It'd be great if they'd stop changing the UI, though. I was in the middle of an incident and couldn't figure out how to configure one of our killswitch flags.
The set of people who pass the hiring bar at companies like Google are not modelled as the normal distribution of the average person you come across in the grocery store.
Companies like Google are not known for hiring morons.
It is a self-aggrandizing dumb comparison, and should be dismissed as such. It reads as a desperate attempt to rationalize away these layoffs as something that only applies to others.
The quote from George Carlin, a comedian, is about the general population. The quote itself is from "Doin' It Again / Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" a special in 1990 and predates Google.
I always point that out too. And someone always points out that with distributions average and median are the same. That still doesn't make it right. What's worse is it's a quote about intelligence, so you would think it would use the correct word. Maybe that's the joke, it's summer
dumbed down and smug in the knowledge that everyone that hears it thinks "thank god I'm above average!"
Conventional wisdom says leg extensions are bad for your knees but I think the science is shaky at best. I used to believe this also until I tore my ACL about 6 months ago (I'm currently 3 months post-reconstruction).
For a long time physical therapists wouldn't recommend knee extensions for ACL reconstruction rehab due to forces through the graft, but that has changed recently. My PT recommends them to me.
TLDR:
1.Squats place a similar force through your knee, except the force peaks when your knee is bent rather than when it's straight (as in leg extensions)
2.Leg extensions are the only reliable way to rebuild quad strength post surgery, and quad strength is by far the strongest predictor of reinjury to the ACL.
I believe my lack of quad-specific training contributed to my initial injury. I did tons of squats and deads and my hamstrings/glutes were strong, but I think my quads were behind. I had trouble slowing down from a sprint during soccer/walking down stairs prior to my injury, and I think those were warning signs
I got into knot tying over the pandemic and it's pretty great stuff to know! Being able to tie down loads, moor a boat, hang a hammock, etc, using regular ass rope is a good skill to have!
My list of recommended knots:
1. End of line fixed loop: bowline (or double bowline for extra security).
2. Mid-line loop: butterfly.
3. Tying a down a load: truckers hitch, using a butterfly for the loop
4. Basic hitch: Buntline (or slipped buntline)
5: Hitch under tension: backhanded hitch
6: tying two ropes together: butterfly bend, or double sheet bend for different sized ropes
Cool to know but kind of impractical:
-tumble hitch (exploding hitch)
-constrictor knot
-blakes hitch
Are you arguing that smoke is harmless? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. No one would cook meat with car exhaust and expect it to be safe. Burning charcoal or wood to cook meat using pure smoke cannot possibly be harmless.
Put it this way - smoke is clearly bad for you and proven to cause cancer. I believe what I eat is absorbed by my body and can affect it, like medicine affects my body when absorbed. Therefore I think it’s fairly likely that eating a lot of food infused with smoke and carcinogens is a strong risk. It would be quite odd if it turned out smoke-food had absolutely 0% effect on your body, and especially making it a routine piece of food you eat would be worse than a “once in a while” thing.
So that’s my point - if you think smoke is bad for your lungs, it’s probably bad for your colon too!
It's been a while since I've done any stats but I'm coming up with roughly the same number they are (~88.5). I'm trying to find the percentage chance for which the expected value of such a bet is 0. Or are you taking issue with the wording of "chance that Trump would win"?
>In the study, which was carried out in April and May when Danish authorities did not recommend wearing face masks, 6,024 adults were divided into two groups, one wearing face masks and one control group.
>After one month, 1.8% of the people wearing masks had been infected, while 2.1% of the people in the control group had tested positive, Copenhagen University Hospital said in a press release.
>The study does not confirm the expected halving of the risk of infection for people wearing face masks
>Participants reported their own test results; mask use was not independently verified, and users may not have worn them correctly.
So the control group had no masks, and the mask group were only told to wear a mask, and we have no data for how often they wore it. If their behavior is anything like what I'm seeing in the U.S., they're wearing it into the grocery store and going and seeing friends normally without a mask. The fact the study still produced a (likely statistically insignificant) 15% reduction in risk (1.8/2.1) is surprising under these circumstances.
They were asked if and how they followed instructions and the 7% that said they did not were removed from the analysis. Only half of the remaining said they followed instructions. I also doubt the veracity of the replies. This is a weak point of the procedure.
I'm confused as to why they removed that 7%. Are they or are they not trying to test the effect of advisement? If that really was the goal, then the veracity of replies wouldn't matter, and the study would make sense - but then they also wouldn't have omitted that 7%.
It isn't clear that the people in the control group didn't wear masks. Few Danish people were wearing masks then but I'd imagine that people who went and volunteered for this study would be more likely to be the sort of people who would go and get their own masks if they weren't given them.
