> the clitoris did not even make it into standard anatomy textbooks until the 38th edition of Gray’s Anatomy was published in 1995.
This seemed surprising, as it hews too close to an annoying meme in feminism and history generally, that people in prior eras were idiots. And it turns out to be wrong. The clitoris was in Gray's Anatomy until 1947, when it was removed by the editor Charles Goss for the 25th edition. See https://projects.huffingtonpost.com/projects/cliteracy/embed... Indeed, the clitoris had been depicted in Classical medical books.
Why it was removed--and stayed removed for nearly 50 years--would make for an interesting story about mid-century culture, if not for a cynical throwaway comment, though it seems nobody knows Goss' actual motivations.
> the #1 thing I miss right now is Barrier (Synergy) for using my macbook from my linux desktop)
It's admittedly tough to keep up with all of the forks that have happened, but the current iteration, Input Leap, has worked for this for me for years now
Even if feelings are temporary you can still have them more or less often. When somebody says they are happy, of course it does not mean they are experiencing bliss all the time; it means that the relative frequency of positive emotions is high and the relative frequency of negative emotions is low.
I think a lot of people assume it's not possible to be happy because their life circumstances are incompatible with it and they can't or won't change those circumstances. I think in the US at least, the things we want most and the things we strive for are not things that make us happy.
I think the key to smartphone keyboards is something like Nintype, two-finger swiping. It's incredibly fast and doesn't require you to learn a completely new keyboard layout to succeed.
It's also a lot more comfortable for one-hand typing since you can do multiple swipes per word.
Funny that looking at their "number of touches" and "distance covered" checker, I've tried a few words and thinking in my head how it'd be in Nintype and it would score far better than Keybee.
Unfortunately I haven't seen anyone since Nintype (and the older Keymonk) to give it an attempt.
His successor is https://languagetransfer.org, which is just a labour of love by a genius polyglot and language teacher.
So much so, in fact, that the owners of the Michel Thomas IP tried to sue him for stealing the methodology. The EFF, back when they actually did anything, shredded them.
Many people only think of picture rail as what you find in old Victorian homes, but modern picture rail can be much less obtrusive and lightweight. I have a lot of framed art as well. When I finally bought a house I installed STAS minirail throughout. The "wires" are transparent Perlon filament, and anything you hang can instantly be adjusted vertically and horizontally.
This is way better than arguing with partner about the proper height, making a destructive hole, then having to cover/patch when opinions or artwork change. My walls are not drywall, so that was a big factor, but the freedom to arrange/rearrange is a major benefit.
Fun story to add: I can't get my heart rate measured. I get so nervous about it that I immediately double my heart rate. Of course it's impossible to communicate that with doctors. One even equipped me with a 24h heart monitor. Only to have my stupid brain go on overdrive and clock my heart at 120+ for the entire time, with 0 sleep. I literally fainted when getting ekg cables on me. I now have on record a heart condition without having one: I just get nervous from measurements lol
Totally random people could draft new laws on climate (at least, they were told this). They met with lobbyists, both pro-oil and pro-climate for two weekends, experts on three other weekends, once in a conference-style where very generic stuff is said, two other in focus groups with more specific expertises, depending on the subject the focus group is on.
Experts were real experts though, with multiple publications and PhDs (or in some cases, engineering degrees, especially during the conference week), and tried to only talk on their subject matter.
In around 8 weekend, the 150 random people made ?148? law propositions, helped by lawyers, and most experts agree that they were both good and reasonable. What's interesting is that most of the 150 people said that before really learning about the subject, they would never have made this kind of propositions.
All that to say: experts don't have to run things, and imho, they should not. They should however have an advisory role to the random people drafting new laws.
> We estimate that these laws [mandating safety seats] prevented fatalities of 57 children in car crashes in 2017 but reduced total births by 8,000 that year and have decreased the total by 145,000 since 1980.
If you want to understand where the money is actually going then this Peter Attia Drive podcast episode with Dr. Saum Sutaria is the best high level overview that I've heard. Seriously it's worth listening to and will clear up a lot of the misconceptions that many people have.
> Using comprehensive new data on U.S. venture capital deals, we find that founder returns remain extremely skewed, with 84% receiving zero exit value while the top 2% capture 80% of total value.
> It's ridiculous since women's issues are only being better represented recently while men have long dominated politics
This statement has more than one issue:
1. First and foremost, it is simply a rewrite of the history. There is a difference between descriptive and substantive representation. And it is true that men have been descriptively better represented. But the thoughtless implication that this leads to better substantive representation is simply wrong.
2. It justifies the idea of "reparations" for previous generations misdoing. Not only does this induce a high level if dissent, it is simply immoral. Even if we would accept reparations, it is still only justified by the rewrite of the history.
I appreciate the call for nuance, but I think the historical framing here deserves scrutiny.
You're right that men have dominated politicly, but it's worth distinguishing between who held power (descriptive representation) and whose interests were served (substantive representation). Most men throughout history had no political power - they were subjects of monarchies, excluded by property requirements, or conscripted into wars they didn't choose. The men making decisions were a tiny elite.
On "women's issues only recently being better represented" -this depends heavily on what we're measuring. If we look at something like life expectancy as a rough proxy for overall life quality (capturing war mortality, occupational deaths, access to resources, healthcare), historical data suggests men and women faced roughly equal burdens pre-industrialization, just distributed differently. Women faced maternal mortality and legal subordination; men faced conscription, dangerous labor, and social expendability. The female longevity advantage only emerges clearly in the modern era.
The point isn't to claim men had it worse - it's that "men have long dominated" obscures that most men were themselves dominated, and bore unique, severe costs within the same system.
I agree completely that rigid gender roles harm everyone. But framing current attention to men's issues as acceptable only because "patriarchal roles harm men too" still treats men's suffering as derivative of women's concerns, requiring feminist justification. Can't men's rising suicide rates, educational struggles, and social isolation warrant direct concern on their own terms?
The discourse does need less competition. But that requires actually taking men's issues seriously, not just when they can be reframed as collateral damage from patriarchy.
In New Zealand, you can (effectively) force the co-owner of a property to sell or buy you out. The laws allowing this were introduced decades ago to prevent one person in a couple holding the family home 'hostage' (typically, a husband forcing the wife to stay in a failed relationship because she needed a home to raise the kids). A very sensible set of laws I think (someone please feel free to correct/link this property - I can't find a good summary online, although I can find lots of pages that talk about it).
Is this not the case in the UK, or did the first guy in the article forgo that option?
Ignore the clickbait headline here: Australia’s Solar Boom Is Breaking the Grid - Or Is It?
It's a sub 15 minute actual grid engineering for lay public explainer video (I know, I'm not a video fan either)
A better duller title might be: How Australia's Grid is being adapted to Solar Boom
00:00 Introduction
01:23 The Problem with Too Much Solar
03:29 Batteries Change the Economics
05:40 What the Grid Actually Needs
07:04 A Cautionary Tale – The 2025 Iberian Blackout
08:21 Australia’s Secret Weapon – Experience with Weak Grids
10:08 The Genius Technical Fix – Grid-Forming Inverters
12:25 The Perfect Partner - Batteries
12:58 From Mechanical to Software-Defined Stability
13:42 Conclusion – Fixing the Grid Before It Breaks
which talks about the harm that labels do to people with variant sexual and identity and makes the case that "transgender-cisgender" is itself a binary that divides and obscures the truth. Similarly, "non-binary" creates a binary. 20 years ago you have have an alternative gender expression and maybe have some challenges but today it may be harder rather than easier because people are polarized about it.
Sure. Would contextualize by saying that infrastructure is a financial product: climate/industrial projects are sited in the physical world and have a hard upfront cost to produce a long term stream of cash flows, which, from a finance perspective, makes it look a lot like debt (e.g. I pay par value in order to achieve [x] cash flows with [y] risk).
When you drive past a solar project on the side of the road, you see the solar technology producing energy. But in order for a bank to fund $100M to construct the project, it has to be "developed" as if it were a long-term financial product across 15 or so major agreements (power offtake, lease agreement, property tax negotiations, etc). The fragmentation of tools and context among all the various counterparties involved to pull this sort of thing together into a creditworthy package for funding is enormously inefficient and as a result, processes which should be parallelize-able can't be parallelized, creating large amounts of risk into the project development process.
While all kinds of asset class-specific tools exist for solar or real estate or whatever, most of them are extremely limited in function because almost of those things abstract down into a narrative that you're communicating to a given party at any given time (including your own investment committee), and a vast swath of factual information represented by deterministic financial calculations and hundreds if not thousands of pages of legal documentation.
We build technology to centralize/coordinate/version control these workflows in order to unlock an order of magnitude more efficiency across that entire process in its totality. But instead of selling software, we sell those development + financing outcomes (which is where _all_ of the value is in this space), because we're actually able to scale that work far more effectively than anyone else right now.
I started carrying around a photo of myself as a kid. I'm sitting against a wall, by a pillar, at our state capital. My eyes are shut. I was kind of a shy kid.
When I start to get frustrated and talk to myself in that short, abrasive, condescending tone, I think of that photo and of myself, as still that kid.
It helps me to be more compassionate towards myself in those moments. I'm still that shy kid trying to make sense of the world.
I want to write more about this, but it has been a really difficult subject to structure. I gave up halfway through this article, for example, and never published it – I didn't even get around to editing it, so it's mostly bad stream of consciousness stuff: https://entropicthoughts.com/root-cause-analysis-youre-doing...
I intend to come back to it some day, but I do not think that day is today.
The problem with your strategy is that the items you listed have very little upside; yes, the prices won't collapse, but they also wont go up a ton. Their prices have reached somewhat of an equilibrium.
A lot of collectors are trying to find something they can buy for cheap and then sell when it goes up in price by a lot. If you want that, you have to pick something that hasn't had its price hit an equilibrium yet. You need to take a risk on something new.
I think that since it's not possible to reply to multiple comments at the same time, people will naturally open a new top-level comment the moment there's a clearly identifiable groupthink emerging. Quoting one of your earlier comments about this:
>This happens so frequently that I think it must be a product of something hard-wired in the medium *[I mean the medium of the internet forum]
I would say it's only hard-wired in the medium of tree-style comment sections. If HN worked more like linear forums with multi-quote/replies, it might be possible to have multiple back-and-forths of subgroup consensus like this.
Cursive as taught in schools today is useless at best and dangerous for your health at worst.
The cursive that made the world run between 1850 and 1925 was called business penmanship and it lets you write at 40 words per minute for 14 hours every day for decades on end without pain or injury.
>following lessons will make of you a good penman, if you follow instructions implicitly. The average time to acquire such a handwriting is from four to six months, practicing an hour or so a day. Practice regularly every day, if you want the best results. Two practice periods of thirty minutes each are better than one period of sixty minutes.
After two months I can comfortably write at 20 words per minute for four hours without stopping.
2 years ago, Wharton predicted that the U.S. debt would be defaulted on in twenty years [0].
> Under current policy, the United States has about 20 years for corrective action after which no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly (i.e., debt monetization producing significant inflation). Unlike technical defaults where payments are merely delayed, this default would be much larger and would reverberate across the U.S. and world economies.
My prediction is that the deficit will continue to increase, and so the default will come by then or sooner.
It's not free rider but coordination costs -- the same reason democracies are at a disadvantage relative to authoritarian regimes.
Transaction cost ecomomics has been studying this and other transactions features since before 1965. Key to their methodology and success is comparing actual to actual alternatives, instead of actual to imagined.
I knew a gal who grew up in a perfect family with everything she could ever want so she had to invent a victim status and write a book about it magnifying non-problems into protected class level oppression status in order to fit into the woke crowd. Grievance entrepreneurship.
