icegreentea

Even though some of these are pretty old, they look fascinating. The human imagination is really something. That skyscraper bridge would look so badass in real life!

I have a N5 (ya...), and I've found that somedays I'll be getting ready to go home from the office (where I sit like 20ft from a WiFi AP), and find my phone down to ~20-30% battery life - and a quick look at battery stats will happily tell me that my WiFi somehow used up like 50% of my battery. I have no idea whats going on with that... sometimes I can notice while I'm using the phone doing some pretty low power stuff (playing some music...) that the back will just start getting hot. Andddd there I go turning off my WiFi. I have no idea how much this is helping, but I certainly feel dumb having to baby my smartphone like this.

Thats because you have enough thermal mass and evaporative cooling capacity to withstand those temperatures for a short period of time - ie, very little of your body will experience drastically elevated temperatures for long - if at all. Remember that air (even humid air) is not a super great heat conductor - so while the air might be very hot, it's going to be pretty bad transferring that into your body, which in turn has a lot of mass to distrube heat over, and good conductivity to move heat away from contact areas. And that whole sweat thing works pretty well too (especially in a dry sauna).

Being submerged into a 90 degree water bath will probably rapidly hideously wound you and/or kill you.

I wouldn't use 'probably' at all. The level of proof submitted is incredibly light - it only inspects two and a half proteins - and doesn't attempt to inspect the relationship between its proposed mechanism (change in hydration shell density) and protein denaturation.

They show two graphs of protein denaturation curves showing maximum rate change in 50-65 degree range, and a curve of a different protein's hydration shell density changing. At the very least, showing correspondence between hydration shell density and denature curves within a single protein would be significantly more convincing.

While protein folding and interaction is devilishy tricky to compute, the basic idea that injecting extra energy into a system thats held together only by weak hydrogen bonds will disrupt structure and function hardly requires invocation of additional forms of water.

This isn't to say that the claims may not be true. But I would not jump to "probably".

In fact, your quoted statement doesn't even say that proteins become less stable, what the quoted statement says is that a SINGLE protein (lysozyme) undergoes irreversible structural changes over 65 degrees.

We know of a variety of high temperature resistant proteins (Taq Polymerase for example). While is certainly true that most "ordinary" (ie non extremopile) proteins will probably suffer irreversible structural changes in about that temperature change, it's not super great proof.

No, its just too expensive, and probably too heavy.

If OP is right (pretty sure he is), he said that by using something completely free (average weight), we were able to achieve like 50+ years of safe operation of largish commercial airliners. That's amazing.

Also, the problem isn't too much weight per se, it's weight distribution.

I mean, most of what North Americans do in their every day life is robbing a child in Africa of... all sorts of things.

Can you clarify what your culture is? And who specifically these out-groups that you worry about are?

I'm not trying to bait you - you're essentially making an argument that relativism in some forms runs into problems when pressed to limits. It's difficult to discuss this without understanding whereabouts you think these limits lie. I don't think anyone can really make an argument about the logical structure of your argument per se, but most will have issues with how you connect various "real world entities" to components of your argument.

In another post I just made an assumption about your beliefs - maybe I was wrong.

Sure. It's just xenophobic.

And since the OP's culture was clearly a white man's culture - a culture that has been relatively slow to accommodate others, in many ways its still a racist, sexist vision - granted one with unusual bluriness at the edges.

They are all pluses, but most of those didn't exist till the last couple years. So effectively the first 6 or so years of Python 3 existing had much less incentive.

I think the flip around - ~30% adoption of a newest version at 1-2 years in - especially one that breaks backwards compatibility isn't bad.

I've started numerous python projects at work over the last year all on 2.7. I think we just started the last one. We're finally ready to jump to 3.

You can interpret that statement in any number of ways. That quote originated no later than 1994. The semi-conductor industry then was certainly dominated by men. In that sense, the use of the male gender is surely just a byproduct of its environment - if nearly everyone you work with and compete against is a bunch of dudes, you'd surely end up using masculine pronouns all the time.

Another interesting thing is the entanglement of male personal identity with the corporation. Because men don't actually own fabs - corporations own fabs. Economic/legal entities designed to exploit human labour and creativity own fabs. The very people muttering these statements about real men are doing so while embedding themselves into a matrix of control.

And another way to interpret this - even if a positive vision of masculinity merely includes sufficient self dependence and a capability to provide for others - ie to be free, then this statement is blatantly true. The statement is that people who are truly able to be free are those who own the methods of production - something which the vast majority of men (or people really) in our world do not.

I've found the ftp-sync extension's sftp support adequate for my use so far. I've definitely found full-syncs to be a bit slow when there's a lot of stuff in the folder, but it seems ok so far.

Are they sleeping 3 hours a day every day? Or is that just their average when they get a shitty on-call rotation?

I think both cases are ridiculous, but it's worth separating the two cases.

It's worth noting that many developed world's medical systems have a problem with the acute-chronic gap. Remember that pretty much all systems grew out of acute care - as a result, nearly all of them are quite good at it. But one of the problems with increasingly good acute care, as well as general increase in public health is the rise of chronic care issues.

The sheer inefficiency and ineffectiveness of America's chronic care is not alone. Here in Canada, it's pretty clear that our system strains when put up against chronic care.

There's certainly a lot to fix, but as you've pointed out, doctors are a huge component in the current system that has the change. This points to the fact that somehow we need to engage and get buy in from them.

One of the things that I'm always wary about when reports like this come out is that while they present a wonderful opening into engaging with current stakeholders, it's also very easy to put current stakeholders on the defensive, and have them quickly adopt a us-vs-them mentality, something that certainly is not conducive to change.

Practically no one in the time period you care about thought that the Earth was flat.