electromagnetic

My dad was gifted with cars, and got into programming with fuel injectors back in the day. He worked as a diagnostic mechanic for a lot of years with lots of funny stories (like roping himself to a car roof with the hood taken off), but he'll sit in your car and tell you a wheel bearing is going. Jump him around the seats and he'll isolate it for you, and even today he gets it on the margin before a dealerships mechanic would be able to spot it.

IIRC a 747 produces 30TB of data per hour from its engine monitoring.

It won't be long until it's in all cars, and then in expensive appliances. A washing machine that detects an unbalanced load to save the motor?

It definitely is a game changer, and I don't think we'll fully comprehend the economic value. Say a stove that can detect a pizza box smoldering on it and cut its own power. What's the economic value of saving a house from burning down? From saving a washing machine from self destructing, or a front loader from flooding your house because a flow monitor says it put more water in than should have triggered the float valve, etc.

It's not just industrial that will benefit, it'll be everything we put moving parts in.

I got 7/8, one of the game scores got me.

I'm a writer, so it's reassuring I'm able to tell the difference even in something so trivially short as game scores, and I don't follow a single sport.

I'm highly dubious of the article, mainly because it's copywritten to sell a book.

Whilst you're right, the evidence is thin to suggest a lack of sodium is the cause of EAMCs, the recommended treatment is often fluids high in electrolytes.

Notably, affected athletes often present with normal or somewhat elevated serum electrolyte levels, even if they are "salty sweaters," because of hypotonic sweat loss and a fall in intravascular volume. However, recovery and maintenance of water and sodium balance with oral or intravenous salt solutions is the proven effective strategy for resolving and averting exercise-associated muscle cramps that are prompted by extensive sweating and a sodium deficit. [1]

So whilst there might be a multitude of causes of EAMCs, there seems to be a singular treatment for it. The main hypothesised causes are dehydration, electrolyte depletion or altered neuromuscular control - which is likely caused by electrolyte imbalances.

The article authors claim "Science: There is no scientific evidence that shows sodium (or other electrolyte) deficits in those with muscle cramping." is patently false. There is evidence that sodium deficits increase EAMCs, but so does dehydration (meaning increased serum sodium concentrations), and the main risk indicator is over-exertion.

Yes there's contradictory evidence. However, if you did a generalized study trying to find out why hydraulic pistons seize you would find that there's contradictory evidence because too much and too little hydraulic fluid can seize it, and overworking it can too. Trying to claim there's only one cause is naive.

[1] http://journals.lww.com/acsm-csmr/Fulltext/2008/07001/Muscle...

Dark urine is a sign of a lot of things, but also dehydration.

Frequent urination is a sign of a lot of things, and also over-hydration.

However, assuming either are related to your present hydration is dumb.

If you're regularly saying "my urine's dark, I must be dehydrated" you should probably be visiting a doctor.

It's important to remember hydration is more than just water. Sweating means you lose salts and no amount of water you drink will help, you'll just urinate it out to keep your electrolytes balanced.

So it's quite probable his decreased urination was from being able to retain more water due to the salt intake replacing what had been lost.

I think the flaws in the thinking with these studies that try to test altruism, and other "odd" behaviours according to Game Theory is that we've become so far removed from where these behaviours originally evolved.

The aberration is that we live in densely populated areas where selfishness is a possible behaviour.

Our social-limit is estimated at around 500 people. Surnames developed around the 13th century in Britain, before that it was patronyms meaning we could recognise people via association. This is still common in rural areas, my wife's grandfather likes to travel to car shows, he's told people down in the US to just ask for him by name. He lives in a rural part of Canada and sure enough, people will reach him because everyone knows him.

Altruism works, because for the majority of human history the people you chose to help or not to help were also the people who would sooner or later face the same decision. One instance of uncooperative behaviour would render you persona non grata. Your neighbour needs help thatching his roof after a storm, do you help? Game Theory keeps saying "no, because you could steal his land!" reality says "yes, because if he doesn't die from exposure, which he most likely won't, then he won't help you round up your goats when your fence breaks and they'll eat all your crops and you'll likely starve to death in the winter".

The simple fact is most people are willing to do "favours" with no questions asked, and with no expectation of payment except "being owed one". The classic is helping a friend move. There's absolutely no reason to help someone move, until you need to so you earn the help in advance, and when someone breaks the trust the response is normally "I'm never helping that asshole again."

I think you've got to be careful when making a claim that working longer means you live longer.

Ignoring that this is anecdotal, but you're comparing across generations, upbringings, etc.

Our society is prolonging the lives of our weakest members, not our strongest. We've got centennials whose only visit to a hospital has been for childbirths.

My grandmother has outlived her fraternal twin by over a half century, plus a couple other siblings. My mother hasn't outlived any siblings.

Our grandparents are of a generation when vaccines were just beginning, and our parents are mostly of the generation where they were well in place and widely used. My grandad was born before penicillin was discovered.

Comparing between generations isn't possible, because we compare between vastly different medical practise. It's highly improbable that a child born at 30 weeks will live as long as a child born at 40 weeks.

A less healthy individual is more likely to take retirement early due to poor health. It's then poor logic to go on to claim retiring makes you less healthy.

Poor health makes retirement more likely. No one in ill health who could retire is going to work into their deathbed when they can retire and spend more time with their family members and doing their hobbies.

One of my neighbours retired after her kids finished school and moved out. She's in far better health than her husband who worked until retirement age. So anecdotes are really irrelevant. He survived the Russian invasion of Prussia.

If work related stress shortens your life span, and even isolated high stress incidents are correlated with shortened life span. What effect does having your farm commandeered by German Artillery and then shelled into rubble by Russians have on your lifespan? My guess is, not good.

I'm a writer. As much as I work on my craft, when I sit down and put my fingers on the keys I'm not doing any of it. 95% of what I write I have no conscious decision in making.

I remember completely scrapping a 1500 word piece, rewriting the whole piece and resubmitting it to my editor. He was amazed I did it so quickly, I was quite disturbed I'd written the whole thing with barely an iota of conscious thought going into it.

I don't think I'm riding shotgun for my consciousness, I think I'm a kid in the back of the wagon.

The examples given only showed that of drinking only water, which I would say is exactly how we see people today.

If someone is only drinking water, so avoiding coffee, tea, soda, wine, beer, etc. we see it as something unusual. Normally as a sign of self-limitation either due to a self or medically imposed diet.

I haven't drank a glass of water in weeks, does that mean I avoid drinking water, or that I just have something better than water to drink?

Ascribing meaning into a choice with no knowledge or insight into the reasoning inherently creates falsehoods.

The Romans weren't masters of aquaducts just because they wanted to bathe in it. They drank it, they cooked with it. It's just absolutely silly to think people didn't drink water.

I don't drink coffee because my water isn't safe. I drink coffee because it tastes better than my tasteless water.

In my opinion, once a year would be the upper limit on rereadability of a work.

I'm a fast reader, not so much in the speed reading sense, but in the sense of a hunter on the Serengeti plains. I don't need to be fast, just determined enough to get the kill. I used to read in every available free moment, and that was before ebooks.

My thing is that I'm the info-sponge. I started reading Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone when I was 16 -- for context, I've wanted to be a writer since I can remember -- and thought it was simple so I put it down and forgot about it.

At 26 I picked up the book again -- a new novel I started skewed itself YA, so YA I started reading -- and remembered it, so was skipping 5 pages at a time until I zeroed in on the page.

The book I've read most for enjoyment is Mort, which I read once when I was almost a teen, once when I was fifteen and again a decade later. I don't know how I could do that many rereads, because a reread to me already has this sense of Deja Vu where it's like a clone of me is sat in the room reading the story to me, as I'm remembering me reading the story and not just reading the story.

It's entirely different from the perspective of a writer. I've reread my own work a dozen times with ease, but only what I'm working on. Going back to old discarded and forgotten works is like visiting my own grave. So I don't know how much value there would be in reading something a hundred times.

I mean it's easy to say for a script, which works out to about a page (250 words) per minute. So a two hour movie is 120 pages, or 30,000 words. I mean even then you'd be looking at an almost two week endeavour at a normal reading pace. Now the bible, you'd be looking at a year long endeavour. About 31 weeks of continuous reading. No sleeping, no eating, just reading, just stupid.

All it produces is the same as being able to recite the lines of a TV show seconds before the actor on screen says it. Your comprehension isn't any better, I still missed jokes in Simpsons episodes I've seen too many times to count, because I lacked the capability to understand better than my maximum present ability.

So if you speed read everything, maybe rereading when your comprehension is low just adds detail like when a video stream improves in quality. However, I read with a near 100% comprehension level so rereading doesn't even feel like diminishing returns, it just feels like meaningless grunt work. If you had a clean floor and then mopped it, what improvement would you get via mopping it again? After that, you won't even see an improvement from the 3rd mopping to the 100th, and I'm sure several times in between you're going to be wondering why there's suds streaks everywhere.

RCMP have said fairly clearly on a couple of occasions that they have no interest in prosecuting individual offenders for piracy. They took down a tracker, stated explicitly that individuals who had downloaded from it had nothing to worry about, and funnily enough nothing ever came of it.

Stephen Harper is about the likeliest person to get a bill through to illegalize downloading, and the most we've got out of him so far is one that actually made it financially unviable for media companies to attempt to sue individual downloaders by capping penalties so low you couldn't even make money using a paralegal in small claims court.

With the election looming, and the economy seemingly committing seppuku just in time to wreck his ability to beat the economy drum like he did last election. So there's a strong possibility he's going to be out, and I don't think the other parties have any interest in passing any new copyright laws.

That hit likely made that hotel run at a loss that year, which when you're a massive corporation it might not look like much, but Marriott uses a franchise model.

The corporation can't risk a franchisee revolt, and you'll get that if the franchisees think there's a corporate policy out there that could potentially wipe out their profits for a year.

Yes it is far fetched. Most equipment left behind was sabotaged, as is the nature of war.

The phrase jury rigged means "use what you have to make it work". It's a logical corruption that you jury rigged the jerries equipment. It makes no sense at all that you would even find it worth mentioning that the Germans repaired their own equipment.

The logical origin is that the uses were using Jerry Rigged to mean Jury Rigging German equipment. Not that the Germans would also Jury Rig their equipment, that's like inventing a word to say they also tied their fucking shoe laces.

I'm a construction worker, and I'm the guy who fixes everyone else's screw ups. We're normally the guys who're called in when the first guy did a hack job.

I love building things. I think the maker movement is just making it more accessible, and more specifically less time consuming.

One of my dreams is to build my own house, and I've got sketches and diagrams, etc. piling up. And the other day I had the thought "I wish I had a 3D printer, because it would be so easy to print out a model." There's no way in hell I'm going to spend days of work hand assembling a model. I would spend an evening making a design to print out, and then spend a couple hours painting it.

They've been interchangeable since about the 1960's, unless you work in a maritime industry, where you would be correct.

No, jury rig is the original nautical term dating back to at least 1788. The term likely originated from French words either ajurie meaning "help/relief" or jour meaning "a day" and joined with the word rig (relating to the ships rigging).

Jury rig literally meant a temporary fix to the mast to support the rigging.

It was likely corrupted in WW2, and I highly doubt it came from the implication of the Urban Dictionary article. The Germans were incredible engineers, and often over engineered their equipment. Jerry rigging likely meant the work that the allied forces did to use the German equipment as some of the earliest uses seem to stem from the airborne forces dropped behind German lines who were under orders to commandeer their equipment. Jerry rig then likely became the phrase for what you did to fix the equipment the Germans sabotaged during their retreat.

I've never read of the Germans retreating and leaving repaired equipment for the allies, so I'd put a lot of money on that being an absolute bullshit claim.

An illustrative division would be: Micheals is predominantly "woman crafts" in that the main portion of the store is devoted to the classical archetypal "woman work" like knitting, crochet, decorating, etc. Yes it sells the entire notion of DIY. I think last I was in there was one isle that was classical "man stuff".

However, the main store behind the notion of DIY for men is Home Depot (and the other hardware stores). The inverse is shown here where the décor section usually takes up one isle.

We need to stop assigning gender roles to activities. I have a 20 month old son, and me and my wife try very hard to not genderize behaviours or activities.

I'd just like to say: Simpsons did it first.

July 11, 1991, episode "Blood Feud", the last episode of season 2. The scene is around the 7 minute mark. The implication is that the blood transfusion has made him feel young again.

There's actually a few references like this throughout the seasons of the simpsons.

It's honestly weird to me this wasn't tried in the early days of performing blood transfusions. I mean honestly the study wouldn't even be ethically questionable. You find patients that need routine blood transfusions and track their health over a period of time, you then administer blood transfusions from sources where you can control for the age of the blood donor.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was never even thought of because people seem all too willing to think of the body as "just a machine".

Given that we literally urinate out neurotransmitters, and that young people tend to be happier (it's actually called the happiness U-bend, in that 18-21 year olds are as happy as 70 year olds, and 50 years old is the lowest point in peoples reported happiness) so we could just be shooting people full of--quite literally--happiness. Given that severe depression can lead to myocardial infraction, I don't doubt general depression also has long term health effects. Also I don't think antidepressants would benefit, just because they generally make people "not feel" rather than "happy".

One of the common tactics for smuggling by boat is to keep it in garbage bags. You weight the drug bags, and carry ordinary garbage on board. If you get stopped, you throw all the bags. The coast guard only find you dumping garbage and the most they can do is slap you with a fine.

The DEA's budget is nearly $3B, and they can't do shit against rocks in a bag. The DEA's budget could be $3 Trillion, and they still couldn't do shit against rocks in a bag.

Convictions require evidence.

That's a very misleading statement, the body is able to significantly reduce the amount of iron absorption through the intestines.

Non-genetic related iron overload is rarely heard of outside of dietary supplement overuse, predominantly children eating iron fortified supplements.

For an ordinary person to eat too much iron, you would have to have an exceptionally bizarre diet, especially if you're overdosing on iron via elemental iron.

The upper tolerable limit for a daily intake of iron is 45mg. To get this via sirloin steak, you would have to eat three and a half pounds a day! Or 3700 calories of steak per day.

Given that heme-iron is the most readily absorbed by the body, and that guidelines suggest vegetarians consume 1.8 times the RDI, which would suggest an 80mg upper tolerable limit for non-heme iron.

So lets take Broccoli, everyone knows that's iron rich. 2.1mg per medium stalk (1/3lb), which would amount to 7 lbs of Broccoli a day.

Please, don't state bullshit like it's a fact.

Ah porcelain, BPA free since 1600 BC.

We've got lots of hard proven facts on a lot of topics, like vaccinations. People still don't get their kids vaccinated, and then we get outbreaks where kids die from the measles.

Perception can easily outweigh facts for a lot of people. If we could find a way to trick people into vaccinating their kids we would use it.

The attitude of "they're just stupid people who don't know better" is kind of disgusting when we've got college and university educated people exhibiting the exact same behaviour. Who's dumber? The person that doesn't know better or the person who should know better, because I think it's the latter.

So to all the people who think these are just stupid people. If the US government had exterminated 70 million Americans three decades ago, would you be giving your kids a single vaccine? Or would you expect it to be part of another genocide campaign?

Except the evolution to this point requires complete inaction on the parts of the governments.

Yes, some businesses have more money than entire countries. Because we allow it.

It was the King who decided who was a Baron, an Earl or a Lord, and it was on the King's grace that they kept that position. Piss him off, act disloyal and you'll be stripped of your rank. If your subjects stay loyal... well then you get things like The Harrowing of the North.

The US Congress has 535 members, and we're not talking about individuals we're talking about corporations, which themselves are made up of shareholders. There's no formal loyalty structure.

Your feudal Lord granted you land so you could provide for your family, and in return pay rent to him. When your kid went missing in the woods, it was the reeve and the Lord's men who helped search. When your barn roof collapsed, it was the reeve and the Lord's men who helped dig out your animals, and it was your Lord who stabled your animals. It might have been mutually beneficial, but it was still at his will.

A shareholder is invested in a company because they think it will be profitable, but most large shareholders are more invested in the industry than the individual. So if they think something might jeopardize their investment, they'll jump and go invest in another company. The managers and employees? To them it's just a job, if they think their company is going to go up against the US Government they'll be out the door and pretend they've never even heard of the Globex Corporation, even if they're wearing a company emblazoned jacket.

I see no loyalty structure that would be capable of supporting anyone trying to be a neolord. When the US government decides your company has gotten too big, it'll just nationalize it or split it.

Edit: Nice HN, act like reddit. You can't come up with a valid argument against my post so you downvote it.

Yes we get it this is some distopian idea, but it'll never happen. The closest we've ever come to an organization like this was the White Company, and they--like these private contractors will--stayed on the good side of the super power of the time, the Papacy, because their existence was entirely predicated on the grace of being allowed to exist.

I work construction and would love this, but our issue would be customers thinking we're "slacking" because in a month long job we're taking three day weekends every week.

Compound this with employers who don't value productivity over "time put in", and I genuinely think this won't happen until it's either forced or the current generation of senior management are ousted via retirement/death (as most seem to work until very close to the latter).

I think the older generation is so stuck in its mindset that it's going to take a cataclysmic shift for them to realise they've been stupid for decades, and it's the younger generations that are dragged along with it because they're yet to be the ones in control.

I'm sure kick starter would be far beyond this if they didn't only do the transactions on fundraisers that succeed their goal.

For baby bottles... I guess the search is on for the next best type of bottle.

Glass bottles for newborns as they can be easily sterilised, and be sure they have a silicone nipple that also forms the seal to the glass of the bottle.

Once they get old enough to use their own, use the playtex disposable liners. No sterilisation or cleaning required, so you only have to do the nipples, which by this age can be just soap and water.

http://www.chemicalsubstanceschimiques.gc.ca/challenge-defi/...

The Think Baby non-polycarbonate bottles appear the best for a rigid bottle, but personally I wouldn't trust something that's going to be washed extremely frequently, scrubbed with brushes or thrown in a dishwasher. You use them for up to 3-4 years, so I wouldn't trust reusing a bottle as it will age.

The playtex liners was below the detection threshold on their test, which was to put boiling water in them and then hold the temperature at 60C for 2 hours. For me that's more than safe enough for the 35C milk I'm putting in it for my kid to drink within 2 minutes.

I honestly think disposable is the way to go, because it eliminates the risk of the materials degrading. These tests are on new, not 1 year old, so the only ones that are valid in every use scenario are the disposable ones.

Most just seem to treat their kids like they're human beings, which essentially is the "Don't live vicariously through your children" and "don't be abusive" that are sure fire ways to destroy your children's lives, or at least emotional well being.

I mentioned in my post about JK Rowling's commencement speech to Harvard. Most people would consider her a success, but I don't think most people would take being a divorced single mother living on welfare as a great way to become successful.

Oh hell no, but real life isn't like a book. The twist doesn't just happen at the end.

What it appears to boil down to in the article is: do what's best for your kids by taking your ego out of the picture.

JK Rowling did the Harvard Commencement Speech in (IIRC) 2008 in which she speaks of failure, where she basically tells the audience of students (along the lines of) "For you, just being ordinary is a failure."

It was the Michele Zavos one that reminded me of this, where she's talking about her daughter basically following in her footsteps to become a lawyer, and was on the path to go to Harvard.

So she’s now 19, and she’s the youngest assistant cook they’ve ever had. And then I guess after about a year and a half, she says, “I’m going back to school.” And she does not do well at all, and she says, “I don’t want to be here.” She gets a job in Boston as the kitchen manager of the Beacon Hill Friends house. We go out to dinner, and she says to me, “Mom, I think I want to go to culinary school. Are you disappointed?” And, sort of your whole being a parent flashes by. And I thought, I better get this right. I said to her, “You know what, Add? Even if I am disappointed, here’s what you say to me: ‘F--- you, Mom, it’s my life.’ She sort of flinched and said, “My therapist said that, too, but not like that.” It was really funny.

It kind of eloquently paints the angst of a teenager against her mom just wanting to do what's best for her. However, that situation plays out very differently when you've got a parent who wants to live vicariously through their own child's successes as determined by the parent.

From the objective view, I totally screwed up. My dad had his own rags to upper-middle class story, and my parents only wanted what's best for me and wanted me to succeed. I wanted to be--I feel there should be a drum roll here--a novelist. I've lived my life predicated on the belief that "well if it all fucks up, at least I got a story out of it." So far it's served me well. I'm married, own a house, have a kid and one on the way, two dogs, and I did it all early. I sleep pretty good at night, because I get to walk into my kids room, stroke his hair and I go to bed with a smile on my face.

My brother is the success. He did well, better than my father. Except, I don't know if he's happy and he basically broke of most communication. All I know is he keeps himself very busy, and seems to drink a lot.

I think I've got a bottle of Scotch stored somewhere for a special occasion, but I'd be hard pressed to actually rustle something up to get drunk off of. I haven't drank at home in almost three years, me and my wife used to do Fuzzy Navel Wednesday before my kid was born, but that was about our extent after we bought our house, which is about where I hit my own metric of success and where I actually became happy, or at least satiated.

So I think the trick to raising successful children is teaching your kids to set their own criteria for success.

It's a year old, I tried searching a lot of the quotes it uses and they're bunk, even in French they're bunk, all linking back to this article and its reposts.

I mean the goddamn copyedit should have flagged everyone on this to begin with. Just looking at it I'm 90% sure I just bought a sham-wow. The article is linkbait copyediting 101.