patall

It is such a shame and really disturbed my sense of trust in this country and whether it follows the rule of law. If they had been honest, they would have, at minimum, reimbursed those in the queue. And when I asked people in favor of the transition, even those agreed and said this should happen. But no, worst possible outcome for everyone involved.

Most immigrants understand that something needed to change. But waiting 8 years until a language requirement is needed means that you can live for seven years without feeling any incentive to learn said language. Seven years where you build a live around people also not practicing that language. But, hey, do not expect any sense of logic from politics.

Obviously depends on the weight / load per area. Here in Stockholm, our skating club starts organizing trips from 5 cm (=2inch), but black ice should hold you from 3.2 or so cm. And you can hear from the sound of the ice approximately which thickness you are on. But this is done with security equipment and in a group, so more general rules apply to anyone without experience and acting on their own. Ice is dangerous, like the outdoors is always dangerous when taken without necessary precaution.

I am pretty sure that 99.9% of material science covers very niche applications

Ice roads would be one application. Once it freezes, usual ferry services can often no longer be upheld. Then, one has to wait until the ice is thick enough to drive a car over the ice. If there was an easily applicable material to drive on ice less than usual 15-20cm of ice, that would decrease that waiting time quite a bit (and make ice roads/bridges possible in locations that would previously be unsuitable). And since it is ice, you can grow it somewhere else and transport in place with a barge.

Another is underground tunnel building. In sandy places, there are cases where they freeze the ground when building a concrete structure. If that could be reinforced with stronger ice, it might make working easier.

Similar, you can use ice as an temporary scaffold when e.g building a spanning bridge in winter. Stronger ice => easier application of said scaffold.

I wonder (no access to full text here) how they control for patients no longer able to do the exercise? Do those remain in the cohort, or are they removed (would bias the end result, so unlikely to get past review or into NEJM)? Or is that why they screened so long and so hard as selection criteria are super rigorous?

I have transported 2x4s with a bike, I have moved houses with a bike, I have send a bike across countries to a place I had never been before via standard mail. I have transported 40kg of gear with a bike trailer. I cycle in -15°C to go ice-skating. All with the same one bike while I have never owned an electric bike.

I am not working in trades, don't live rural and I dont have kids. In that case I would get an electric bike. The rest I do. Heck, I have transported my SUP and a week of resources over 4km of rural road to get around rapids in a Swedish National Park. In one go in an hour because it was getting close to sun set and I had fallen in at the rapid before. My partner would like me less if I had a car.

And what do people outside of Europe do when they want to walk for leisure? They drive to the park, because they are often not allowed to walk there!

People forget that European history before cars has lead to so many small accessible paths that simply do not exist in many American or Australian places. I know what rural Europe looks like. But you seem to have no idea what rural on other continents looks like.

But you can walk to your neighbor 200m down the road. That feels (and actually may be) illegal on other continents.

European cities are wastly more accessible as a pedestrian than australian or north american cities. And I count northern, southern, central, western and easterneuropenan cities in that.Thre other continents have some examples where the inner cities are also okayish from a pedestrian or cyclist POV, but a lot and especially suburbia is so much worse in pretty much all regions. A mining town in northern Sweden is better than suburbia on Long Island!

From experience, a lot of older people do not understand how hard it is to get an in-demand apartment, especially if rent controlled. They get the price/rent and they know that they personally dont want to pay for more housing (by having said housing built in their backyard). So this aligns with their personal preferance.

I see. So it is much less about 150 year old fiction books, but more about 1980s science literature that was only ever printed five times. That makes a lot more sense than what the public debate seems to be about.

Can someone explain why the old books could really be relevant. I get the pre-nuclear steel analogy, but why is this relevant given how much more modern texts exist. A few years ago, millions of yahoo groups were erased but now a few thousand books are what is needed to run a successful AI company? I mean, it can barely be about the information in those books (that would be very often outdated), but just for a little more text (with ever less marginal gain), what is the benefit?

The article seems to be free for me (with adblock?). Also, the link does not work.