limbero

You're correct, but only for fertilized eggs. Unfertilized eggs are single cells.

Nitpick maybe, but I don't think oocytes are the largest cells, it pretty much has to be some sort of neuron. A sensory neuron for eg. someplace in the foot will be almost as long as the person is tall, and even if the neuron is extremely thin, it's gotta beat the oocyte for volume.

No, the "quote" (more like anonymous anecdote) is quite literally about blood running in the streets presenting an opportunity to buy assets at reduced cost.

I did the " Separated by a Common Flame" puzzle (you're doing something funky with copy/paste so I had to right click to copy the title and all the clues).

It's fun, but I have some pointers.

1. Try to follow NYT's cluing rules, like plural clues always have plural answers. I was tripped up by "Bark pieces soaked before scattering over coals (8)" having the answer WOODCHIP.

2. It's very difficult. I solve NYT pretty handily 7 days a week, and difficult crosswords in Swedish too, but I ended up using 21 hints, and not only because I rushed. The lack of crosses makes it a lot harder to get a lock on the grid.

3. There was some questionable cluing in general, like "Shredded cabbage side at every British barbecue (8)" for COLESLAW, which I would not consider a particularly British side, and "Shallow inflatable pool beside the barbecue (8)" for PADDLING. Omitting the noun for that type of compounded adjective-noun word is fine I guess but felt clunky.

I like the gimmick itself though!

Turns out it is exactly that, the OP's post has an update from them:

> Thank you for your comments. We just wanted to confirm that all Moleskine notebook covers are created by our designers, while AI was used to enhance the background of these images. We hope The Lord of the Rings inspires you!

Cool, throughout this entire read I was thinking "I'm gonna save this, it reads a lot like dynomight". And then at the end it turns out it was dynomight all along. I guess I should read headers more carefully.

Sorry, but you seem to be implying that European public owned media outlets are not normally to be trusted. Why?

I started out writing a list of European countries with high quality public broadcasters, but the comment started looking silly since the list quickly grew very long.

Agreed, broadly I use the same apps, and they either stagnated or got worse like the author mentions. And it kind of says a lot that the stagnated apps are the ones I like most.

Isn't this an egregious headline for such a neutral article? I guess it's just clickbait, but I haven't previously found Politico to be this extreme.

And the article itself describes the actual setup accurately in one of the opening paragraphs, so clearly the author knows the facts:

> The site lets visitors compile a mass email warning about the bill and send it...

And most of the other headlines on their current front page are quite boring and descriptive.

Wow, this is both really fun and very technically impressive!

This resonates hard with me. At work I slave away under the edicts of the biome linter and I haven’t been able to articulate very well why I hate it so much. I think it comes down to your neighborhood analogy, it feels like consistency is enforced not just on the outside of my house, but inside as well, and I am effectively blocked from making any design decisions it does not agree with. Its opinions are not necessarily bad, but at least half of them I would have preferred to treat as guidelines. (Yes yes, I can //biome-ignore but that is not my idea of a cozy living room nook).

It feels good to see someone finally make this argument on the internet.

Thank you, that’s very kind.

In a literal sense, I agree with almost everything you wrote. He does not want to directly make the claim that he believes affirmations are magically affecting reality. He aims the text at people predisposed to certain types of woo. And he wants to convince those people to try his other type of woo. He doesn't say what he himself actually believes.

Where I differ from you in my take on this is that I also weigh what isn't there. He doesn't provide any form of alternate explanation. Nowhere does he say anything that comes close to "I don't believe that affirmations work this way" or anything of the like. I also don't agree that his hedges clarify anything, rather they muddy the waters.

He presents a thesis, presents other people's arguments for that thesis, presents no arguments against, and then explains that he lives his life in a way consistent with believing in that thesis. The hedges fill one function: to make it harder to argue against him. If the arguments aren't his, the chapter stands even if the arguments fall.

To me, that is basically arguing for the thesis, but in a roundabout and quite defensive way. What other point would you say that that chapter conveys?