davisoneee

I live close to the most populous city in Scotland (Glasgow), and even only 6mile (10km) out of the city there is extensive greenery. Rats and mice are very uncommon here. They are rarely seen in the city, and I live close to very large fields and open countryside.

1. These bricks are normally installed close to the roof, under the guttering. 2. If anything, the main rodent of concern would be squirrels...but they will nest in the gutters anyway so having a sealed metal box with a very small opening is likely better anyway.

The bricks extend into the cavity region behind the brickwork. Here, pretty much all homes have a gap between the brickwork and the structure to prevent moisture transfer (although in recent-ish history firms have done cavity insulation, which often has negative consequences as done poorly can result in quite extensive damp and mold).

No you have an equal number of options (minor and major are effectively transpositions/rotations...e.g. the chord progressions are "m dim M m m M M" for minor (m-minor, M-major, dim-diminished) chord progression, vs "M m m M M m dim" for major).

The post is likely getting to the point that, for english-speaking/western audiences at least, you are more likely to find songs written in C major, and thus they are more familiar and 'safer'. You _can_ write great songs in Em, but it's just a little less common, so maybe requires more work to 'fit into tastes'.

edit: changed 'our' to english/western audiences

EPOC only accounts for something like 60 additional calories burned in the next 24 hours...unless there is something unexplained going on, it's _greatly_ overblown how significant this actually is

...but it sounds sciencey and sexy so it's often repeated.

...that's not really an illustration of that. When you actually consider population and land size, the numbers don't seem so strange.

Just looking at wikipedia population and area (and a very simple scaling)

   % area housing = area_house * population

So...

    aus 0.08%
    nz 0.42%
    us 1.82%
    can 0.08%
    uk 2.14%

The UK has comparably _more_ of it's land covered with housing than the other nations mentioned.

When you consider population density, UK >> US >> NZ > Canada > Australia.

You would _expect_ countries with much more wide open space to have bigger homes, and the other nations homes aren't so big _when you consider their countries' size and population_.

The parent linked to a subsection showing usage for a particular object. If you click back into the root level for the document there is a header specifying ‘syntax’, and other more ‘package-level’ documentation

Definitions matter when it comes discussion, as what you say influences how people feel on a topic. Broad, non-specific definitions leave a lot of space for bias rather than clarity.

If you describe it as 'fake', I consider that to give the impression of 'the answer is NOT' this, and could lead to anti-policy.

If the description is 'unjustified and sloppy', that can lead to additional research to properly invalidate or potentially find something useful, so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

From my perspective, I don't think I ever see "the science" being decided based on a single crap paper, so it seems a bit of a skeptical straw man. Perhaps that's different in your country, state, city, county, continent, island. Perhaps that's true for a particular policy _area_ that you are invested in. In general, I find arguments on scarequotes "science" often overblown and just reinforcing existing biases.

How much 'policy' are you happy with that you've never checked to validate that it was properly replicated beforehand? How much of your skepticism is against "the science" on new policy you start with an initial dislike to...compared to policy that we consider as standard, are probably comfortable with, likely consider to be 'beneficial enough'...and yet haven't adequately scrutinized?

You say you do a cost:benefit...but where do those costs come from? To me, that's just voluntarily doing your own ignorant, sloppy science I was mentioning above. If you only consider the blatantly obvious costs and benefits, you are completely ignorant of any 2nd or 3rd order...or even your own blind spots. You may radically under or overstate, or even calculate in the wrong direction.

I think a better position is that we should have a higher bar of what level of study or replication is required for a given situation...whether that be health, housing, infrastructure or whatever policy is coming in...what kind of monetary outlay and timeline of impact is expected. I don't think most people here would be happy with a 6-person study, unreplicated, deciding policy...so what IS the threshold?

I think describing it as 'fake' is rather antagonistic. You could just as easily say 'poor quality' or 'unjustified'. I would say that more accurately describes the situation.

It could be...

    - unjustified and sloppy (not 'fake', but also not considered reliable evidence)
    - unjustified and malicious  (this i would consider 'fake')
    - unjustified and gamed (again, 'fake')
    - ...or just unjustified and under-specified (and would result in 'true' results if the conditions for replication were better studied and defined)

Lots of people like to think themselves smart for following 'first principles'...and then often end up falling in the same ditches. First principles + received wisdom is a bit of a contradiction... if it's 'wisdom' rather than evidence, you are skipping your principles to go with the received starting point...

Nothing is _ever_ certain or completely specified in science (or elsewhere)... and society is going to move forward, so what level of 'evidence' is sufficient for you? This is going to come across as antagonistic, but...what's the alternative? "The argument that science should be trusted is insane..." ... so are we expected to twiddle our thumbs and do nothing for the rest of time?

I'm assuming you trust at some point? Have you ever flown? We have theory, we have evidence, and a high level of _justified true belief_ (to refer to recent HN posts) for how flight works, but perhaps all _these_ replications are just fortuitous and 'fake'? We 'trust' Newtonian physics enough for society to _act_ and _progress_ ... and then we quantum comes along.

This article is the very first link on his homepage, under "well, i have some thoughts"

You seem to have taken the message 'want harder' from the original comment.

I took the original comment as question if you actually want the habit or are just doing it out of social or self pressure, or just for the sake of 'that seems like a good thing'.

Emphasising that you are free to drop habits, rather than pressuring yourself to achieve something that you might not really want.

...and you seem to have quickly conflated habit with *addiction*.

It could be a valid point to bring up, but being combative/aggressive with it doesn't benefit the conversation. You could word it as something "perhaps some people need to question if something is a bad habit, or if they are addicted...", rather than calling parent 'ridiculously naive'

I don't think the parent's advice is anything to do with "just try harder"...I think he's saying that we try to create habits for things we don't really care about...just stuff we think we should do for productivity or health or whatever.

You don't need to 'try harder'; you need to question your motivation for the habit in the first place. Either a thought will click that clarifies why a habit is actually important, or you'll realise you are pressuring yourself to take on a habit that doesn't really matter to you (when you strip away the bullshit)

edit: and if the importance finally clicks for you, you'll generally just start working on the habit. I struggled with weight for years, and then eventually motivation/understanding clicked and I lost 6stone/40kg/90lb in around 18 months (and have lost a little more since, and kept it off for years).