Stance for board sports is nearly even, one analysis shows 56% regular vs 44% goofy [1]. It's not like handedness at all. Not sure why one was designated "normal" and the other "weird" when it's so close. My guess is that there was a very small group of skaters that came up with the name, and by chance most of them happened to be regular.
Naming things is weird. In movement/dance description, the name of the typical walk is "contrabody", but if you move your right arm with your right leg, that's called "natural".
If you use OpenSCAD I highly recommend using BOSL along with it: https://github.com/revarbat/BOSL/wiki. It's essentially a standard library for OpenSCAD full of incredibly useful things. For example, adding a radius=2 fillet to a 5x5x5 cube is just:
The blue is nicer if you do that.
Technology Connections has made 3 videos over the last 5 years mostly centering around how he hates the blue led lights used in holiday lights. I think I've only seen the 2 yr old one, but now that I have I can't unsee it. The blue is just too blue. If you see a set that is all blue instead of multi-color it's unbearable. It's just too blue. White light in blue plastic is where it's at.
Something odd about that ultra-blue color - when I'm outside at night, I can see any lit up sign in relatively good focus with my glasses on. Green signs, red signs, etc.
But anything blue always looks blurry unless I'm very close to it.
The lenses in your eyes refract different wavelengths at different angles - think of a rainbow coming out of a prism. Only one wavelength can be perfectly tuned to project a clear image onto your retinas. We are optimized for green, red is close enough, but blue always looks blurry.
But the commenter said it was red, green, and blue LEDs together, with a blue diffuser over them. Depending on the diffuser, that could produce a more pleasant result (by allowing some monochromatic red and green through), but it presumably wouldn't solve the underlying problem that monochromatic blue light can be unpleasant.
> we also wouldn’t express someone being very focused as “being on Adderall”, or a very creative idea as being “on shrooms” in a scientific publication.
We don't because nobody does, and many people might not know what you mean.
We must be thinking of different things because imo carbon taxes are the most direct way to internalize the externality. Crude oil, coal, and natural gas now cost more, proportional to their GHG potential, and the free market figures out how to minimize the cost.
It gets tricky when importing finished goods and with non-fuel sources of GHG, but it's way less complicated and more effective than any of the other proposals.
no, because the amount of carbon in each energy input doesn't directly correlate with the amount of pollution and harm, and it's a courser measure than taxing the polluting components relative to their externalized impact on health and wellbeing. we need to directly tax each of the things we don't want proportional to harm, rather than trying to simplify the problem and thereby creating unintended distortions and consequences.
Uh, the carbon content of fuels winds up as CO2 emissions, which are blamed for climate change. Taxing the carbon content of fuels is a very targeted, direct tax. It's simple, too, orders of magnitude simpler than any other proposed method.
the very point is that climate change and CO₂ are mediopolitical distractions, and your 'simpler' isn't better but rather materially worse. pollution is a consensus problem. we should directly tackle that problem, not the indirect, mediopolitically manufactured one.
* note that consensus isn't how media or political careers are made.
That is why we go to great lengths to civilize ourselves. Sports fanaticism is a fetal nationalism. Maybe we should challenge our hardwired programming, it does seem to offer a lot of control in our actions.
"Aside from" means "except for"... He said that most of them don't attempt to convert people's religion (proselytism) with Jehovah's witnesses being the exception.
I'm pretty sure your rationale is more complex than that, you probably also account for things like "how similar are they to me?". After all, you wouldn't believe a video game character if they told you they were conscious, right?
>If I can't be 100% sure that people feel in the same way that I do, then asking that same question for robots is totally pointless.
1. https://blog.benw.xyz/2013/11/the-real-goofy-vs-regular-a-lo...