pitdicker

To add something similar: I am now at the point where maybe a few times a day I can visualize a glimpse of a memory, but otherwise it is blank and I have no visual dreams. But it does not hinder the ability to think about complex systems in any way. My day job involves making 2D technical drawings from multiple angles, 3D modelling, and of course to come up with the solutions before putting in the work of drawing/modelling stuff.

To give an example from my software at work, structural engineering: You make a 3D-model (BIM, Building Information Model) of the steel skeleton of some project. The software can than generate 2D drawings, the blueprints. All beams, colums etc should be labeled in the drawing with the steel profile and quality (if non-standard).

However the software has a terrible label placement algorithm that happily switches around the labels of adjacent elements. And it does so without notice after some changes to the model. That is behavior that can lead to pretty dangerous mistakes.

The reply of the software company: you have to check it anyway. That is why you get paid, right?

Software engineering takes surprisingly little responsibility compared to other engineering disciplines. This seems like a good development to me.

Of course you can't expect someone who just put something online as a hobby project to take much responsibility. But to ask some basic security/reliability from companies, foundations etc... Shouldn't that just be normal?

As it was explained to me warts are caused by a virus, which at some point the local skin tissue no longer attacks. Any treatment that provokes the immune system in the area without damaging the tissue too much has a change of waking up the immune system to the wart's virus.

If that is true it is no surprise to me all sorts of folk medicine work on warts.

On average man burns ca. 2500 kcal per day, mostly in rest. One hour of reasonably intensive cardio burns 500~600 kcal. If you have two such workouts a week it comes down to an increased energy use of 2*600/(7*2500) = 7%. Or a large meal. Just looking at the numbers it seems spending some time at the gym is not going to do much for loosing weight. Or said differently: eating 7% less is easier.

Of course cardio and strength training are useful for building/preserving muscle mass and general fitness. But for weight loss looking at food seems more effective.

When it comes to economics it never ceases to amaze me that we build an entire system on the basic assumption that everyone acts primarily in their own self-interest, and that that system somewhat manages to function.

Luckily when it comes to regular cake cutting there may be a host involved that just wants to give his guests something nice. And the guests hopefully just enjoy the cake instead of being overly sensitive about the fairness of the divisions.

Or something changed in the environment that made younger fish less healthy.

> The syncytiotrophoblast is the outermost layer of the placenta, the part that is pressed against the uterus. It’s literally a layer of cells that have fused together, forming a wall. ... There’s no other structure like this anywhere else in the body.”

> When evolutionary biologists like Chuong mapped the genomes of these cells, they found that the protein that allowed these cells to fuse into a wall, called syncytin, didn’t look like it came from human DNA. It looked more like HIV.

So the entire premise of the placenta evolving from a virus rests on the fact that the organ has a unique function requiring a unique protein in the body. Saying the source probably is a virus seems quite a leap of thought. And aren't there many highly specialized proteins in the body?

Has anybody has some more information on what protein in a retrovirus looks similar to syncytin?

If wish we could merge this comment with the thread where people are defending Youtubes right to show ads. I am so glad there is technology available to choose what I want to read and see without being forced too much other content.

If a CC2 building collapses, the expectation is that in only about 3% of the cases this leads to someone dying. I don't know the complete reasoning, but can imagine some factors of why this number is far below 100%: a building is not always in use, there are often warning signs with time to escape, and collapse can be localized (not the whole building).

It may be nice to know the safety factors used for structural engineering of homes, offices and other regular buildings in the EU.

The Eurocode defines 3 consequence classes: CC1, CC2 and CC3. CC1 has the lowest consequence and is used for regular homes, light industry and agriculture. The chance of dying as a result of structural failure is low, 0.001. The chance for a CC2 building (apartment buildings, offices, hotels etc.) is defined as moderate with 0.03. And CC3 is for special buildings, such as large stadiums, with a high risk of death on structural failure, 0.3. There are other factors that go in defining a consequence class however, including economic and social concerns.

The consequence class maps to the chance that we find it acceptable for a building to collapse in a given year. Causes can be anything, like extreme weather. For CC1 this is 1 in 100, for CC2 1 in 10.000, for CC3 a chance of 1 in 100.000.

So the chance one or more people die in a stadium during a heavy storm due to structural failure could be 1 in 300.000 in a year if you purely look at the statistics behind the structural safety standard.

The statistics map to simple reference values for the loads of wind, snow, rain, usage etc. and easy safety factors. For example CC2 has a safety factor of 1,5 over all variable loads.