reducing their meat consumption and emissions by a huge amount. I know this is an unpopular sentiment but we have to be pragmatic.

Why is this a problem, exactly?

1. We already produce way more food than the entire world can eat, even if it were distributed equally

2. When population begins butting up against the limits of food production, demand for cheaper plant based food will rise. Most will be unable to afford meat, making the meat market naturally shrink itself for economic reasons. Likewise if meat becomes too expensive due to resource constraints.

3. At the point where population exceeds food supply, there will be at worst 1 generation of starvation, and then population will stabilize to have enough food

3a. Infinite growth of the population is not sustainable or desirable. Even if meat were banned, this same story will eventually happen again with any vegetable that is less calorie efficient to grow. Do we want 30 billion people eating literally one food, or 25 billion eating a varied, though less land efficient diet? At some point, the world will have to accept that there isn't enough food to have 3 children. At that point, when the 2 child policy is global, what kind of diet should be possible? We can stretch it so that we're all eating literally one crop and there's absolutely nothing more we can do to feed the world, but hopefully we stop breeding a bit earlier than that, to end with one where people can still enjoy meat.

I tried to slap my wife, but my hand was repelled by her PhD force field

Hmmm, if it wouldn't pass the Senate then I guess a lot of states' constituents don't want this. Sounds like it's better left to a state by state basis.

There's simply no empirical evidence that you love your wife/mother, so it would be foolish to believe that you do. Until a study is funded there's just no way for you to know. Trust science

If we only want profitable people represented, we can skip the extra steps and just have a voting fee, or even just a landowning requirement! Then the poors won't be able to screw up the country at all

Because the country was explicitly founded in a way that local matters more. If you want abortions, go to an abortion state. Is it so intolerable that Mississippians as a whole want different things than you and your state residents do?

This is exactly how things should work. If you don't like the politics of one state, you should move to another state. States should retain authority over their laws not enumerated in the constitution. The diversity of states, some with weed, some with no income tax, some with abortion, some with an oil stipend, is a great thing. Hopefully most companies end up supporting this

If it's the majority opinion it should have no problem being passed in federal or state legislature

Any state law that deprives someone of life and / or liberty is unconstitutional.

It's not. It's literally not. Stealing food is illegal, even if you were going to die of starvation without it. Breaking into someone's home is illegal, even if you were going to freeze to death outside. And now, in some states, abortion is illegal, even if you were going to die from giving birth.

States or congress should pass a law allowing abortions if that's the will of the people. The court should not invent a law out of nothing; this ruling is legally correct.

So true. Glad to see the regression has been reversed, a bit, today.

Apparently it is unclear to some people, but that's a subordinate clause. It is explaining the following independent clause.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

"Because A, B". It is emphatically not, "B if A" or "B for the purposes of A".

Which part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear? States cannot make laws overriding the constitution's bill of rights.

I disagree. The service is free; they aren't obligated to do anything. If you want support, pay for it, via Fastmail or the like. People think they are entitled to not only a free email provider, but also free drive storage, free google docs, free search, free SSO, free calendar, and now free support. You're not entitled to any of that.

I don't see anyone arguing that transsexual women should be allowed to compete with women, so I am not sure who are you directing your comment at.

Many people are arguing it, successfully; that's why TFA is notable. My comment was rhetorically directed at readers who may agree with them.

Next, I would say it's undisputed that even if someone has gone through body development as male, after prolonged period of lacking testosterone, their advantages diminish and they are not really competitive with males

Their advantages diminish to the extent that they cannot maintain as much muscle mass as a man. The structural advantages remain, such that they are always at an advantage against women. I would say they become like weak men.

I have no problem with a transgender section of sports. I just don't foresee that happening. The pool is so small, and nobody would watch it.

I honestly can't see any better way than this. The disparity stems from sex. Biological, real, physical, genetic sex. This is the difference, and this is what the categories are, in recognition of the difference. Humans are a binary sex species, and the males are stronger. We realized this many many years ago, and understood that in order for women to be able to compete in any sport at all, they need to not compete against men. Transsexuals do not have biological, real, physical, genetic claim to being women. They just feel like women. Sorry, but physical development doesn't care about your feelings.

Transsexuals, I understand you want very much to compete in the womens' section, but you are not women, and so you cannot fairly compete with them for the same reasons that men cannot compete with them. I understand this is an upsetting problem for you, but your desires do not overrule the entirety of female competitive integrity. If you went through puberty as a male, tough luck, you cannot compete against women anymore. Just as I cannot compete in the Special Olympics intellectual disability sports because I went through full normal brain development, you cannot compete against women, because you went through male hormonal development.

I said media, not "the media". And like my post would indicate by saying media, the large majority of popular media does just what I've said. Can you point out any popular media outlet that advocates for traditional gender roles? How about any targeted toward under 30s? Because I can point out literally dozens of unique, popular publications such as HP, WP, Vox which have published articles of the reverse viewpoint.

Whenever someone pretends that modern mass media is not overwhelmingly in favor of the current zeitgeist, it seems to me that person is either arguing in bad faith, or is startlingly naive. Finding one minute counterexample of a publication that no one has ever heard of does not imply an overall balanced media landscape. It would be as strange as arguing that western 'the media' doesn't support Ukraine over Russia; just absurdly incorrect to a cursory inspection.

It's not a personal issue. OKCupid has published a lot of data on this. The top 20% of men as rated by women are having overwhelmingly more sex through online dating than anyone else. It's not close; it's more of a cliff than a curve. It doesn't matter how much you "like yourself", you will be swiped left if you're not physically attractive.

I am not saying this as sour grapes. I have had sex with dozens of women from Tinder, putting me in the top success percentiles of male users. The reality for average men online is extremely bleak. Denying this, giving advice to "like yourself" or to do therapy, or the ever common "you have to be happy alone first", are entirely fabricated coping mechanisms.

If you are even getting a handful of dates from the app from which to test your personality theories, you never had the problem at all.

You are unfortunately a victim of propaganda; many men today are. Women did not magically in the last 50 years override all biological instinct and traditional desires that they have had for millennia, even though media would like you to believe otherwise

I see this misconception a lot so I'd like to correct it. Hormone levels at a given moment have very little to do with physical performance in sports. Testosterone is important during childhood, puberty, and while training. Not at the point of competition. A large, athletic adult male, put on estrogen for a few years will still be incredibly, incomparably stronger than an elite woman. His bones are bigger, his muscles are bigger, his connective tissue is bigger, his leverages are better, he recruits more muscle fibers at max effort, his vertical leap is higher, his power production is higher. All of these things are innate physical characteristics of a body bathed in testosterone throughout childhood development, and they will not go away until he begins age related decline. The biological difference is insurmountable once puberty takes place.

This is why even elite female athletes, even with high testosterone, even when taking testosterone, even on steroids, even in the olympics, are physically competing on the level of high school boys. It is impossible to overstate the physical advantage that being a male provides. It is not about the current hormone levels.

I think few untrained men today, and even fewer women, truly understand the magnitude of natural strength difference between the sexes. They don't experience it in daily life. They think, oh, a man can just take estrogen and he'll be pretty much on the same level as the elite women. Let me put it in context:

- The US women's olympic soccer team lost a training match to an under 15 boys team, and it wasn't close

- The world record for 100m sprint by a woman is regularly beaten at state competitions by high school boys

- The world record for female deadlifting, 606lbs, set by a woman weighing over 200lbs, was beaten by a man weighing under 123 pounds (the lowest male weight class)

- This record of 606lbs is considered "pretty good" for a powerlifting male, nothing special at all

- It takes most fit, active women months of training to even be able to press a 20kg barbell above their head 5 times. A sedentary male can always do this.

- It takes years of serious training for a woman to bench press 60kg. Most men can do this innately, or within a couple of months of the same training.

- The world record for female standing vertical jump is 30 inches, which is below the average of a college football player (vertical standing jump is considered a proxy for power)

- A man can train to lift 100lbs over his head relatively easily. A woman will basically never be able to do this even after years of training. Any random gymgoer can grab a woman and lift her overhead like Rafiki lifting Simba. Most women cannot lift a 25lb box over their head.

I can go on. Why does this happen? Is it because the men currently have higher testosterone? No! It's because their tissues were bathed in testosterone in the womb, during childhood, during puberty, and into adulthood. It made their bones thicker and stronger. It made their muscles develop to contract more efficiently. It made their joints develop with more advantageous moment arms. It made their lung capacity greater. None of this has to do with muscle size, training, or muscular development! It also made their muscles bigger, but that's not the issue. None of this goes away when you reduce your adult testosterone levels.

I see this misconception a lot so I'd like to correct it. Hormone levels at a given moment have very little to do with physical performance in sports. Testosterone is important during puberty and while training. Not at the point of competition. A large, athletic male, put on estrogen for a few years will still be incredibly, incomparably stronger than an elite woman. His bones are bigger, his muscles are bigger, his connective tissue is bigger, his leverages are better, he recruits more muscle fibers at max effort, his power production is higher. The biological difference is insurmountable once puberty takes place.

This is why even elite female athletes, with high testosterone, even when taking testosterone, even on steroids, even in the olympics, are physically competing on the level of high school boys. It is impossible to overstate the physical advantage that being a male provides. It is not about the current hormone levels.

It's really not that much when you're fat. A Domino's medium pizza is over 1600 calories and I can eat that as a thin person. Add in soda, dessert, etc. And if you have a 'cheat day' which is a common pattern, then it's trivial.

I like to write "Takes X% of the time it took before" for maximum disambiguation