The gist of several comments is that the paper does not actually demonstrate an accelerated global warming, but instead an acceleration of anthropogenic global warming, when removing the influence of several natural factors. To be clear, they are not discussing the fact that there is global warming, just saying that currently, we cannot say that global warming has been getting faster after 2010 with statistical certainty.
My default is ecosia and below sponsored links there is only the github and pages talking about the thing, no official or unofficial page. I guess that's better?
It gives two sponsored links to openclaw things, so no fake either (presumably, I don't know what they are).
Capable doesn't mean capable of office work though, I could see someone with a language disorder doing electronics and have trouble with words, not numbers. Or someone who has trouble with written words specifically doing most of their learning with classes and videos.
Exactly right. The individual in question produces excellent deliverables within their space. They, the coworker, are very good at receiving inputs, but not very good at outputs (other than their deliverables). In a way, it's like having an offshore worker who speaks almost none of your language but can understand it and produce good work.
> I left them exposed for 30 minutes. This is a ridiculous amount of time to leave agar plates open for, since usually you’d only open them for a few seconds.
It's actually really common to let them exposed that long. Not when using them, but to make them: once the agar medium is melted and poured in the petri dishes, closing the lid during cooling causes condensation. Having the petri dish full of water when using it is more difficult and annoying, so it's better to let them cool down with the lid open (a space-efficient way to do so is to have a pyramid of plates where each lid rests on two plates and can support one)
Also, two contaminations out of 4 plates sounds really really bad, but then the blog doesn't say how the agar plates were prepared (how many plates without exposures were contaminated?) and how long they were incubated (sometimes something starts growing after a week or two, if you're culturing a fast-growing bacteria then it's mostly irrelevant).
for what it's worth, my ophthalmologist recommended I use light mode only, with reduced blue and red (because red light actually activates the blue cones too apparently)
Then my screen time started affecting my sleep so I still use dark mode at night
But anyways all software should be configurable and follow the parent software (browser, OS) by default, css even allows for that now. There is even a "prefers-contrast" property in order to design for people who need high contrast stuff.
I do that too, I wonder how much of it is the LLM being helpful and how much of it is the RAG algorithm somehow providing better references to the LLM than a google search can?
I've been thinking of how to make a blog simple recently, and I came across xslt. It looks really cool and seems pretty set in stone, so I thought I'd ask, what are the advantages/drawbacks of making your own tech stack versus xslt? At first glance, it seems perfectly able to handle rss and other simple linking patterns, and pretty much anything can easily be turned into an xml then xslt could be used to generate an html (server-side, or rather writer-side, not like the blog is gonna change) that you serve?
XSL is neat, and it is a functional language, but between XSL and XPath, it is quite verbose. Here's a small section of XSL I use to generate my website (not my blog):
And yes, there is other code I've omitted for brevity. This is used to generate the navigation links for the site. I initially write this ... prior to 2009 (that's when I moved it into git). There have been some minor fixes to the XSL over the years, but it's largely unchanged (for a reason that I hope is obvious). Yes, I still use it, because it still works, and it's for a static website.
The gist of several comments is that the paper does not actually demonstrate an accelerated global warming, but instead an acceleration of anthropogenic global warming, when removing the influence of several natural factors. To be clear, they are not discussing the fact that there is global warming, just saying that currently, we cannot say that global warming has been getting faster after 2010 with statistical certainty.
reply