I wonder if this could be used for doping in aerobic sports? Could this elevate overall oxygen intake in a healthy person?
My vague understanding is that oxygen intake is a big limiting factor in aerobic activities hence measurement of things like vo2max in sports science. ‘Blood doping’ has similar benefits though it’s also about having more blood period.
It seems unlikely that one could take a big enough suppository to help in a meaningful way in a marathon, but in a middle distance race lasting only a few minutes…
It seems unlikely, athletes are consuming liters of oxygen per minute. Plus, the impact is at least partially offset by needing to carry the extra weight with you.
Different story for apnea sports like freediving where a little bit of extra oxygen goes a long way.
Isn't liquid oxygen cryogenic (boils at -183C)? The engineering of keeping that ...there... gets interesting fast, especially when dealing with all the cold (absorbed heat from expanding gas) and containing the pressure while also releasing oxygen slowly.
The oxygen gas is dissolved into a different liquid, some kind of perfluorate in this case. You can put more oxygen molecules in a given volume when dissolved in a liquid than if you just compress the gas.
But oxygen dissolved or otherwise absorbed in a material is fair game. Even without anything fancy, water can contain about 1% free oxygen, which is 8x what you could do with gaseous oxygen (which is in turn 5x what atmospheric mixture has).
And there are a lot of chemical reactions that can produce oxygen much better than 1%. The trick is going to be avoiding heat changes.
In a trained person, the limiting factor as I understand it is the capacity of one’s blood cells to carry oxygen to the muscles. This method does not make more blood cells unlike the common doping methods used for aerobic sports like blood doping, artificial EPO.
Cyclists have been doping by taking transfusions of their own, previously donated blood. The extra blood cells can then carry more oxygen than a non-treated human.
The surface area of your lungs is like a tennis court, there is a significant difference.
This is being talked about in the ballpark of partial assistance during severe respiratory failure so more like delaying organ damage during a crisis than boosting peak athletic performance.
Hyperloglog analyses generally assume access to the full data stream, and so are O(n) at a minimum. Perhaps by running hyperloglog on a sublinear sample of the dataset you'd get an algorithm in this class.
You have it precisely backwards. "Developing scenes in which the reader discovers what kind of people they are" is synonymous with "show" and "being told" is literally a form of "tell."
The two instances of "instead of" have opposing senses. The grammar can't be interpreted without the semantics. Anyway, it seems other people find this OK, which is interesting to me.
Below is the context in TFA, and the quote's form with show/tell placeholders:
she informed one writer that their “story is certainly worth telling,” but they
"[tell] instead of [show], [show] instead of [tell]."
I can read the second part as a directive (I'd use a semi-colon instead of a comma to show this myself). I bet the original letter's connection (instead of "but they" in TFA) supports this.
It feeds into my nascent theory that grammar is not necessary for everyday human communication, and its function is ornamental, like patterns on clothing, signifying social position. (Of course, it is useful in precise technical exposition and argument; though there's still greater precision in numerical quantification and first order logic.)
Grammar is the greatest joy in life, don't you find?
I don’t know English grammar, but I don’t think inverting the position of the show/tell would be against Brazilian Portuguese grammar.
I think a grammar is certainly necessary for everyday communication though. Not the academically decided normative grammar for a whole language. But every verbal communication follows grammatical rules, most of the time different from the written grammar and normative grammar, but rather a grammar agreed among the people that form a group that speaks that local grammar.
My grammatical issue is not the swapping itself, but the introduction of "but they" (indicating a problem with what the author has done) being applied to the swapping. That makes sense for the first part, tell not show, but not for the second part, show not tell (which is what the author should do).
Is grammar necessary? The original "lingua franca", an English pidgin, was a trade language around the Mediterranean, therefore economically very advantageous, yet has minimal grammar.
People can communicate with gestures.
One does need a way to qualify some specific part, e.g. if we negate something, what exactly are we negating? Maybe I have too restricted a definition of "grammar", but I think of the Chomsky Hierarchy, which are all sequential, i.e., with order dependence. I think the target of negation can be indicated without position, e.g. so "not tree" and "tree not" are not a sequential grammar (a commutative grammar?) Negation of a part could also be denoted with inflection, or gestures.
One could argue all this is a kind of grammar; but it's so far from what we normally call grammar that I think it's overstretching the concept.
From your article:
> The United States became a party in 1989.
The person you are responding to is writing about American Copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St.... The first american copyright law is from 1790, which does in fact predate the bern convention, and our life of the author plus 50 years rule is from the copyright act of 1976, 13 years before the US ratified the bern convention.
So yes, it is an 'American thing' as are all issues of law in the US. And if you think that this kind of convention is meaningfully binding, just checkout the history of the US and other major powers with regards to various other international treaties, like the ICC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court.
Those aren't redundant or collinear though? Maybe you are surprised they didn't encode this as an integer "num_images"? It is fairly common to one hot encode ordinal variables with only a few common/possible values this way.
True, it still seems odd to encode an explicitly ordinal variable as categorical (particularly one with a small finite range, in contrast to the follower logarithmic bucket ones), but Twitter's layout is weird enough that it could be a impactful difference in terms of engagement.
This is (weirdly) common in production ML codebases written by software engineers. Like you, I have no idea why unless it's a memory optimisation (where you count 4+ as many).
Having every column as a boolean (0/1) means you can treat it as a bitmap. As an (entirely fictional) example, imagine if you wanted to get the features of a thread instead of a single tweet. You could do it as a union of all the tweets:
Ok that makes lots of sense from an engineering perspective. It's pretty insane from a statistical perspective though, which I think was the original point.
Blackberry has thorns and serrated leaves so you can distinguish it fairly easily regardless of season. When there are leaves on the plants there aren't really many plants that are easy to confuse with poison oak around here. Just look for leaves that come in sets of 3 leaflets with rounded/smooth lobes.
It's great you don't have trouble. I don't have that confidence yet. I've been using a plant id app to check when I see it and I've gotten it wrong both ways.
> The leaves may be notched, round, or oak-like depending on what other foliage is around the poison oak plants. They may be shiny—or not. They may have a red tinge—or not. This is where the challenge of identifying these plants comes into play.
...
> The actual shape of poison oak's leaves change based on the environment it is growing in, with the lobes able to vary on the same plant.
I agree, I find it easy to identify in any season. We have few plants that resemble it or its growth habits in anything but a superficial way, plus poison oak is much less variable in leaf size and shape than poison ivy.
The buds and stem tips are especially good giveaways, but I didn't really realize it until I lived somewhere with multiple species of sumac.
Well, considering 100 * 100 is clearly more than 4 times 2300 its more an error of my basic mulitplication than my method of estimating squares. Was just focused on something else at the time of writing (as indicated by the spelling). Considering that a square root by definition is the side of the square described, visualising it sure doesn't hurt.
If I tried again I'd say 100* 100 = 10,000, 1010 = 100, 50 50 = 2500, so that going to be pretty close. 48 is pretty close to 50.
The goal is to avoid entering the word. In this case 'focal' was the word. You entered 4 guesses, but only had 1 valid guess, + the 'wordle' left so it was impossible to finish without undoing.
My vague understanding is that oxygen intake is a big limiting factor in aerobic activities hence measurement of things like vo2max in sports science. ‘Blood doping’ has similar benefits though it’s also about having more blood period.
It seems unlikely that one could take a big enough suppository to help in a meaningful way in a marathon, but in a middle distance race lasting only a few minutes…