jrootabega

Correction: Summer Yue deletes Summer Yue's emails. We don't say "Russian roulette shoots man."

Guess the Beastie Boys were never in the running.

I should heavily qualify this by saying that I don't think the study (which I have no access to) measured it this precisely or specifically. I think it was just people reporting roughly how many "cups" per day they drank over 40+ years. I guess I just get annoyed when I see "cups" as a unit of coffee science/health.

Ha, I get it, great Angela impression.

Translating from normie, sounds like 30-50g of beans, assuming a "cup" is 8 floz. and the water:coffee ratio is 15:1. Assuming Arabica, that's 450-750mg of caffeine.

how disk get fragment?

And if you just add them to your spam filter, it won't even work easily, because they deliberately shift around the domains and subdomains they send from every so often.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to confidently verify this from the linked material, but aren't they keeping CO2 levels the same during the hypoxic periods? i.e. isn't this significantly different than just holding your breath/being choked/sleep apnea?

There is no downvote. There is only flag, and people are hesitant to use it, if it's even available to them in the first place.

Funnily enough, just a few weeks before that, REM released their eponymous album. Perhaps Morris was inspired by that?

Yeah, it was just a creative example of the type of awful AI responses search engines, including Google, give. It tends to contradict what you say, push everything towards useless and inoffensive "there are many complicated factors" analysis, and even contradict itself.

search: "coffee is mostly water"

"No, coffee is not mostly water. That appears to be a misconception based on a popular television show. Coffee is actually about 98% water."

I appreciate that. I hope you do. But I do not for one second believe the truth of it.

Nor do I when I read passive-aggressive replies from Automattic on the Google Play store: "Hi Matthew! If you believe that your one-time payment entitles you to Plus access, which removes the ads, please reach out to us: [URL]. The banner ads help us sustain the app so we can continue making it available for free."

They had to wait for additional characters to make a good guess as to whether it was Z or SE. So they thought that having your fingers already positioned close to both outcomes would allow you to handle that delay better. Maybe it allowed you to catch back up faster, or made it easier to handle both of those threads in your brain and nerves? Perhaps whatever letters came after Z/SE were unlikely to also be Z/SE, so it made it more likely your right hand would be typing the next character?

Selling individual rolls used to be more common. I'm sure you'll still see it today in smaller stores without a dedicated aisle for toilet paper/towels.

Why would they package those in larger packs? My guess is that the paper does help protect the roll while it's waiting to be racked. Dust/splashes/unravellng/etc. Might be where hotels get their TP.

While this can be mitigated somewhat by keeping backups on hand, the card helps because it gives you a convenient record of needing to restock, which you can just drop somewhere you know it will be used. Even in personal life that might be a good idea. Dropping an empty box of pasta or dental floss on the ground also serves as a convenient reminder, but it's harder to do with a can of tuna.

Is the noon color scheme supposed to look like Finn from Adventure Time?

(George Edward Stanley, 1987)

for kids, there's The Codebreaker Kids

I had one of those 3D-only cards on my first computer. I didn't know about the passthrough and got pretty annoyed that my games sucked and never worked with the hardware 3D stack. I don't know if they didn't document it correctly, or if I just missed it. But when some support person finally told me, I was so pumped. I spent a while manually moving the cable to the 3D card when playing a game, until I finally got a passthrough cable.

The ancestor post is neither a "Complete injustice" nor "derision" nor an "insult", and it doesn't warrant a hostile mocking reply. Its tone could have been gentler, but it wasn't that bad. And the study doesn't really deserve "accolades", it deserves to be recognized for whatever it does well. Such polarization of tone and vocabulary doesn't accomplish much, and I'll even propose that it actually prevents good things from happening. It is good that the author is aware of, and acknowledges, the problems in the study. What other studies and journals have done wrong doesn't make the author or study more deserving of praise.

Also, you asked why he said "unblinded", and I think you now have the answer to that.

Hell, I'd say it's an 0<=N<1 because it involves subjective mood reporting, and there was no participant who was not contaminated by flaws in the methodology.

If the author felt good on a particular day for whatever reason, and then learned they had taken the active substance, their reports are contaminated forever. It works the other way, too. It works any way you slice it.

If he said unblinded at some point, it could have been because the study author looked into the cup to determine which substance had been taken too soon. The subject should have had no knowledge of what was taken until the entire 16-month trial was over.

We should avoid extreme polarization of our judgments in general. The study deserves some amount of praise for things it did somewhat well (like the method of blinding which is clever, but not applicable to everyone), and criticism for things it did not do well, such as designing your own study methodology for your own mood. That alone will affect the results. Simply RUNNING an experiment can affect your mood because it's interesting (or even maybe frustrating). The subject probably felt pride and satisfaction whenever they used their pill selection technique, which could improve mood on its own. Neither accolades nor complete derision are appropriate, although trying to claim too strong a result from this study is kinda deserving of derision if you claim to be science-minded.

The study was well-meaning and displayed cleverness.

Analog has been an all-around pain in the ass. I subscribed to the paper version and didn't receive an issue within the timeframe they advertise. It's bimonthly, so it was quite a while. When I wrote them, they said "Oh, we always skip the current issue in case you bought it in a store." I asked them to include that on the website, but guess whether they gave a crap.

When I let my subscription expire gracefully (because the overall quality of the writing and editing was bad), I got something like 6 - 10 letters warning me about it. They were the kind that scare elderly people with dementia into paying. They also included some dubious claims about renewing "now" and saving, but I couldn't work out how I would save anything if I did.

So things have been bad for a long time.

Do you think that the technique of using the last 4 bits to choose a further pseudorandom 31 bits from the rest of the hash MIGHT mitigate SOME future weakness as a PRNG? Or do you have confidence it is completely useless? Or neither, of course.

Might be begging the question. Perhaps it's not really that random. We common people don't usually get pictures that convey depth and orientation, and probably wouldn't care even if we did. Might only be as random as a solar system with varying orbital inclinations and directions.

If not, the forces that turn some solar systems and galaxies into rotating disks might not act the same at the supergalactic scale in time and space?

Seems like the correct answer to me. Let's assume henceforth in this post that the code still does what the original vs code authors claim it was intended to do, and nothing more. If you launch the IDE from a shell, or launch ANY program from that same shell, it will automatically have access to the environment that you're concerned about.

Here's where they introduced wrapping the environment output in "random" numbers:

https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/commit/1336b3d3c0d4338fb...

The associated issue explains that they needed to be able to ignore extraneous info returned by the shell itself, so they make the command return a token to delimit the actual environment info they want.

The very idea of spawning a shell to grab its environment has been there since the beginning of vs code:

https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/commit/8f35cc4768393b254...

There is no voluntary system which can't be sabotaged by your own feelings. Performance anxiety, overthinking, fear of success, etc. And if you let things pile up without processing them, that becomes another snowballing reason to avoid the system. One's thoughts and feelings ABOUT the system seem to have no way to be processed BY the system, so one just avoids all of it. There is also sometimes an expectation that a system will do the hard work for you, instead of just telling you what you should be putting hard work into in a certain time slice.

I am not betting my life that there is no one who is psychologically incapable of working with certain systems without intractable distress. But I doubt it.

One possibility is that they only use a small amount of time, mental effort, and context size to go over all of the messages at a relatively shallow level. If there is anything that lets them send the ball back into somebody else's court without fully digesting a message or thread, they will go for it. That other person will then be responsible for the effort of replying at all, thinking about the subject matter, accounting for other peoples' messages, and composing the reply message itself. They also probably further minimize reading intellectual subthreads, and instead keep practical, concrete items at the top of their stack.

Overall, this means that they will sometimes err on the side of being deaf or dismissive.