Luggage tipp: Have exactly one, easy to grab main piece at luggage that goes on your back or on wheels. Have at most one tiny extra piece to carry. The second your luggage exceeds three it becomes a massive hassle: You cannot hold on to things, you will lose one piece and your fun trip descends into a disorganized mess.
Luggage which clips together like a storage/day backpack combo is very valuable for this: Your backpack might be comically large, but you can haul all your stuff with free hands. At your accomodation, you can leave the large bag and continue on your day pack.
Free hands are critical when travelling by train or bus, or if you just wanna get a snack and drink.
This lets you maximize storage on the cheap “1x carry-on, 1x personal item” plane tickets. No checked luggage; the 45L backpack just goes under the seat in front of you.
Osprey also makes a good one. Sometimes I need to check something bigger especially if I have a long walk planned but I usually use an Osprey Porter 40Lish (may be a newer line I haven't tried). Yep. Big compartment and use some organizing cubes/bags.
In these systems you pick what you see and don't rely on a third party algorithm for that. If one instance allows the publications of things others disagree with defederation is an option.
Under no circumstances should we let AI filter the fediverse. Freedom is worth more than mild offense.
i started lemmy with a programming instance, as it's a bit more focused on what i want to see. on android i use an app 'Sync for Lemmy' which makes it a little easier when i want to branch out into viewing all of lemmy.
honestly, any platform these days is going to need a lot of filtering to cut out what you don't want to see
- Lemmy is FEDERATED ( google about it )
- If you want to see only posts from LOCAL ( not local to your instance ) posts select "LOCAL" default is "ALL" ( Federated from all )
Thanks, I think it got better in at least one instance of those. But for some reason programming.dev is okay either way. Feels like posts don’t change if I switch between all/local. Why is that?
Hä?! A clock shows the period of time we are currently in. A clock only showing hours would for example indicate that we are in the 14th hour of the day, for the entire duration of that hour. That is not an error. Similarly, a hh:mm clock will show the hour and minute we are currently in for the duration of that minute.
No clock can display the exact current moment of time. That would require infinite digits, and even then those will be late, since lightspeed will ensure you recieve the femtoseconds and below really late.
What time it is, is just made up, it's something we can decide freely through social power, as evidenced by timezones and daylight savings and leap seconds.
Commonly the resolution is something like minutes or a few of them, that's the margin we'll typically accept for starting meetings or precision in public transport like buses.
The utility of femtoseconds in deciding what time it is seems pretty slim.
Yeah, I think labelling it "error" is a bit of a strange way to look at it to be honest.
It's only error if you're trying to measure time in seconds, but are doing it with a clock that can only measure hours and minutes. If you want to know the current minute, then a clock that can measure minutes it is 100% correct.
It's an interesting thought experiment, but really all it's saying is that half of the time 10:00 is closer to 10:01:00 than 10:00:00, but this imply you care about measuring time to the second which prompts the question why it's being measured in minutes?
To be charitable, I suppose in the real world we might occasionally care about how close 10:00 is to 10:01 in seconds, but the time shown on phones can't tell us that so on average we will be about 30 seconds out.
Why do you focus on the vaccine and not the novel, highly virulent virus which has killed tens of millions and disabled hundreds of millions? What makes it more likel for you that the vaccine causes this and not the virus?
Well, there's also the anecdotal problem here of someone having taken all the proper vaccine steps here, and still getting multiple bouts of increasingly severe COVID.
Doesn't peak so well of the vaccines and all the insistence they received.
> Doesn't peak so well of the vaccines and all the insistence they received.
It's one anecdote, the vaccines were never touted as 100% effective, statistically some people would not have the complete benefits, some others would have adverse reactions. That's how it works, that's how it was talked about. People were encouraged to take it because statistically it was proven to be effective, and studies done post-facto confirmed it.
Is it 100% effective? No, absolutely not, no medicine is and I have no idea why people still create this straw man...
I read it as the parent poster is addressing a likely comment asking if they had not taken the Covid vaccine.
They're not blaming the vaccines, as you seem to be implying. The Covid vaccines developed were effective and highly recommended for very good reasons. No one ever claimed that they would be symptom-free for all people.
Funny, I read it as "I've caught COVID even though I was fully vaccinated, and these problems stemmed from COVID" rather than "vaccines caused these symptoms!!1!eleven!".
Fudnamentally the genes have to code for a biologicaly system that is able to adapt its behaviour well enough to allow for dynamic behaviour while also keeping it on guiderails to make it function as a bee. Importantly a bee emerging from its brood cell immediately gets to work without any training. Where does this information come from if it is not genetic?
Per the paper, one of the first jobs is the 'nurse stage', where they care for other developing bees. It's not impossible that they do that based on their recent experience in the developmental stage. Maybe unlike humans, they don't forget everything from that experience (at what point do human babies forget that?).
The problem is PFAS are in basically all the water on the planet and persist in the body for several years. Even if they might have a small effect that will likely be magnified due to accumulation and the long persistence. We have had very similar scenarios before (lead, asbestos,... ) and they had horrible consequences. This is the time to get ahead of this cycle.
If it's bad and we don't avoid it = potential disaster
If it's no problem and we avoid it = Some unnecessary losses
If it's no problem and we avoid it = No problem
Currently, considering past patterns, it looks like PFAS are problematic and the potential cost of failing to mitigate could be very high. So being more cautious is the rational solution, even in the face of uncertainty.
Going by the pattern of the comment, I would assume this was a typo. Maybe they intended to say:
"If it's no problem and we DON'T avoid it = No problem"
Lots of substances may not need to be tested if they occur frequently in nature as we can assume that life has already mitigated the problems that they may or not cause. If we start to widely distribute these naturally occurring substances, then we need to re-examine what effects they may have (e.g. lead occurs naturally, but putting it into the air produced a very harmful effect on human development).
If it's a new substance that doesn't already occur in meaningful quantities, then we need to be very careful before we start putting it into water supplies as that has the potential to disrupt a wide variety of life and habitats. To merely consider it not harmful due to lack of testing is really foolish.
It also means that there's no control group. I think it was in the New Yorker, an article about the chemist who was asked by 3M to investigate the health effects of PFAS after workers in their factories were getting sick. She tried to find blood samples that were PFAS-free in order to test the detection limits of her equipment, and there was PFAS in virtually every sample.
Do we have any economic models which managed to predict any non-obvious, relevant things?