He doesn't shower as far as I can tell. He mentions once (paraphrasing) "I'm lucky I don't sweat much and smell". He practices basic hygiene and appearance (shaving, etc) and washes his clothes in public laundromats, as shown in a couple of his videos. I guess a quick washcloth in a public bathroom can get to where it matters most, and having clean clothes helps a lot. But he also doesn't ever eat out in restaurants, visit crowded indoor spaces, mingle indoors, etc - places where it would matter most and people would notice or comment.
The dude on their phone is not comparable to the an AV carrying a family of 5 unpredictably veering into a concrete divider. One is negligent, the other has done nothing and could have done nothing, they only trusted the system. How do you reconcile it as merely a question of numbers then? So you trade 100 human-error accidents for 5 "blue moon" AV accidents, and this is good because it's statistically much safer. But that's also 5 accidents that wouldn't have happened to safe, diligent drivers.
Statistically, yes, but I think people can be afraid of the lack of direct accountability for AVs. A distracted/drunk driver, for example, is something easy to attribute cause and blame to. And you're not afraid of the car, you're afraid of the potentially negligent, dangerous people driving it.
But an autonomous object that behaves wildly unpredictably simply because of a malfunctioning sensor or a software bug is something that defies known reasoning which you're normally trained to respond to. You can no longer make eye contact with drivers at a crosswalk, instead you can only assume the AV will behave as normal, and if it doesn't and runs you over there's nothing you could have done differently and you were just unlucky and lost the statistics lottery.
I am very uneasy of car manufactures and regulators writing me off as a factored-in statistic. You are basically then allowing vehicles on the road with a deterministic cause of incident.
Perhaps this is just a difference between two valid personal views.
For me, people are the thing that will be wildly unpredictable. I anticipate that autonomous vehicles will eventually make roads seem extremely machine-like & predictable.
I recognise that Tesla's FSD isn't there yet, but I anticipate that it eventually will get there.
> The value of errno is 0 at program startup, and although library functions are allowed to write positive integers to errno whether or not an error occurred, library functions never store 0 in errno.
So this program correctly tests whether printf or fflush wrote to errno. You just can't refactor it into a function you call not at startup... I suppose that is unless you're keeping to a convention where you always set errno back to 0 after any call that might have set it...
Peek and her team found that muscle repair after injury was greater when mice were active or awake compared to when they were inactive or resting.
It seems sleep alone isn't the most important factor. Otherwise more sleep would linearly be beneficial to health and recovery, but, from a courtesy look into it, it appears sleep above 9 hours is inversely correlated with negative health.
That's not quite what's shown in that PDF...All oils tested showed signs of instability when heated, but EVOO was the most stable. But EVOO still had an increase in trans-fats, for example, when heated. Furthermore, in the conclusion, they note
note that the experiments were carried out without food being
cooked. While cooking, the water and steam which comes from the
food being cooked aids the process of hydrolysis. The absence of
food in these trials may have allowed for a greater impact of oil oxi-
dation when compared with other deterioration reactions
They didn't test the affects of water and food contact on stability and note the potential significance of hydrolysis.
But just going by that, I'd avoid all refined oils and heating/frying.
In your example, if you exercise, you can have the pizza as well as the sandwich. This can be significant, because suppose you have those 300 surplus calories 3x/week minus the exercise (not unreasonable, a small snack here and there, right?). 300 calories is about 3 bananas, so it might not even be unhealthy food.
Rough math: 3 * 300 * 4 = 3600 calories surplus/month. A pound of adipose tissue has ~3500 calories IIRC. So you're now gaining a pound of fat a month, and you're not even indulging yourself, really.
In reality, physical activity and diet aren't so steady, so some months you maintain weight, some you lose, and some you gain a lot. But over time it averages out, and you've put on 12lbs in a year.
> I don't think I'll ever use cat again if I can help it.
I just tested simple concatenation and bat is over 10x slower:
$ time cat 1GiB 1GiB 1GiB 1GiB >/dev/null
real 0m0.414s
user 0m0.014s
sys 0m0.400s
$ time bat 1GiB 1GiB 1GiB 1GiB >/dev/null
real 0m4.257s
user 0m1.659s
sys 0m2.594s
Seems like a lot of these "modern" replacements lose what the original simpler utils do well.
I don't use bat as a replacement for cat, but as a replacement for less. Sure, bat can concatenate a file, but I'd say that's not the main use. The syntax coloring of file contents is my favorite use case. Line numbers and some of the other options are useful at times too. Also, I don't think I've ever needed to concatenate multiple gigabyte sized files (yes, I am sure it exists for a lot of people, but would say it's not as common as looking at a file).
Meanwhile, hardware-level OS-ignostic rootkits like Computrace exist, and Intel ME has its own network stack, but Pluton being adopted as some kind of industry standard to lock down a platform in the name of "security" and what have you is a conspiracy.
Does Computrace even work if you're not running Windows? Does it have a Linux/MacOS/etc. payload now?
(Reversed much of it a long time ago --- and remembered it was specifically coded with Windows in mind, with certain assumptions about various things.)
