The author suggests one "symptom" of using git wrong is
>Have you ever did a code review, and gave feedback that was longer than doing the fix yourself, while you’re at it?
But this seems to neglect the utility of teaching people to do things correctly. Sure, I could always just fix junior programmers' mistakes, but it seems better to educate them in the first place.
Sending the fixes back down doesn't seem like it would have the same impact.
This is great. Although part of me has a desire for the person to be outed so Trump can lose yet another horrendously baseless first amendment lawsuit.
GiveDirectly's previous work involves finding the poorest communities in the world and targeting the poorest members with direct cash transfers. I was turned on to them a few years ago by GiveWell (unrelated), which attempts to evaluate charities based on cost effectiveness and capacity for more funds.
In addition to the GiveWell reports, GiveDirectly also document and publish their work and research. It's exciting to see the impact that they are having (and how minimal the systemic abuse of the money is):
>Muscle cells require more energy to maintain than fat cells, so people with a higher muscle to fat ratio tend to have a higher BMR.
and
>Muscle tissue burns more calories than fat tissue, so increasing your muscle mass will help you lose weight.
It doesn't seem to address this discrepancy, though (that by exercising to build muscle mass one can affect their BMR and thus the lion's share of the calories burned).
The "MegaGame Society" is sort of the over-arching organizing group (they licensed Watch the Skies from the UK group, updated it significantly, and are recruiting more groups to run it locally).
They're definitely the folks to follow for information on games outside of the UK.
There's a guide (in development) at eyesonthesky.com[1] aimed at newcomers, who may be using poor telescopes in poor atmospheric and lighting conditions. I've been following it quite successfully from my back yard in Seattle. It focuses on the brightest galaxies and nebulae, interesting clusters, and binary stars.
I went into a Fedex/Kinko's in the US, to try to print something on A3.
They looked at me as if I had just asked them to sell me a unicorn. They then offered to custom cut a piece of paper for what I'd approximate as several tens of thousands of percent markup.
The comment you're replying to is word-for-word copied from a highly upvoted comment on reddit yesterday (but is now deleted) by a user with a handle I won't repeat here. [1]
So what you're seeing is cross-pollination. I'm honestly surprised to not see this comment down-voted, as it's pretty impertinent to the conversation and is textbook ad hominem. ("Crazy lady says prisons are terrible: who cares she's crazy").
Art and source photos aside, this link is sort of disappointing. For example,
>As Mars' diameter is about half of the Earths, the elevator cable wouldn't have to be as long to reach geostationary orbit and due to the lighter gravitational pull it wouldn't suffer as much stress from its weight.
Mars' diameter has nothing to do with the distance to stationary orbit, which is a result of gravity (and thus its mass).
>The size of the highest mountain of order ∼ εR can be roughly estimated from the inequality (292).
>P, P˙ and I are, respectively, the pulsar’s period, period derivative and moment of inertia [in inequality (292)].
Those terms are all just multiplied together in the inequality, so changes in any of them could affect epsilon (the "dimensionless parameter characterizing deformations of the star")
>Have you ever did a code review, and gave feedback that was longer than doing the fix yourself, while you’re at it?
But this seems to neglect the utility of teaching people to do things correctly. Sure, I could always just fix junior programmers' mistakes, but it seems better to educate them in the first place.
Sending the fixes back down doesn't seem like it would have the same impact.