> Apparently for some people it also helps with lessening tolerance for their ADHD meds, but I'm not so sure about that.
I'd believe it. I first heard of NAC on the nootropic subreddit in a past lifetime. The benefits vary, but generally it's a safe thing with a low chance of making anything worse, but a possibility to improve things. Many neurodivergent folk have written about how they benefit.
I'd give more info on the exact benefits they found (iirc OCD and rumination loops could be broken more easily), but unfortunately my memory is failing me.
My anecdotal experience is that NAC makes me much more tolerant to alcohol. As in, I can drink a lot more without feeling the effects. Since I don't get the same buzz, I care less about reaching for a beer.
How is nac (acetylcysteine) delivered there? I can buy dissolvable tablets here in Europe but from what I see that’s less helpful for mucous, things like mucomyst require inhalation, which isn’t in otc products I know of.
In the Philippines it's available as an effervescent tablet to be dissolved in water. They still tend to work better than the western remedies (guaifenesin etc) even in this form IME.
Usually here in Canada it's available in capsule form which I find less effective.
Same here actually, I find it slightly helpful but the effect’s useful time is limited. I’ve wondered if I could capture the gas released while bubbling and inhale that…
The dissolvable tablets completely fix a runny nose for me. Much better than any nose spray, which tend to irritate the nose and lead to chronic runny nose if taken for too long.
> Trying out jj is super low-risk--since it uses git as a backend, you can test it out and bail back to git without any drawbacks other than a detached head state.
Btw, the risk of trying out other modern version control systems is nearly as low: most of them are compatible with git and you can convert back and forth. That definitely includes mercurial etc.
I tried Sapling (Facebook's fork of mercurial with more polished git-compatibility layers) and never looked back for any of my own projects.
I recently started a new job where the vanilla git CLI is the only git frontend installed on company servers, and the regressions in user-experience are painful :(
> According to a Stack Overflow Developer Survey, almost 90% of developers use Git, while Mercurial is the least popular version control system with only about 3% developer adoption. In fact, Mercurial usage on Bitbucket is steadily declining, and the percentage of new Bitbucket users choosing Mercurial has fallen to less than 1%.
Yes, they definitely slowed down innovation and decreased consumer surplus compared to the counterfactual of just taxing the behaviour you don't like (like taxing fuel or emissions).
Sure, but they could have taxed it more and not have any official fuel efficiency standards.
(And compared to most of Europe or Singapore, US fuel is taxed very lightly, and their CAFE standards are especially stupid. Especially since their loopholes led to the replacement of practical station wagons with silly and dangerous SUVs. With a more car-agnostic fuel tax, this wouldn't have happened.)
You stumbled onto the pain point. The problem isn’t the intention but the execution. The EU historically has done a better job at nailing the execution of this type of regulation.
If it slows down innovation is debatable but even so there’s still a solid principle behind it, a small speed reduction can grant a huge efficiency gain. It’s usually a worthwhile compromise. You don’t run tour engine only in the red zone because that’s where it makes the most power.
In that same sentence I mentioned the slowing down of innovation, not cars.
The government gets to decide for the people because that’s what a democratic majority wants. If you don’t want it go full anarchist. Just don’t come crying to the government to protect you when you inevitably take it on the chin.
For example would you want laws that ban giving people the mother of all beatings in the street? Or just tax it really high? Someone might just have some money burning a hole in their pocket and an intense desire to teach a lesson in regulations. Everyone has some strong opinions about their own freedom until someone else’s freedom punches them in the teeth and then they’re little lambs lining up to ask for regulations.
> doesn't mean that your neighbours need to vote on what underwear you are wearing.
You’ll be happy to find out that they in fact don’t. They only vote for representatives which then decide on important topics especially if they have impact on the wider population. Enjoy your freedom to pick your underwear while respecting all the fuel and speed related regulations.
I think OP meant the phone was going to be replaced in three years tops, so no one cared much about battery longevity. Nowadays, the battery can be the constraint for practical phone life, since few consumers can replace one themselves and by the time they pay someone else to do it, may as well trade it in and let Verizon subsidize a new one.
Having an easily swappable battery returns some power to the user.
As an example of public policy it had significant impact on death, injury, medical costs, etc.
Road Traffic Accidents before and after Seatbelt Legislation-Study in a District General Hospital (1990)
Injuries among samples of car accident cases attending the Accident & Emergency (A & E) department of a District General Hospital (DGH) in the year before and after the introduction of seat belt legislation were classified applying the Abbreviated Injury Scale using information recorded in the patient case notes.
Those who died or did not attend an A & E department were not included in the sampling frame.
The number of those who escaped injury increased by 40% and those with mild and moderate injuries decreased by 35% after seatbelt legislation. There was a significant reduction in soft tissue injuries to the head. Only whiplash injuries to the neck showed a significant increase.
The downsides to have seat belts usage not mandatory outside of reducing deaths/injuries. A few that comes to mind:
1. Parents don't wear them -> kids don't wear them
2. Friends don't wear them -> peer pressure not to wear them
3. Accident happens -> body flies out the window (risk of hitting someone, makes a mess to clean up)
4. Accident happens, person survive but is injured and is now a cost to society
Upsides (I worked with someone who refused to wear it and told me something like that):
1. Anecdote about someone that was wearing one and got into an accident and the seat belt somehow prevented them to escape the burning car and they died
2. It's less comfortable
3. Makes me feel alive (freedom)
He would only falsely wearing it when there was suspected police presence.
> 1. Parents don't wear them -> kids don't wear them 2. Friends don't wear them -> peer pressure not to wear them 3. Accident happens -> body flies out the window (risk of hitting someone, makes a mess to clean up) 4. Accident happens, person survive but is injured and is now a cost to society
If you are so concerned about this chain: price out the whole thing and add an appropriate tax.
4. Occasional anecdote about someone who knows someone who was in an accident while wearing seat belts, and the seat belts proceeded to slice their head off or cut the body in half or something else like that.
I assume an event like this happened more than zero times in the history of the world, but AFAIK it's too low-probability to worry about (with possible exception of kids under a certain age/height, that shouldn't be strapped in with regular belts in a standard adult configuration).
Also their families (the kids normalise no seatbelts and spend their childhood with no seatbelts), also first responders (???!!!)
In reality, the worse an accident is (deaths, injuries) the longer and more difficult the clean up process is .. increasing the time that normal traffic flow is impacted and increasing the danger to all those attending who are exposed to potential (and common place) cascading disasters.
The deaths and injuries impact the local health response services - raising costs, demand for resources, and impacting triage decisions (fewer injured non seatbelt wearing idiots to look after, more free resources to devote to other patients).
Have you seen footage of how quickly an unbelted person moves around a car when it crashes? If there's someone in the passenger compartment without a seatbelt they can cause serious damage to everyone else - especially children.
I already said that I will wear a seatbelt whether any government forces me to or not. I just don't see the point in telling other people what's good for them.
Because the cost of taking care of a paraplegic who didn't want to wear a seatbelt falls on the insurance and healthcare systems, which are already over strained and horribly broken, and generally distribute their costs to the rest of us. forcing seatbelts is a good thing.
> If it's a considerate decision, I support people's right to ending their own life.
I support euthanasia after proper waiting period and psych evaluation.
But if I see someone trying to end their life on a street I'm trying to stop them. It's far more likely it's impulsive and not a rational, thought-out decision.
Same with not using seatbelts. There's basically zero reasons not to, so the probability of it being someone exercising their freedoms after a careful consideration is basically zero.
> So the seatbelt mandate should only apply when kids are in the car, or only to kids?
It should apply always, because the benefit is literally life and death, and the cost is basically nothing. Why complicate law, then?
In addition to all the sensible reasons others have pointed out, if you crash at a high enough speed without a seatbelt you become a projectile. If you are in the back seat when this happens, you are most certainly a danger to those in the front seats.
If the seatbelt saves your life from an accident in which you were at fault, it is easier to prosecute and extract compensation from the living than from the dead.
> In addition to all the sensible reasons others have pointed out, if you crash at a high enough speed without a seatbelt you become a projectile.
This pales in comparison to the projectile that your care already is.
In any case, just work out the expected level of danger, convert to monetary units, and tax people who don't wear seatbelts.
> If the seatbelt saves your life from an accident in which you were at fault, it is easier to prosecute and extract compensation from the living than from the dead.
Tax non-seatbelt-wearers ahead of time. Or make sure everyone has insurance, get the money from the insurance, and beancounters at the insurace will make sure premiums go up for non-seatbelt-wearers. (And use the full force of the law against people without insurance. Or have some clever mechanism design, like selling default insurance with petrol, but give people with proven insurance a discount on that, etc.)
> However people who don't want to wear seatbelts generally only endanger themselves.
If they sell the vehicle, the decision was already made for the new owner (nobody would buy separate aftermarket seatbelts for a used car). So no, they also endanger other people. Mandating them outright is the right decision.
Their still go down after two-three years. Needing to charge twice a day is literal reason why I ever change the phone - otherwise I could use 10 years old one.
What does any deity have to do with it? Btw, has anyone done a post mortem analysis of that mandate? I wonder if it delivered what it promised. I doubt it:
All they saved consumers from is buying a 5 dollar replacement cable.
The EU certainly hasn't done such an assessment yet.
The predicted savings of a quarter billion Euro come mostly from unbundling chargers, which they could have forced down customers throats without also making technical mandates about how customers are allowed to charge.
Unbundling charger without standardizing the connectors would result in every manufacturer using their own proprietary bespoke charging connectors. Which is exactly what the situation was before usb was made mandatory.
How much cool aid do you have to drink to genuinely believe the corporate argument that using proprietary connectors is "innovative"?
> Unbundling charger without standardizing the connectors would result in every manufacturer using their own proprietary bespoke charging connectors. Which is exactly what the situation was before usb was made mandatory.
Eh, no? USB-C was already pretty much the standard before, and you could plug in lightning cable with a cheap adapter cable.
Consumers still need to buy replacement cables, because they break.
And the USB-C cable end connector is a fragile piece of shit designed by committee and forced upon everyone buy another committee, neither of which must’ve had a single mechanic engineer even once walk passed their bike shed.
Future historians will do a postmortem on the EU and discover the USB-C enforcement act as an inflection point that marked the downer trend to the EU’s eventual collapse, and the reclamation of its land and people to the great nation of Russia, where it always belonged.
Or some other equally as dreadful outcome befitting the UBS-C Bike Shed & Enforcement Committee formerly know as the European Union.
> Not even that.
>
> Consumers still need to buy replacement cables, because they break.
>
> And the USB-C cable end connector is a fragile piece of shit designed by committee and forced upon everyone buy another committee, neither of which must’ve had a single mechanic engineer even once walk passed their bike shed.
Well, the USB committee did ask Apple for the superior connector, but for whatever reason they said no. So we're stuck with this.
OTOH, USB-C is not nearly as bad as your bizarre post would seem to imply. It could be better, but as we know from experience with things like micro-USB, it could be much, much worse.
> Future historians will do a postmortem on the EU and discover the USB-C enforcement act as an inflection point that marked the downer trend to the EU’s eventual collapse, and the reclamation of its land and people to the great nation of Russia, where it always belonged.
>
> Or some other equally as dreadful outcome befitting the UBS-C Bike Shed & Enforcement Committee formerly know as the European Union.
Russia can't even handle Ukraine, a country significantly smaller in population, economy, and land area than Russia. And you think that they could take on the EU‽ A block, mind you, which has more population and a significantly larger economy. Oh, also nukes.
And you think that the EU would fall in this case because of... USB-C? Please explain the mechanism which would lead to this situation.
Well good thing is that they didn't. The only thing you need is to provide a USB-C port for charging. Nothing stops a manufacturer adding additional ports for charging, data sharing etc.
So Apple could give people the ability to use their oh-so-superior Lightning cable while also being able to use USB-C for charging. If nothing else, it means that there are no longer any "does anyone have an iPhone charger" discussions at parties because people can just charge all their phones with USB-C.
> Well good thing is that they didn't. The only thing you need is to provide a USB-C port for charging. Nothing stops a manufacturer adding additional ports for charging, data sharing etc.
That's a bit silly. There's only so much space in eg a phone.
On one hand: It does seem a bit late to regulate that.
On the other hand: I used to work with a briefcase full of different phone cables, when the people that paid me had the swell idea to offer the service of transferring phone books between dumb phones and nobody agreed on how the connectors should be shaped. I think the number of them was >40. Some of them even looked identical in shape, but were not identical in function. Some were USB. Some were serial, with different voltages. Some used two data wires for serial comms, some used only one.
I was very pleased when we stopped doing that and I got to get rid of that stuff.
I'm also pleased that someone is making assurances that we won't go back to that way of doing things.
It's OK to have a common standard, and to stick with it. (It's also OK to draft a new standard when the old one turns old-and-busted somehow.)
I don't understand your issue with USB C. Mini and micro USB connectors routinely got loose and fell out of multiple devices I owned, USB C is everywhere now and I have not encountered such issues.
I don't mind USB-C. Most of my devices have USB-C charging, and it works well.
I mind bureaucrats locking that in.
> Future historians will do a postmortem on the EU and discover the USB-C enforcement act as an inflection point that marked the downer trend to the EU’s eventual collapse, and the reclamation of its land and people to the great nation of Russia, where it always belonged.
Haha, what? I like to complain about this piece of legislation, but it's not that important. And it's not like Russia has better policy. Oh, just the opposite. (Like waging wars they can't win, or running crazy high corruption.)
Thanks for decontextualising that paragraph by not including the following paragraph.
I really appreciate it, keep up with the good work.
Bloody Clippers.
You always got to watch out for the Clippers, they’ll take whatever you say or write and clip it out of context and make it mean something completely different to what you really said.
The European Union will fall to Russia while they're looking for a USB-C charge cable that works, or looking for a charged swappable battery for their MANPADs.
> Thanks for decontextualising that paragraph by not including the following paragraph.
Eh, you know that people can just scroll up?
> The European Union will fall to Russia while they're looking for a USB-C charge cable that works, or looking for a charged swappable battery for their MANPADs.
$10 says that by 2040 Europe will institute massive concessions to Russia for helping deal with the Islamic Caliphate in Europe.
Which wouldn’t have happened if Europe had been paying more attention to stuff that mattered, and less on which charge port people had on their phones.
At 1:1 I'm very willing to bet. We just need to nail down exactly what 'massive concessions to Russia for helping deal with the Islamic Caliphate in Europe' means in a way a neutral third party can adjudicate.
If you like this kind of thing: there's a deterministic algorithm for finding minimum spanning trees in a graph that's proven optimal, but no one knows its exact runtime.
Basically, the best they've proven is something like O(n * inverse_ackermann(n)), but it seems likely the algorithm actually runs in O(n). We also already have a randomised algorithm for this problem that runs in O(n) expected time on worst case input. The expectation is over the random choices.
No, it's based on soft heaps. A remarkable data structure that I recently used to prove that you can simulate a priority queue in linear time.
By simulate I mean:
You get a sequence of instructions like 'insert x' and 'delete minimum', and you want to know what's elements are left in your priority queue at the end; but you don't care about any intermediate state.
It turns out that even in the comparison model, you can answer this question in linear time in the worst case. Precisely, with no approximation.
reply