Hakka's most obvious archaic feature is the syllable-final stops, as in Yue/Cantonese and Min. I know Yue dissimilated some of them (details fuzzy in my memory, possibly -t went to -k with a dental initial). I don't know of any changes to them in Hakka.
Hakka retains the -m final, instead of merging it to -n. It retains distinct 'round' and 'sharp' (velar and dental) onsets in positions where some Mandarin varieties (including Standard) merge them to the new palatal j/q/x.
The Middle Chinese palatal ny- is lost in Hakka as it is almost everywhere. It merged with r- in Mandarin, y- in Yue, and ng- in Hakka. So you can't read the archaic form directly off any one of those varieties, but you can detect it by comparing any two.
Hakka tonal developments are middle-of-the-road. Like every variety of Chinese, it had the four Middle Chinese tones altered by the voicing feature of the syllable onset, and like every variety outside of Wu/Shanghainese, it then lost the voicing feature itself.
Hakka splits the ping/level tone in two by voicing, like almost every variety does. It splits the ru/entering 'tone' (the syllables with final stops) by voicing, like almost every non-Mandarin variety does, instead of disintegrating it like Mandarin.
In the shang/rising tone, Hakka agrees with Mandarin against Wu and Yue that you don't just split the tone down the middle by voicing; you split off voiced obstruent onsets and leave voiced sonorant onsets alone. It agrees with Mandarin and Wu against Yue that the split-off voiced onsets (whether all of them or just the obstruents) merge into the qu/departing tone.
Hakka agrees with Mandarin against almost everybody else that the qu/departing tone does not split.
Parrot did burn through quite a few pumpkings. I wouldn't call them clowns either, but I do think they led Parrot astray. Obviously Parrot is not Perl 6, but they are closely linked in many people's minds for obvious reasons.
(It's not all the pumpkings' fault, either. I think Parrot would still have been doomed if its leadership were constantly flawless, just because it was designed before Perl 6's object system was.)
This badly understates the Chernobyl response. They did remove the heavily contaminated surface soil from the immediate vicinity and clean up the rest of the site so they could continue to operate the remaining reactors. They built the Shelter Object ("sarcophagus"), instead of just pouring concrete all over the site, so that they could continue to monitor and inspect. And earlier this year, they at last covered the Shelter Object with the long-delayed New Safe Confinement, which includes cranes and other robotics intended to dismantle and decontaminate both the Shelter and the ruins of the reactor.
It's certainly true that the Soviets, and after them Belarus and Ukraine, did/do use the "just leave it alone" strategy for part of their Chernobyl response. But it's by no means the whole story.
Thank you for sharing this. I had read about it when they were still building it and marvelled at the scale and ambition of the project. That structure is so large it apparently has its own weather system inside.
There is so much visual processing machinery in the retina that some neuroscientists describe it as an outpost of the visual cortex. In that sense, scarring your retina might indeed have altered your brain. But not in a way that's related to emotional control.
The ball of the foot is doing the pushing at that point, and the ball of the foot finishes the liftoff. Try and take a few steps where the ball leaves the ground before the heel, you'll see.
Your heel doesn't have leverage to lift your body off of the ground. If your heel is leaving the ground it's either your knee lifting it or your toes pushing it. In the gif you linked, and in proper running form, you push with the balls of your feet. Your ankle / heel system is solely a fulcrum that doubles as a dampening spring.
"pushing" isn't the only way to apply force. from the gif the ball of the feet start and end the "pushing", but this is unrelated to how much lifting you do with the heel
The story you're telling is accurate for cocaine and amphetamines. Caffeine is different. It blocks the adenosine receptors, which are supposed to slow you down before you wear out.
I can't entirely disagree, but it (caffeine) still seems to help more than it hurts.
But amphetamines are far more direct. Caffeine still seems to help more than it hurts for me (several times over diagnosed "clinical ADHD")
Cute snake oil, but you might want to peddle it somewhere other than Hacker News. People here place too much importance on facts and knowledge to really go for this stuff.
> The human body has an immune system that is built to fight foreign objects. Drinking works so well because we overpower the livers defenses
Liver metabolism of active chemicals (including alcohol) is a totally different thing from the immune system. This is like confusing the police with the wastewater treatment authority.
> isolated neurotransmitters are [...] extremely wide relative to the gap in the blood brain barrier [...] insights from the pharmacokinetic effects caused by the chemical structure of caffeine led me to experiment with different methods that combined to make Plusfour 800% more bioavailable.
The neurotransmitters GABA, glutamic acid, serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine are all about the same size as caffeine or slightly smaller. So the "too wide" story about why it wasn't working is not compatible with the "make it caffeine-like" story about fixing it.
The pharmacokinetics of a substance depend among other things on its structure, i.e. its identity. You can't give it different pharmacokinetics and have it be the same thing. In the best case, you might be able to create a prodrug of it with a distribution more like what you want -- a classic example is heroin, a prodrug of morphine that gets across the blood-brain barrier better. But that's a matter of chemistry, not a matter of particle size or whatnot.
> The neuro-pharmacokinetic compound in coffee
Pharmacokinetics: the chronology of a drug's activity, including its distribution to different tissues, effect while there, and processing into active or inactive metabolites. Calling caffeine a "neuro-pharmacokinetic compound" is gobbledegook. It's like saying a book is "literary-logistical" because I had it shipped to me.
> Compressing a small molecule down to the nanoscale is very difficult.
In much the same way that compressing the surplus dog population down to an animal of adoptable size is very difficult. Or, as John Wayne might have put it: "Life's very difficult. More difficult if you're stupid."
Anyway, I thought these were large molecules, eh?
> Think about a chemical compound as a [...] sphere
Acceptable, if a bit simplistic.
> and think about a liquid as enough of these spheres holding hands close together
That'll work.
> The purpose of nano-encapsulation is [...] decreasing the diameter of these spheres.
Holy crap, no.
> carbonated rose water
That's the most sensible thing you've said yet.
> Certain vitamins and minerals in Plusfour function to prevent any tolerance. [...] if it can’t get the right nutrients, the brain will run on fumes and cause discomfort and pain. Tolerance is a result of the brain adjusting to scarcity.
Of nutrients? No. Drug tolerance can be a result of the brain adjusting to the scarcity or abundance of the drug, or of some other substance through which the drug acts. Not the result of brain malnourishment.
I could go on, but I don't see the point.
The last time I saw this much piffle in one place, it was trying to sell me a machine to infuse my tap water with magnetic monopoles.
>Cute snake oil, but you might want to peddle it somewhere other than Hacker News. People here place too much importance on facts and knowledge to really go for this stuff.
Actually I think this is exactly the kind of pseudo-scientific nonsense that HN types tend to fall for. I am glad that most of the top comments are people debunking it but I think it's telling that it was upvoted to the front page in the first place.
> I am glad that most of the top comments are people debunking it but I think it's telling that it was upvoted to the front page in the first place.
I don't think it's very telling. I upvoted plenty of stories like this one just because the debunking comments were very interesting, or because I suspected they will be when they start rolling in.
I'm with you on the books. I tried to learn Perl 5 from online resources, couldn't. Once I had books in hand, no problem.
The good news for Perl 6 is that books are incoming. O'Reilly has taken on both Learning Perl 6 (by the formidable teacher brian d foy) for a summer 2017 release, and Think Perl 6 (a translation of Think Python by Laurent Rosenfeld and Allen B. Downey; unedited draft available now). Moritz Lenz is developing his manuscript of Perl 6 by Example publicly on his blog (perlgeek.de), and Ken Youens-Clark has released an e-book on doing metagenomics in Perl 6, which includes a substantial Perl 6 tutorial.
As to CPAN, with Inline::Perl5 the entire Perl 5 CPAN is available to Perl 6 -- and if you call now, we'll throw in Inline::Python for no additional cost!
Hakka retains the -m final, instead of merging it to -n. It retains distinct 'round' and 'sharp' (velar and dental) onsets in positions where some Mandarin varieties (including Standard) merge them to the new palatal j/q/x.
The Middle Chinese palatal ny- is lost in Hakka as it is almost everywhere. It merged with r- in Mandarin, y- in Yue, and ng- in Hakka. So you can't read the archaic form directly off any one of those varieties, but you can detect it by comparing any two.
Hakka tonal developments are middle-of-the-road. Like every variety of Chinese, it had the four Middle Chinese tones altered by the voicing feature of the syllable onset, and like every variety outside of Wu/Shanghainese, it then lost the voicing feature itself.
Hakka splits the ping/level tone in two by voicing, like almost every variety does. It splits the ru/entering 'tone' (the syllables with final stops) by voicing, like almost every non-Mandarin variety does, instead of disintegrating it like Mandarin.
In the shang/rising tone, Hakka agrees with Mandarin against Wu and Yue that you don't just split the tone down the middle by voicing; you split off voiced obstruent onsets and leave voiced sonorant onsets alone. It agrees with Mandarin and Wu against Yue that the split-off voiced onsets (whether all of them or just the obstruents) merge into the qu/departing tone.
Hakka agrees with Mandarin against almost everybody else that the qu/departing tone does not split.