It's also good to work with your doctors (as you seem to have done), have a discussion, and mutually agree on a plan of treatment.
Experts don't know everything. But they probably know some things you don't, and can think of questions you might not to have even thought to ask. As the saying goes, "you don't know what you don't know". Experience matters.
There's also a lot of people out there without an academic background that don't know how to properly read journal papers. It's common to see folks do a quick search on PubMed, cherry-pick a single paper they agree with, and treat it as gospel - even if there's no evidence of repeatability. These skills are not something that many people outside STEM are exposed to.
Cherrypicking is bad, but worse is reading a paper and thinking you understand what it says, when you don't actually understand what it says. Or thinking that a paper and its data can be observed neutrally as a factual and accurate statement for what work was actually done.
My experience in journal club- basically, a group of grad students who all read a paper and then discuss it in person- taught me that most papers are just outright wrong for technical reasons. I'd say about 1 in 5 to 1 in 10 papers passes all the basic tests, and even the ones that do pass can have significant problems. For example, there is an increasing recognition that many papers in biology and medicine have fake data, or manipulated data, or corrupted data, or incorrectly labelled data. I know folks who've read papers and convinced themselvs the paper is good, when later the paper was retracted because the authors copied a few gels into the wrong columns...
By extending your statement you are essentially saying that the credentialed experts have a monopoly on knowledge in their fields? As anyone else reading a paper probably think he understands but actually doesn't? What a weird take.
The knowledge is out there. Yes there are a ton of bogus papers and a ton of bad research. Not everyone got the critical knowledge to figure this out but I also don't think this is only reserved to the "experts". They are also subject to groupthink and other political pressure to think a specific way.
At the end of the day, do your best own research and work with your "expert" to agree on a solution.
Pushing back on people reading paper is an anti-intellectual take (to use the same wording as another poster below).
Microcap will handle both Analog and Digital simulations.
KiCad now also supports Spice, and reports it should import the free LTSpice libraries. I have yet to find a use case for the kicad sim option... so YMMV.
Totally agree with this view. Why use an extra character when we already have a dash - just to add a pixel or two on either side. How an em-dash visually connects two words is not pleasant either, I prefer to have a space between them. For writing English, the ASCII character set is plenty.
Most AI tells are like this. I have been taught in marketing training to list things in pairs of three, because that's punchy, sufficiently succinct and very memorable. Now this is strongly associated with AI
After all AI didn't pick up these habits out of nowhere - all the tells are good writing advice and professional typography, but used with a frequency you would only see in highly polished texts like marketing copy
States that have implemented mobile drivers licenses are starting to issue handheld readers to police officers, precisely so what you describe doesn't happen.
The people building this know nobody wants to hand their phone over to the police.
Passports are inherently decentralized, which is needed because not all countries cooperate with each other - or have the same budget for technology/security. It's really way something at global scale could work.
(There are national-level databases, but presumably not every country has access to every other country's database.)
I struggle to imagine international airport without a credit card reader. Maybe some borders in some countries could've struggled before cheap ubiquitous internet, but not anymore. And even then it's their problem.
Countries don't need access to database. They need to validate public key / hashsum is valid (or something along those lines).
Yes, that's correct. There have been apps on iOS and Android that can read your passport via NFC for ages. As you noted, all you need is the plaintext information printed on the photo page to generate the Basic Access Control key, which will let you connect to the passport's NFC chip.
Issuing a passport is a different issue entirely, since you need a country's document signing key.
quick note -- I believe you need a separate key to get biometric data out of the passports, but it's been a while since I looked at passport digital infrastructure.
Airplane autopilots are basically just cruise control.
You still have a human in the loop double checking everything constantly and stepping in as soon as something isn’t routine (which is actually quite frequently).
Historically, congress always passed a one-time bill to retroactively pay the federal employees after each shutdown.
Because it turns out not paying your workers is extremely unpopular, especially if you want to retain them as workers in the future. Most people (federal workers included) are living paycheck-to-paycheck and can't financially weather a furlough - they still need to pay rent. The federal government would quickly find itself unable to attract employees given how often shutdowns occur.
If so, then the DMV test is (presumably) wrong. California Vehicle Code §21211 says it's generally illegal to block a bike lane:
"No person may place or park any bicycle, vehicle, or any other object upon any bikeway or bicycle path or trail, as specified in subdivision (a), which impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist unless the placement or parking is necessary for safe operation or is otherwise in compliance with the law."
Checking the DMV handbook, their description is similar. They say "it is illegal to drive in a bicycle lane unless you are parking (where permitted)" - plus turning or entering/exiting the road. [Source: CA Driver's Handbook, pp. 17, emphasis mine]
Note that 21209 does not say "otherwise permitted" but "permitted." One interpratation (perhaps what the DMV is using) is that, since curb parking is generally permitted, parking in a bike lane that abuts the curb would also be generally permitted.
The city I live in put up "no parking in bike lane" signs everywhere, presumably to address this ambiguity.
FWIW the DMV test question was bad in other ways; it was a multiple choice asking "Which of these is not an illegal place to park:" with the correct answer being "in a bike lane." My daughter got it wrong not just because of not knowing the answer, but also because the double-negative confused her.
What was the double negative? You haven't included one in your telling of the question ("Which of these is not an illegal place to park:" with the correct answer being "in a bike lane." - that's just a single negative...)
Ah, I hadn't thought of illegal as counting for a double negative - it's not one for how I think, but I totally see both why you said it and why it would be a double negative for some people! Thanks for explaining
It's also good to work with your doctors (as you seem to have done), have a discussion, and mutually agree on a plan of treatment.
Experts don't know everything. But they probably know some things you don't, and can think of questions you might not to have even thought to ask. As the saying goes, "you don't know what you don't know". Experience matters.
There's also a lot of people out there without an academic background that don't know how to properly read journal papers. It's common to see folks do a quick search on PubMed, cherry-pick a single paper they agree with, and treat it as gospel - even if there's no evidence of repeatability. These skills are not something that many people outside STEM are exposed to.
reply