One use case: you adopted a (new?) formatter, now tracking the evolution of a line/its vicinity is a lot more difficult past that. So you apply the formatter to every commit since the beginning. Literally it's not the true history of what the code looked like, but semantically it is, and it's more useful.
The fundamental physics that underlie everyday life are known. We know that general relativity and the standard model of particle physics aren't fully compatible, but that's only at very short scales or very high gravity, those aren't relevant to everyday life. We're able to model single-particle and even few-particle systems on an astonishing degree of accuracy (1 part in 1e9, I believe down to measurement error). We can't model the 1e25 particles because in the brain to explain consciousness it's an exponential problem but in principle with unlimited time and memory we could turn the crank on the equations.
Except I've not heard of anyone using them, either online or IRL. If I'm holding a wheel my head unit is close to where I'm already looking, and the focus shift is similar to (or less than) going from the wheel in front of me to infinity where HUDs typically put things at.
It's also doctors. Medlife Crisis on YouTube, Barbell Medicine, others. BBM have an article on priorities for overall health and they link to a tool maintained by one of the professional bodies on what routine screens to have done and it's pretty conservative. Even my doctor on seeing an "abnormal" lab result said it was likely spurious given my lack of complaints and all the rest of the results. That said they still recommended a follow-up because they kind of have to given professional ethics. BBM (again) made a similar point: resistance training is known to cause liver-associated enzymes (AST, ALT, etc) to rise, that doesn't mean you can ignore a high value.
The steps to fixing it is to not take the test that takes you from a prior of 1/100000 to a posterior of 1/1000, because you're going to ignore it anyway. And you can't depend on multiple testing because those test results can be correlated.
ETA: I can be convinced that we can collectively get to a place where broader screening would be indicated. But I think it's going to require both of the tests getting better and being better about what we do with (and feel about) the results.
I've received emails to my HME address from third parties. Bought something from Shop A, got the email confirmation from them, later got the shipping notification from Courier B, all to the same HME address.
The equivalent in running is pace, at least on flat ground. I don't know that power would really be useful in running, the biomechanics of running hills is sufficiently different that I question the ability to make an equivalence comparison the same way you do in cycling.
AFAIK 5:4 is just the lowest ratio they've tested. Personally I use table sugar (1:1) and can sustain rates above 100g/h. Haven't hit the ceiling yet, don't really feel the need to explore where that is yet because exceeding the absorption rate comes with the risk of diarrhoea which is bad at any time but especially when you're in the middle of a training session and who knows where the nearest toilet is.
Gut training is consuming large amounts of carbohydrate (preferably in the same form you intend to use when racing), yes.