The calming down and stress relief all happens once the petting session ends.

Correlation and Causation are just fancy-pantsy words used by experts to lie to us common folk!

Surelly something capable of being trickle charged from a solar panel would be a superior option, at least for camping or any sort of situation were having no access to power would last for days.

Thinking about it, the “power outage” use case is probably more than sufficiently different from “camping” that which is the one you care most about has a big weight on the requirements for the portable power station.

I use “New” or even “Neue” to distinguish the Nazis that claim to represent Jews and are genocidal towards Arabs, from the Nazis who claimed to represent Arians and were genocidal towards Jews (and Roma, though “curiously” here in the West almost nobody mentions those).

Because the etnicity targetted by one group of Nazis is the “dominant” etnicity of the other, if I don’t do this some people confuse my anti-Zionist point with being pro-Zionist, especially given that the Zionists themselves will use Nazi as a form of slander against people who criticize them.

For every random genetic change that did something that turned out to be useful, there were countless ones that did nothing useful at all or were even counter-productive (to get a sense of how many “tries” there were, consider every time every beetle in the World tries to reproduce times how many eggs they lay times several random genetic changes per egg times millions or billions of years - we’re talking grains of sand in a beach level or even more, and this is just for one kind of creature that doesn’t even reproduce all that frequently - in things like bacteria there are so many reproducing so many times that we actually see evolution in action in a short time frame, for example with the growth of antibiotic resistance).

Then for all those random genetic changes that did something that turned out useful, there are only going to be some were that make enough of a difference in terms of increasing the survival of a beetle till reproduction and way more that didn’t make a difference.

You know what happen to all those quadrillions or whatever of tries that went nowhere? We’ll never know about them because the creatures in question are long dead (if their eggs were viable to begin with). We’ll only ever know about the random genetic changes which did work well enough to give reproductive advantages.

[There are actually a lot of cognitive falacies around how we perceive success because we only really get to know about what worked, not about the countless things that didn’t work. A good example is how most people pretty much only hear about Startups that made it big, yet for every Startup that does succeed enough to become widelly known there are tends or even hundreds of thousands that fail and we never hear about, so it might seem that Startups are generally successful when the reality is, in average, the very opposite]

Continuing on the Evolution story, if the previous part of the process worked based on the Maths of “trully insane large numbers”, at this point we add an effect akin to compounding interest: even if a genetic change adds a very small increase in reproduction for an animal - say, a beetle with a given random genetic change that did do something useful and gives it a 1% higher chance of successfully reproduce - as long as that trait gets passed down to the next generation, it means (rought) that all else be the same there will be 101 beetles born with that change for every 100 beetles born without it, for every reproductive cycle. This might seems little but as I said it compounds, so for example after 71 generations that will have grown to 200 for every 100 and it will keep growing.

This is how even a random genetic change that gives even just a tiny increase in success of living till reproduction and reproduction itself will, given enough time, come to dominate a population.

And then all those slightly different beetles keep on having the random genetic changes happen (the first part of the process) and those additional changes that did work and gave a tiny bit more success over that ones with just the original change will get the compounding part of the process, so those are the ones for whom there are more and more individuals, to which in turn the same process applies.

TL;DR (but you should)

A beetle with a random genetic change that affected its shell that makes it every so slightly harder to spot for predators in a place that has lots of water droplets on leaves will have more descendants than the rest. Some of those will randomly get additional changes that make that effect even more successful at making the beetle harder to detect for predators thus having even more descendants than the rest. Amongst those, the ones with random changes that make it even better will have more descendants and so on: changes towards looking more and more like a water-dropplet make the beetles with them more successful at reproducing that those without the changes.

Given enough time and enough beetles this is how you go from beetles with a “normal” carapace to beetles with a mirror-like carapace.

Evolution doens’t chose anything, it’s just one big statistical N-dimensional field of probabilites with local stable minima (points of maximum success at reproducing) and then some random genetic changes might just happen to matematically nudge a subset of the beetle population towards a specific stable minima on some characteristic (i.e. on one of dimension of those N dimensions) but it could’ve just as easilly and by chance have been a different one, but that didn’t happen so we’ll never hear about it (it’s a bit like the answer to the “Why has evolution made humans that think?” question - "Because if it didn’t made us think we wouldn’t be thinking about it, and if it made humans look different that different being would be what we think is “human”).

Pour encourager les autres

It’s not as if Israel or its leaders have to fear suffering any kind of consequences from France on this, whose posture has been nothing more than mild talkie-talkie and who even refuse to abide by an Arrest Warrant from the ICC on Netanyahu (a very obvious wink-and-nod from Macron to the New Nazis in Israel).

With mainly Collaborator politicians in the various governments in Europe (notable exceptions being those in Spain and the Republic Of Ireland), it’s open season for Mossad to murder Europeans in Europe at will.

That’s an absolutelly natural consequence from in practice condoning and even protecting Nazis going full-on Genocidal and they lose all fear of consequences.

The places I know were they do cook stuff using volcanic heat (in Peru and the Azores islands which are part of Portugal) they do it by digging a hole in an area were the ground is hot from volcanic heat and putting a pan cooking in it (they cover it all to keep the heat).

So it’s more a local technique for cooking for free that then evolved into a couple of traditional dishes.

Never heard of trying to roast stuff on the output of a geyser.

The amount of effort to obtain the female-impressing rock by the crow is far less than by the human, thus indicating that the crow is the wisest of the two.

Welcome to the world of making software for random people, almost certainly made worse by she being a woman.

As others pointed out, most people do appreciate it, but they tend to be silent about it, whilst a small minority are demanding little whinny bitches (in a non-gendered way) who think they’re owed service and some are even trolls.

To those reading this, I suggest when you get something you like for free you at least give some feedback that you liked it and, if the person has some kind of sponsoring scheme going on and you really like it, consider contributing, if only to incentivise more of the same.

Those on the other side are people too and they will appreciate it.

Same moneys, fancier tools.

One Frankenstein can make many monsters but one Frankenstein Monster is just the one monster and being a monster wasn’t even his choice.

Logically, Frankenstein is the one who ethically and morally can be deemed Bad, not the monster.

After the Emissions Scandal and an estimated 10 thousand excess deaths a year in Europe because of diesel emissions: Fuck the European Auto Industry.

Their dragging of feet on moving to EV technology is also disgraceful.

And don’t get me started on the over-reliance on cars in most of Europe.

All in all, they’re a negative for Europe, not a positive, and if they can’t compete with the bloody Chinese, well, let the Free Market they so love for everything else do a little Constructive Destruction on them,

It’s the most boring thing of the technical side of the job especially at the more senior levels because it’s so mindnumbingly simple, uses a significant proportion of development time and is usually what ends up having to be redone if there are small changes in things like input or output interfaces (i.e. adding, removing or changing data fields) which is why it’s probably one of the main elements in making maintaining and updating code already in Production a far less pleasant side of job than the actual creation of the application/system is.

Little kid: “Why is there a bright ball of light in the sky?”

Me (thinking): “Oh, shit…”

If the information never leaves the device then it doesn’t need a policy - privacy is not about what an app does in the device which never leaves the device hence never gets shared, it’s about what it shares with a 3rd party.

A clock doesn’t need to send system time settings information to a server since that serves no purpose for it - managing that is all done at the OS level and the app just uses what’s there - and that’s even more so for location data since things like determining the timezone are done by the user at the OS level, which will handle stuff like prompting the user to update the timezone if, for example, it detects the device is now in a different timezone (for example, after a long trip).

That’s because it’s not a clock, it’s a private information stealing app disguised as a clock.

That’s a good point.

Ever since I’ve became more aware of those I’ve found myself doing similar kind of “disarming” of such falacies when I notice I’m using them.

My point it’s that it generally feels like swimming against the current.

I’d say a lot of those things are the result of cognitive shortcuts.

It kinda makes sense to make a lot if not most decisions by relying of such shortcuts (hands up anybody who whilst not having a skin problem will seek peer-reviewed studies when chosing what kind of soap to buy) because they reduce the time and energy expediture, sometimes massivelly so.

Personally I try to “balance” shortcuts vs actual research (in a day to day sense, rather than Research) by making the research effort I will put into a purchase proportional to the price of the item in question (and also taking in account the downsides of a missjudgement: a cheap bungee-jumping rope is still well worth the research) - I’ll invest more or less time into evaluationg it and seeking independent evaluations on it depending on how many days of work it will take to be able to afford it - it’s not really worth spending hours researching something worth what you earn in 10 minutes of your work if the only downside is that you lose that money but it’s well worth investing days into researching it when you’re buying a brand new car or a house.

What’s interesting is how, even when knowing these biases, one has a tendency to often have and display at least some of them.

(At least, that’s the case for me)