I’d recommend reading this if you are interested in why making assumptions when designing a system is a bad idea (but often necessary): https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood

Especially the one on names: https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ And the one on time: http://infiniteundo.com/post/25326999628/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-time

3** status codes: 4000%

Oops

Agreed, removed

Good advice, just to add to this:

• Comments should be part of code review, having at least two pairs of eyes on comments is crucial. Something that’s obvious to one person maybe isn’t so obvious to another. Writing good comments is as hard or harder than writing good code, so having it checked for mistakes and quality is a must
• Comments aren’t the actual documentation and aren’t a reason not to write documentation to go along with your code. Often I see larger projects where each class and function is documented in comments, but the big picture and the how and why of the overall structure is completely missing. Remember that in the real world you often have a lot of folk that need to understand how the code works, who aren’t programmers themselves. They can’t read the code or don’t have access to the code. Writing documentation is still important.
• Please for the love of god when you change code, check if the comments need to be updated as well. Not just around the immediate area, but also the entire file/class and related files. I’ve worked on large codebases before with a high wtf factor and having the code do something different to or even opposite the comments is a nightmare. I’d rather have no comments than wrong comments.

As someone who has worked on embedded systems for the past 30 years: It used to be a real big deal, but for the past 10-15 years it hasn’t. We now have fully fledged multi core systems running everything. Even small embedded sensors or actuation controllers are 100+ MHz microcontrollers with oodles of flash and ram.

Now there has been an interesting turnaround with the whole chip shortage for the past years. All the young folk are at a loss, being used to just putting powerful chips all around willy-nilly. So they turn to the old folk like me to figure out designs with less chips, running busses all over and connecting dumb sensors/actuators to a central processing unit.

It’s a little more complicated than that, I would recommend the following videos to get a little more insight:

PBS Space Time for a good description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Q4UAiKacw Veritasium also has a fine more simplified description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls

In the end you would need to do the math to really get a deeper understanding of what’s going on. There’s a lot of handwaving and analogies in popular science explanations, that isn’t the full or real story, just a way to get the gist of things.

I would also stay away from the whole concept of gravitons, our best understanding right now is that gravity is due to the shape of spacetime and thus isn’t a traditional force and has therefor no carrier. There is no such thing as a graviton as far as we know it (except for sci-fi where they are the carrier for the plot in many cases).

Only 2 monitors? Them be rookie numbers, need to get them up

I think what the user is trying to say: I’m moving a large number of files to different locations. So selecting a large number of files and copy pasting isn’t really helpful. I can imagine navigating to a folder, selecting the right file, copy, navigate to the other folder, paste etc. to be very inefficient. I can imagine in such a case a copy to / move to feature is useful and I have seen that feature in a lot of other places.

Of course the user would be helped somewhat if he understood what cut meant and the other commenter isn’t really helpful in this aspect. Just saying: “There is cut” doesn’t help if the user doesn’t understand what cut means.

Also calling a user out like this is really uncool, the user obviously doesn’t have English as a first language and/or has trouble expressing their selves. This doesn’t invalidate them or their request.

Almost like, and hear me out on this, science fiction isn’t science, but fiction.

mind blown

deleted by creator

No, I do not.

https://xkcd.com/1597/

You forget people are very selfish and will eagerly join the Face Eating Leopards party, because surely they aren’t the one whos face gets eaten. In their mind they are the one with the bestest brain chip outcompeting others without doing any work and all of the people they hate get killed with the push of a button. That reality doesn’t work like that doesn’t stop them.

Another aspect may be if this gets developed in the US, surely the US citizens will be the first to have access to this new tech and have a leg up on the rest of the world. Imagine foreigners coming into your country and outcompeting because of their brain chips, TEY TUK UR JERBS! Again, that reality doesn’t work like that doesn’t stop them.

Agreed.

Even with the physics stuff if it’s something I am familiar with, she just shits all over it. She acts like the general public / media understanding of a topic is what the people doing the work actually think. No, we are REQUIRED to write a blurb for the media department. The media department runs with it and publishes press releases which are 50% BS to start with. Then the general media picks it up (if they pick it up, mostly nobody cares) and the BS factor gets pushed to 11.

Like it’s good to set the record straight and educate people what a topic is really about, but it can be done in a respectful and non-condescending / non-confrontational way. She just likes to shit on everything for no reason and usually doesn’t even go into the details, just surface level. It’s like an armchair quarterback but for science nerds.

Usually I don’t watch any of her non physics content, it’s way too cringe for me (especially the non funny jokes, like is the joke meant to be not funny and that’s the joke or?) and the whole Elon Musk thing feels like an obsession mixed with algorithm feeding mixed with hello fellow kids. The face filters she uses is also very weird and uncanny valley. When I do sometimes see something non-physics and it’s a topic I know, I get the same vibes, like very surface level, Facebook meme quality (great description @zynlyn ). And a lot of the times she gets stuff wrong and almost never goes back to correct any of it or take videos down where it’s proven to be total BS. Like the video she did on trans people which was panned by basically everybody and debunked by many people knowledgeable on the subject from different angles. That’s still up and it most definitely should not be, or have big disclaimer.

Do you sustain life? Be a lot cooler if you did

I think they usually use some variant of stevia extracts. It depends on the person, as different people are more sensitive to one thing or the other. Another big factor is what other ingredients were used, usually preservatives and stabilizers. People make big scares about some of these, but they have been used for many decades and are totally safe. But again, depending on the person, a specific combination can trigger more intense effects. Coconut oil is often used as well, which can be a trigger for a lot of people. By far the biggest factor is the dosage. As with anything bad for you, the dosage matters. A little packet of stevia powder in a cup of tea might very little, whilst candy usually has a lot of sugar and in turn a lot of sugar substitute. Eat just a few gummy bears and you’re fine, eat the whole bag and be prepared to live on the toilet for a while.

Another product often used, especially in those infamous gummy bears is Lycasin. For some reason lycasin is especially hard on the intestines, they want it out of there pronto and the best way to do that is to flood everything with water and violently eject it out of the nearest airlock.

Aspertame usually doesn’t trigger anything, but isn’t as sweet. So it’s mostly used in drinks, where other flavors and the carbonation is dominant in the taste. Drinking a couple of liters of diet coke containing aspertame is fine for most people, the acid and gas would be a larger source of discomfort than the sweetener. Eating a couple of tablespoon of the stuff would most likely trigger a response down below.

That’s the problem with most substances with no caloric value, the body can’t absorb it and tries to get rid of it by inducing the shits. Your colon is like: “Wtf is this dude eating mud?”.

This is why those sugar-free gummy bears give people epic diarrhea, they are almost completely sugar replacements. The brain and nose/mouth love it, but the intestines can’t do anything with it and want to get rid of it ASAP.

I’m not sure there is a way to fix this, which is kinda sad because I really want to lose weight, but also stress eat sweets.

Reverse chirality sugar may be a way forward, but nobody has figured out how to make it cheap in large quantities.

Well yes and no. The Schwarzwald area is actually not to far from where I live, I’ve been there often. It’s a huge forest, but there are a lot of towns, homes and tourist locations in there. It’s more like an area than exclusively a forest. I doubt there is any place you can walk in a straight line for more than a couple of hours before happening upon a road, home or town.

It’s also a very popular tourist location for people near and far, so it can be quite busy there.

I don’t think Germany has any woods where you can really disappear, most woods have enough hikers to hit almost every spot in a couple of weeks. The woods are too small and the amount of people enjoying them is too high.

You can also insure yourself to cover the funeral costs. I pay something like 50 euro per year and all funeral costs are 100% covered for the people I leave behind.

This has been looked at and methane pockets are burned sometimes. When extracting oil for example there is often a lot of methane, which is burned to turn it into co2. The problem is, we are talking about a huge area with not many people or infrastructure in them. Sometimes the methane builds up in pockets which then can be burned easily, but most of the time it’s out gassing over a big area with very little methane per square meter. Capturing that methane is not practically possible.

Maybe some combination of sheets which are reflective to reflect sunlight instead of absorbing it and at the same time direct the methane to a place where it can be burned off. But doing this across a large area would be hard and would also have an impact on the environment, so it would be a hard calculation to find out if it’s worth it. And getting funding for something like that is pretty hard. Plus a big chance of failure, what if the sheets crack after a couple of years and get fouled up, then the methane isn’t captured, the sunlight isn’t reflected and a lot of time and energy has been lost. Plus you have a big patch of nature filled with plastics to clean up.

Methane does naturally get destroyed due to uv radiation, so it isn’t long term like co2. But it’s way more potent in terms of greenhouse and we’ve been releasing a lot more than gets broken down. Levels of methane are at a all time high and rising. On a human timescale the methane will take a very long time to get broken down, even if we would stop releasing any right now.

There are satellites specifically made to detect large releases of methane, to identify human sources of methane which could be captured and burned instead of being released. Especially in industrial processes this is often an option.

Large scale meat production is also a large source of methane, which is also hard to capture. Especially when we want the cows to have somewhat of a acceptable state of living, so going outside. The only way to fix this one is for people to eat less meat, however the trend has been for more and more meat consumption instead of less.

Well the principle was sound to begin with. A company has some unavoidable impact on the environment, so instead they fund some carbon capture, which offsets the carbon emitted. Sounds OK on the surface.

However in practice there are major issues with this idea.

• There’s the short carbon cycle (think trees) and the long carbon cycle (think oil). Taking from the long cycle and repaying the short cycle isn’t equivalent at all. The short cycle is just kicking the can down the road. Sure it captures some carbon during the lifetime of the tree, but as soon as the tree dies (which is most likely within 20-30 years) that carbon gets released as the wood is burnt or rots away. Since there is no way to repay to the long cycle at the moment, this should not have been used to offset carbon taken from the long cycle.

• This only works if there is an actual increase in carbon capture. But in the end it turned out almost all of the so called carbon credits sold to companies weren’t based on an increase in capture at all. For example a protected piece of land explicitly only used and only to be used for trees/nature got turned into carbon credits and those credits were sold. Since that piece of land was previously being used and will be used in the future for trees, there isn’t an actual increase in carbon capture and thus the carbon isn’t offset at all.

• The way a piece of land was turned into carbon credits turned out to be not regulated very well at all. A lot of land was sold more than once and for way more offset than physically possible to capture with that piece of nature.

• It turned pieces of nature into a financial interesting product. This attracted the WORST of the worst people in the world. Buying up huge parts of land, claiming to develop it for carbon capture (but not actually doing that) and selling carbon credits up the wazoo. These pieces of land were usually just left to waste away and/or abused for various uses including very polluting uses.

As this became known, companies just looked the other way and continued to greenwash. Consumers who don’t know believe the claims (made by some of the biggest companies in the world, why would you doubt this?) and think they are buying environment friendly. Carbon offsets were also used as a get out of jail free card by companies, choosing to pay off their pollution instead of fixing what can be fixed.

I can recommend this YouTube video which is a good summation of the issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW3gaelBypY