Also FPTP: A 97% increase in seat count on the back of a mere 5% increase in vote share, because the other party collapsed.

Their power and large rotor area also makes them adept at higher altitude operations, especially in hotter weather. In Afghanistan, Chinooks were just ran, and ran, and ran because they performed so much better than anything else in the Western inventory in those conditions. If you ever had a choice, you'd pick the Chinook for just about anything, if you were planning to do it in Afghanistan.

A few years ago, the Army was training for dealing with mass casualty events in combat. The university hospital had adjacent fields that could accommodate a large number of helicopters, and so they were enlisted to play the local trauma centre for the simulation. I heard about it happening through a friend, so I went to watch what was expected to be the busiest simulation in the set. It was kinda wild to see so many helicopters fly in, including Chinooks, unloading multiple stretchers each, in this huge conga line, some simultaneous landings. Here's hoping I never see a situation where it's the real thing.

It feels so difficult for me to evaluate his career, because there's all these confounding variables. There are some superlative highs and superlative lows, and I think a few different career decisions would really change how he's viewed retrospectively. Then again, so also would have his second-place Le Mans finish being a first.

There are contexts elsewhere in this thread about 'obese' range BMI, but here the context is just 'high', and I think the caveat I gave, "based on BMI alone" still applies. If someone is sitting at a BMI of 25.5 and is relatively lean, that BMI alone is not a great indicator of anything. If there are other indicators, then that's not basing the recommendation on BMI alone.

But in the context of obese-range BMI at low body fat, we're talking about such extreme levels of muscularity that were no longer looking at some idiot kid scoring gear from a sketchy gym dealer, but people who often, at this stage, have a pharma coach managing their drug use. At that point they're so acutely aware that they're killing themselves that this sort of advice borders on condescending, especially when they'd probably be visiting their physician every two or three months for blood work.

In either case, I'm not sure BMI is going to be a good indicator on their own.

And if someone is on substantial amounts of gear, if they have any sense of responsibility, they're seeing their doctor quarterly to get blood work done, if not have DEXA scans available. So they will have a much better relationship with their doctor than most, and better quality data at hand than BMI

I'm not prejudiced, some of my best friends are physical chemists!

Because doctors have eyes and can tell if someone is just muscular, so muscular people never have a doctor say this based on BMI alone.

Of all the 'worlds largest' records West Edmonton Mall once had, the only one it still retains: largest parking lot.

Two people strike up a conversation in the halls of a physics conference. Eventually, one asks the other, "so, what do you research?"

"One atom," says the first person, "and what about you?"

"Two atoms," replies the second.

"Chemists," the first person scoffs, shaking their head

It took me a minute to realize this was supposed to be like a Breaking Bad title card and not the old formuladank favorite, s🅱️inalla

I feel like this has been a major trend in television for awhile now: a season of teasing a 'big bad' with no actual progress until the last-episode tidy-up and cliffhanger. The Walking Dead was terrible for it, but its become so prolific with streaming that it's more noticeable now when a series actually uses individual episodes to move the plot along.

As Mike and Rich say, "remember when an episode of a TV show had a beginning, middle and an end?"

Weirdly, I learned about this here man in a World of Warcraft video circa 2005.

Your joke, farting on your cake and eating it to, would have genuinely improved the scene.

Hostile, in a word. It’s absolutely a difficult situation. Justice is so multi-faceted, what with the public good, public safety, with restitution, with rehabilitation, and so on. Vengeance and the satisfaction of the victims has been a part of justice since pre-history, and I think over-emphasized even today, but it upsets me that we don’t support them in essentially any other way, or provide them any other avenue to find closure.

That is not true. At least not in most countries. That would go against the idea of double jeopardy. And not the game show thing, either.

It's important to know that a condition like Li's doesn't just turn on and off like a light switch. Li's condition worsened over years before it got to the point of violence. There was instability in his personal relationships, interactions with the police, and a stay in the hospital after he had gotten lost on a trip directed by a hallucination. Not having a full psychiatric evaluation, the hospital did not have the authority to compel his stay, as they were treating injuries instead related to his exposure to the elements. Newspapers reported that they wanted to, as they suspected mental health issues. However, in Canada (this varies in details provincially, but the gist is the same nationwide) a patient cannot be committed involuntarily unless there is a clear threat that they could harm themselves or others, which they didn't have at the time.

However, today, any similar interaction he would have with the police or the healthcare system would immediately flag his prior commitment, and that would be sufficient for involuntarily commitment. I don't want to predict the future, but I think on the balance of probabilities, if he were to stop his treatment and the process began gradually again, I think it's likely that he'd have some sort of more mundane interaction like that before things got out of hand.

This is especially the case in that his family and friends tried to convince him to see a doctor early on, but he was afraid of the hospital. This, unknown to them, was itself a symptom. However, with knowledge of his history, if a loved one wasn't able to convince him directly, I would hope that they would know better now and instead contact the emergency services.

And on a strictly humanistic note, I have to imagine that if he isn't a murderer in his true self, that the disease directed him in a way contrary to his actual values, that the guilt he faces is likely immense. I would imagine that guilt alone would be a pretty big motivation to stay on track with your healthcare

While abuse can happen, it's not exactly common. I worry the impression you have might be colored by the behaviour of the more ignorant healthcare system of years past. Rehabilitation is not always possible, but it often is. Especially if the problem that originally caused the criminal behavior was due to the lack of diagnosis, sometimes treatment can lead to relatively rapid improvements.

There was an infamous instance in Canada of a man quite brutally murdering the passenger sitting next to him in a Greyhound bus (I will spare the details, but this is the Wiki article) on the belief that God had instructed him to do so. This was due to undiagnosed schizophrenia, and the murder occured in mid 2008 with a trial a year later. By 2012, his physicians were sufficiently satisfied with his response to treatment that he was given freedom to leave the hospital during the day, by 2015 full day passes, and by 2017 he was discharged entirely from the mental health system.

I remember watching Avatar in theatres at 48 and I thought it looked fine. I don't think the issue is with high native frame rate, I think it's something inherent to interpolation that looks uncanny.

Blocked.

If you kill a person with malicious intent, you've committed the ethical crime of murder. But you haven't committed the legal crime until a court finds you guilty.

Likewise, Trump is a rapist, and a child rapist. He has raped people. But as to the crime of rape, rather than the act, not yet. Hence the terminology.

"If nothing else", if strictly read, is not about the assumptions of the writer, but assumptions about the reader. And it is strictly removing those assumptions, rather than applying new ones. It is possible to re-write the sentence with identical meaning in the form:

"Any reader, no matter their politics, even those explicitly hostile to communist ideology, should still be able to view this action as a positive one"

That is, other actions and views of the party are more open to debate, based on that readers political ideology.

That's not exactly apples and oranges. We expect that chemical processes are not only fully deterministic, but also one where the determinants can also be explicitly identified. Meanwhile, people have feelings, they're irrational, and their choices are based on all sorts of superfluous things outside of the knowledge of the observers. In any sort of behavioral study, 40% is a pretty big effect size.

I've done some work in biological swimming and flying, and seen both sides of this in the same study. We expect that the physical fluid mechanics model to have an effect size of one, or there abouts: we can say with right about 100% certainty how wing kinematics translates to, say, force generation. But the actual animals make choices. They can choose to just not fly. They can be sick or injured. They can have different levels of nutrition. Turning that near-perfect knowledge of flight performance into, say, range or endurance suddenly starts to depend on intractable things like how that animal is feeling that particular day and the effect size naturally falls off.

I think "limiting" is more appropriate than "damning". The authors note that this is a limitation of their study: they're not ignorant of the fact that this is a confounding variable, nor of prior research on how the quantity of students affects testing outcome.

As far as I can tell, they were pulling data from a large cohort of undergraduate students taking their ordinary examinations over several years. In terms of research ethics, if your hypothesis is that the room used for the exam affects exam results, messing around with that space in order to control everything as much as possible is potentially a pretty big ask. I think its quite reasonable to say that you'll collect the data as you find it 'in the wild', so to speak, and make due as best you can, if trying to control your confounding variables might end up negatively affecting student exam performance.

The only other example I can think of is when Vancouver moved to Memphis, what with being a few thousand kilometers from the nearest wild grizzly bear, but I'm sure there are more.

Can anyone else think of a team whose name got somewhat 'misplaced' in a relocation?