The opposite issue exists in men's clothing - it seems to be harder to find clothes that fit shorter/smaller men. "Medium" sizes tend to be quite large.
Don't get me started on torso lengths! I'm 5'11 but wear a 30" inseam pants. My torso is long, so most shirts are too short for me. I'm not overweight, I'm 160 lbs, so finding a shirt that actually fits me is very difficult. If it's long enough, its too wide. If its the right width, it's too short.
I have the exact same problem. 6'0 (183.5 cm) height, 160lbs (72kgs), and a long torso. Mediums and even smalls are ideal for my shoulders and chest but it's a crapshoot if they will keep my belly button covered through a normal range of motion. I don't want to bare it and can't imagine anyone wants to see it.
Tentrees, Fox and Prana are the brands I've found that consistently fit my upper body.
Curious how you generate the maps. OpenStreetMap turns out to have most golf course features mapped by volunteers, so it's possible to pull that data (see here for a fairly rudimentary example: https://github.com/npilk/hacker-yardage). But you may have a better source.
I see you mention looking for topographical data at a good resolution. I'll follow that with interest. There are US public datasets (IIRC) at more like 3m or 5m resolution... not bad but not really good enough for golf, especially greenside. I couldn't figure out how to pull that info programmatically in the past, though.
Overall this is super cool work, will be watching for more!
I wonder if this has implications for AI alignment? Maybe prompting with poor spelling and grammar will make the AI eager to please the privileged, high-power user. (/s)
I'm pretty sure you can still open that fridge by hand. The design is the same as many existing Samsung fridges - there are no visible handles, but you open and close the doors with handles under the bottom or over the top of the doors.
Still not a winner for me, but not as ludicrously dumb as only being able to open the doors with your voice would be.
> The end does justify the means. This is obvious with even a few seconds' thought, and the fact that the phrase has become a byword for evil is a historical oddity rather than a philosophical truth.
> Hollywood has decided that this should be the phrase Persian-cat-stroking villains announce just before they activate their superlaser or something. But the means that these villains usually employ is killing millions of people, and the end is subjugating Earth beneath an iron-fisted dictatorship. Those are terrible means to a terrible end, so of course it doesn't end up justified.
> Next time you hear that phrase, instead of thinking of a villain activating a superlaser, think of a doctor giving a vaccination to a baby. Yes, you're causing pain to a baby and making her cry, which is kinda sad. But you're also preventing that baby from one day getting a terrible disease, so the end justifies the means. If it didn't, you could never give any vaccinations.
> If you have a really important end and only mildly unpleasant means, then the end justifies the means. If you have horrible means that don't even lead to any sort of good end but just make some Bond villain supreme dictator of Earth, then you're in trouble - but that's hardly the fault of the end never justifying the means.
Hang on you’re asking me to consider a philosophy that is explicitly aligned with the concept as a counterpoint?
Admittedly I was raised Catholic and it was pretty much the opposite of that. I’m not holding to any one point I guess. I just feel like I “know” regardless of outcome, the current administration did what they did for all the wrong reasons.
I made a page about this myself - Model is 6'2" Wearing Size Medium - https://pilk.website/2/model-is-6-2-wearing-size-medium
reply