davisoneee

I live close to the most populous city in Scotland (Glasgow), and even only 6mile (10km) out of the city there is extensive greenery. Rats and mice are very uncommon here. They are rarely seen in the city, and I live close to very large fields and open countryside.

1. These bricks are normally installed close to the roof, under the guttering. 2. If anything, the main rodent of concern would be squirrels...but they will nest in the gutters anyway so having a sealed metal box with a very small opening is likely better anyway.

The bricks extend into the cavity region behind the brickwork. Here, pretty much all homes have a gap between the brickwork and the structure to prevent moisture transfer (although in recent-ish history firms have done cavity insulation, which often has negative consequences as done poorly can result in quite extensive damp and mold).

No you have an equal number of options (minor and major are effectively transpositions/rotations...e.g. the chord progressions are "m dim M m m M M" for minor (m-minor, M-major, dim-diminished) chord progression, vs "M m m M M m dim" for major).

The post is likely getting to the point that, for english-speaking/western audiences at least, you are more likely to find songs written in C major, and thus they are more familiar and 'safer'. You _can_ write great songs in Em, but it's just a little less common, so maybe requires more work to 'fit into tastes'.

edit: changed 'our' to english/western audiences

EPOC only accounts for something like 60 additional calories burned in the next 24 hours...unless there is something unexplained going on, it's _greatly_ overblown how significant this actually is

...but it sounds sciencey and sexy so it's often repeated.

...that's not really an illustration of that. When you actually consider population and land size, the numbers don't seem so strange.

Just looking at wikipedia population and area (and a very simple scaling)

   % area housing = area_house * population

So...

    aus 0.08%
    nz 0.42%
    us 1.82%
    can 0.08%
    uk 2.14%

The UK has comparably _more_ of it's land covered with housing than the other nations mentioned.

When you consider population density, UK >> US >> NZ > Canada > Australia.

You would _expect_ countries with much more wide open space to have bigger homes, and the other nations homes aren't so big _when you consider their countries' size and population_.

The parent linked to a subsection showing usage for a particular object. If you click back into the root level for the document there is a header specifying ‘syntax’, and other more ‘package-level’ documentation

Definitions matter when it comes discussion, as what you say influences how people feel on a topic. Broad, non-specific definitions leave a lot of space for bias rather than clarity.

If you describe it as 'fake', I consider that to give the impression of 'the answer is NOT' this, and could lead to anti-policy.

If the description is 'unjustified and sloppy', that can lead to additional research to properly invalidate or potentially find something useful, so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

From my perspective, I don't think I ever see "the science" being decided based on a single crap paper, so it seems a bit of a skeptical straw man. Perhaps that's different in your country, state, city, county, continent, island. Perhaps that's true for a particular policy _area_ that you are invested in. In general, I find arguments on scarequotes "science" often overblown and just reinforcing existing biases.

How much 'policy' are you happy with that you've never checked to validate that it was properly replicated beforehand? How much of your skepticism is against "the science" on new policy you start with an initial dislike to...compared to policy that we consider as standard, are probably comfortable with, likely consider to be 'beneficial enough'...and yet haven't adequately scrutinized?

You say you do a cost:benefit...but where do those costs come from? To me, that's just voluntarily doing your own ignorant, sloppy science I was mentioning above. If you only consider the blatantly obvious costs and benefits, you are completely ignorant of any 2nd or 3rd order...or even your own blind spots. You may radically under or overstate, or even calculate in the wrong direction.

I think a better position is that we should have a higher bar of what level of study or replication is required for a given situation...whether that be health, housing, infrastructure or whatever policy is coming in...what kind of monetary outlay and timeline of impact is expected. I don't think most people here would be happy with a 6-person study, unreplicated, deciding policy...so what IS the threshold?

I think describing it as 'fake' is rather antagonistic. You could just as easily say 'poor quality' or 'unjustified'. I would say that more accurately describes the situation.

It could be...

    - unjustified and sloppy (not 'fake', but also not considered reliable evidence)
    - unjustified and malicious  (this i would consider 'fake')
    - unjustified and gamed (again, 'fake')
    - ...or just unjustified and under-specified (and would result in 'true' results if the conditions for replication were better studied and defined)

Lots of people like to think themselves smart for following 'first principles'...and then often end up falling in the same ditches. First principles + received wisdom is a bit of a contradiction... if it's 'wisdom' rather than evidence, you are skipping your principles to go with the received starting point...

Nothing is _ever_ certain or completely specified in science (or elsewhere)... and society is going to move forward, so what level of 'evidence' is sufficient for you? This is going to come across as antagonistic, but...what's the alternative? "The argument that science should be trusted is insane..." ... so are we expected to twiddle our thumbs and do nothing for the rest of time?

I'm assuming you trust at some point? Have you ever flown? We have theory, we have evidence, and a high level of _justified true belief_ (to refer to recent HN posts) for how flight works, but perhaps all _these_ replications are just fortuitous and 'fake'? We 'trust' Newtonian physics enough for society to _act_ and _progress_ ... and then we quantum comes along.

This article is the very first link on his homepage, under "well, i have some thoughts"

You seem to have taken the message 'want harder' from the original comment.

I took the original comment as question if you actually want the habit or are just doing it out of social or self pressure, or just for the sake of 'that seems like a good thing'.

Emphasising that you are free to drop habits, rather than pressuring yourself to achieve something that you might not really want.

...and you seem to have quickly conflated habit with *addiction*.

It could be a valid point to bring up, but being combative/aggressive with it doesn't benefit the conversation. You could word it as something "perhaps some people need to question if something is a bad habit, or if they are addicted...", rather than calling parent 'ridiculously naive'

I don't think the parent's advice is anything to do with "just try harder"...I think he's saying that we try to create habits for things we don't really care about...just stuff we think we should do for productivity or health or whatever.

You don't need to 'try harder'; you need to question your motivation for the habit in the first place. Either a thought will click that clarifies why a habit is actually important, or you'll realise you are pressuring yourself to take on a habit that doesn't really matter to you (when you strip away the bullshit)

edit: and if the importance finally clicks for you, you'll generally just start working on the habit. I struggled with weight for years, and then eventually motivation/understanding clicked and I lost 6stone/40kg/90lb in around 18 months (and have lost a little more since, and kept it off for years).

For vim/neovim users you can use digraphs, where you press `<C-k>` followed by a 2-character code to get a symbol (see `:help digraphs` and `:help digraph-table`).

For example,

    <C-k> -> gives →
    <C-k> => gives ⇒
    <C-k> d* gives δ  (greeks are generally all _letter_*)
    <C-k> D* gives Δ

Some of the combinations are a little weird to rememeber, but if you use them regularly then it's easy enough (like greek or arrows).

In the 3rd paragraph (of which the preceding 2 were very short) ...

"Before going any further, I want to make it clear that I am just a civilian piecing together this story from whatever information I can glean from the internet."

I've posted a function which should handle this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41288792 and you can bind it to whatever key you like.

I remember vaguely having the same explorer-window issue as you mentioned, which is why I use both the Active Class and Active Exe of the current window.

For the 'cycle windows of current app', i've posted a function above https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41288792

For those mentioning autohotkey, this is what I use when on windows do get the same functionality:

  CycleCurrentApplication() { ; {{{1
      curID := WinGetID("A")
  
      ActiveClass := WinGetClass("A")
   ActiveExe := WinGetProcessName("A")
      oList := WinGetList("ahk_exe " ActiveExe " ahk_class " ActiveClass,,,)
      Loop oList.Length
      {
          index := oList.Length - A_Index + 1
          State := WinGetMinMax("ahk_id " oList[index])
          nextID := WinGetID("ahk_id " oList[index])
  
          if (State != -1) ; if window not minimised
          {
              WinID := oList[index]
              break
          }
      }
      WinActivate("ahk_id " WinID)
  } ; }}}1

the 'activeclass' AND 'activeexe' are there to handle cases like explorer. I primarily use this for multiple instances of firefox (although I've got specific binds to jump directly to non-media and media firefox)

I don't see how anki is an experts tool...unless you want it to be.

You can simply dump everything into a single collection, use basic 'front' and 'back' cards...and review. Yes, it may not be 'optimal' depending on how you mark cards, but for most people, it's good enough. Better than nothing, and probably an improvement as an addition to whatever they are currently doing.

If you want expert features, you can. You can drill, tag, organise, create different templates....but none of that is really necessary, or particulary pushed on you as something you should or have to use.

As an additional tip, if you want to get rid of the "You are now fullscreen" (or whatever it says) that comes across the top... you can set the following to 0

  full-screen-api.transition-duration.enter
  full-screen-api.transition-duration.leave
  full-screen-api.transition-duration.timeout
  full-screen-api.warning.delay
  full-screen-api.warning.timeout

these are all involved in the popup when you fullscreen a video

You can make firefox fullscreen _within the window_ by changing a flag in about:config ... full-screen-api.ignore-widgets (set to true)

then, when you press `F` on a video, you will remove all firefox 'decoration', just like fullscreen mode, but it'll respect whatever position and size you have set for the browser.

There's never going to be a universal "you are male, so you CANNOT use this saddle", or vice versa... but there _are_ saddles which are marketed and designed to _more likely_ better suit men or women.

There is no saddle that is universal for anyone...so it seems like you're arguing a case no-one actually claimed?

If you go on the Fizik website, their saddle filter includes gender.

I don't think it's a service around me, as cycling isn't particularly popular in Scotland given the weather...however it may be worth phoning up and checking if any of the bike shops in your area do 'saddle trials'...where you can take the saddle home for a week or so and actually try it out to see if it suits.

There are _indeed_ female-specific bike saddles, which you could confirm by challenging your knowledge with a quick google. They generally have a changed cutout segment to accomodate pressure on different anatomy.

The US got to be a superpower because of 2 world wars and massive purchasing of US armaments by the allies, effectively transferring British Empire wealth across the water, kickstarting large local manufacturing, and being a safe production hub after the wars.

I think it's not so much that academics don't value aesthetics or don't want to change as that the alternates are NOT _strictly_ better. It's all tradeoffs. And we are used to changing template to submit to different journals, so it's not that much of an issue.

Extensive or summarised background? -- You don't want extensive background material padding every paper out with several more pages, so once you're familiar with 'the literature' (the key background details), often you can quickly skim and get an idea of the baseline of the paper just from specific citations

Citation formats? -- some citation formats are better than others...I usually publish in journals using IEEE/numeric, which can be denser but requires flicking to the Bibliography...names can make it easier to recall the gist of a paper if it's a famous one like the 'Hinton' or whatnot, but can really pad out content if you have strings of names inline

Papers too short/page limits? -- You don't want pages and pages of content, otherwise the paper is likely contributing _more than one idea_, and so is less focused (and also kind of dilutes the review process). If a paper contributes A and B, but B is weak, do you still let it through if A is great? If the contributions are distinct, you can easily have an A paper and then request some more work for B.

2-column? -- 2-column and dense can make it easier to quickly jump from section to section, or get more information on a single page...so when reading in print format (or digitally with full-page view), you can easily see what was said earlier on a page, whereas 1-column tends to have much larger font so less content-dense.

I don't think we are at optimum, but I don't think ANY new format that's been proposed gives such a noticeable benefit to some of these areas as to overtake. Fully digital with hovers and links and stuff may be useful, but would completely regress when printed out for reading and annotating.

We only highlight the cases where the cynicism paid off...and in this case praising someone who is saying something pithy _after the fact_.

It's easy to throw out cynical opinions. It's also easy to come along later and say "I _knew_ this would happen"