It's actually part of my point.

Doctors are intelligent, you have to be to absorb the amount of information they are required to learn. However, it's specialised intelligence. Being smart about medicine doesn't make you smart about other things.

It's like we all have a pool of base intelligence. We can then pour it into various moulds. The traditional intelligent professions are often just reliant on a large amount of specialised intelligence. This actually robs them other other forms.

It's easy, when you can demonstrate high intelligence, in a difficult field, to assume you are intelligent across the board. A stupid person can often know they are stupid and so can compensate. An "intelligent" person can be blindsided by their weaknesses.

The problem is, this is wrong. Most people won't change their views easily. We instinctively downgrade evidence that disagrees with us and upgrade that which reinforces our beliefs.

Ironically, "smart" people can be FAR worse at this that stupid people. Just ask anyone who's tried to do IT work for a doctor. Smart people are able to build more elaborate mental constructs to explain contradictory evidence.

This comes to a particular head in science. Scientific papers are written in a weird way. It's always in the 3rd person, with as much personality taken out as possible. This helps when someone critiques it. Disagreements are with the paper, not the author. This is backed up by a LOT of training at university level. Even so, scientists are still prone to hanging onto outdated ideas far too long. These are people who are undoubtedly "smart" by any reasonable measure.

It was tried, quite extensively, early on in the reprap movement. No-one managed to get it working reliably. The issue is that the pellets don't feed consistently enough. This means the flow is inconsistent. This massively messes with the quality of the print.

There are theoretical ways to compensate. Unfortunately, most result in a huge jump in complexity and weight on the head. Neither is a good thing.

Basically. The benefits aren't generally with the costs, outside of a few, very niche areas. It's also now easier to source filament most places, compared to pellets. So even that isn't a game changer.

I've dodged similar collisions a couple of times, over the years. Unfortunately, this time, she didn't even touch the brakes. I was hit with a 50 mph differential, and no warning whatsoever.

I was rear ended, HARD once. That distance gave me the space to control both my vehicle, and the one that hit me. It turned a potential multi car, multi lane pileup into a 2 vehicle wreck, either 1 more dinged car.

The space isn't for the 99.999% of the time, but that 0.001% OH FUCK time.

Very few things are truly chaotic. E.g. the weather. It has chaotic elements, that make long range, hyper accurate predictions hard. We can still make larger scale predictions, like India's monsoons.

The same applies to ecosystems. We can make broad observations and predictions, without knowing the finer details. E.g. You will have a hierarchy of predators/prey. A lot of organisms on the bottom, with less as you move up. The other classic is colonisation of volcanic islands. Mosses etc come first, with progressively larger and more complex plants following, as soil develops. Animals follow the tiers of plants.

One of the old codex books. It's going back decades however. The works have changed a lot from that era. It was the same codex as the buzzer squig catapult, if that helps narrow it down.

Try some non chicken eggs. Chicken eggs are good, but they are still "value bread" vs an "artisan loaf".

Then I spend about 30 minutes forcing myself to do whatever task until it no longer is forced.

Ok, HOW do you "force yourself"? I can do it for tightly aligned tasks, for a short period, but burn out rapidly. Back at university, I managed to induce heart arrhythmia pushing myself this way.

It also doesn't help with the initiator issue. HOW do you get yourself moving in the first place? I can reliably do it a couple of times a day, but day to day life needs more than that for basic maintenance.

Oh, and don't get me wrong, I'm functional, but it runs me at my mental limit all the time. Parenting pushed that to the next level. I'm permanently riding the knife edge of burnout.

It might, but you would need to track down a heritage breed. Modern chickens have been selected to grow big and fast. They also lay eggs FAR faster. This, unfortunately, lowers the quality of individual eggs. Poor diet and conditions reduce this further. Home raised chickens fix the diet and conditions, but still use fast laying breeds.

Alternatively, duck eggs tend to be a LOT better. They have not been as heavily selected for laying speed. They also, naturally, have a more intense yoke. I grew up in a pub, in my youth. It took a while, but the customers eventually made the connection between our unusually tastes pies and pastries, and the pair of ducks living in the gardens.

I periodically used mouthwash, on my arm pits, as a teenager. It cleared the funky smell quite impressively. I would definitely suspect head and shoulders anti fungal properties as the useful bit.

I know exactly what you mean. I've done the same loop more than once.

Get frustrated => Vent => Realise I f@#£ed up => Apologised => Explained why I was upset, and what I actually wanted from them. => Problem fades away.

It's a nuclear option, but effective.

Negative reinforcement has its place. It needs to be hyper targeted to be useful. If the child is not capable of the adjustment (either due to inability or not understanding) then it can mess with their head.

I've done the negative rant at my minion. I think all parents have. I do tend to try and temper it afterwards, with an apology, and an explanation. In many ways, that was the most useful part. It both teaches emotional regulation, by example, and provides them all the information. Knowing you've upset mummy or daddy is one thing. Knowing how, why, and how to fix it, is another.

Compression of size is getting smaller, your claim/idea.

Ultimately, the ratio of intergalactic distances to atomic ones are changing in an unusual way. We have made the assumption that it is the single factor changing, and not a dozen, in lockstep, that don't seem able to change that way.

You're the one who made the suggestion, I'm just pointing out the problems you would need to overcome.

That wouldn't work. You would need to change the orbital sizes, bonding forces (EM strong and weak, at least), and flow of time exactly in lockstep. Any deviation would show up in quantum mechanical experiments. None of these appear to have simple relationships to each other. It would be a huge new lump of physics to allow this to happen.

The more likely explanation is that space has a very slight tendency to expand. It would need intergalactic (not just interstellar) distances to be detectable. We also know that (very strongly suspect) that space expanded rapidly in the very early universe. Space then collapsed into a cooler, more stable state. It was initially thought the expansion tapered off to zero, but it might be slightly positive still.

I sometimes get some amusement with people with this attitude. Just play the 'How' game.

Basically, ask them, as earnestly as possible, HOW do you focus? You'll likely get some rote answer, that's when you start digging. Acknowledge the obvious bit and drill into the difficult bit. They will quickly be left stuttering with a "you just do it" type response. See how long you can keep it going.

The more honest, earnest and even slightly desperate you are, the funnier it becomes. They just told you they have the secret to fix your life, but now won't share it. WHY won't they share?!?

Shrinking would require multiple physical constants to change. Even worse, they would have to change in perfect lockstep. Any deviation would radically affect chemistry.

You wouldn't laugh at a fat guy going to the gym.

The lady is cycling to work each morning. The initial impetus might have been bad, but she's doing a lot better than most people. Once she gets into the habit of cycling, she's a lot less likely to stop than if she's laughed at for it. It might also help her realise the truck isn't worth the hassle.

It might have been his GF. Definitely his female other half.

The difference between a mancave and a workshop is 90% mentality. A workshop is generally to do a job, or a chore. A mancave is focused on enjoyment. The line is extremely blurry, however. Particularly if you enjoy making stuff.

By example. Developing D&D in a cosy basement, with the intention of having fun, it's a mancave. By the time you're using the same basement more for boxing and organising shipping, it's a workshop. It's akin to the difference between a bedroom and a brothel.