What an embarassingly obsequious viewpoint.

Ubuntu benefited from an open community for years, and when it came time to create a solution for a problem, they chose to develop something and not share it with community that helped them get where they are now. That’s a straight up asshole move.

The OP article said the same thing, and like this article, it provides no evidence for the statement. I looked for some numbers, and for world bests, men had better performance in every category I found. The study linked below looked at speeds over decades and in every case men had better performance. Both men and women have improved over time, and as a percentage the difference is getting smaller, but in absolute difference it appears the same. It is an admittedly brief search, but I can’t find evidence in the form of measured times (not conjecture about estrogen) indicating at all that women perform better in ultra marathons. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3870311

I haven’t used this in a bit so I thought I’d check it. They somewhat recently updated the desktop program and nothing works at all now. It appears to be just Edge pretending to be another program. It’s literally just a browser, so surround sound doesn’t work now.

It’s a weird thing for them to do. Why would anyone download a copy of edge that can only watch Netflix? You’d just use a browser.

I attach a computer to a TV and open streaming Web sites in a browser. There aren’t much benefits of the streaming devices compared to that unless you’re using surround sound. The Netflix desktop program has surround sound, but that’s the only service I know of.

What did he say about apostrophes to indicate possession?

I doubt it accounts for much, but a lot of authors pay up front now for open access. If the majority of authors did that, then subscriptions wouldn’t make sense for most people. I don’t think it’s anywhere near the majority of publications now though.

I didn’t know if this was possible so I looked for some videos.

This guy isn’t very big, but does it fairly easily with his fingertips, and can crush it with a full grip but it takes him some effort. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGCawR9vBXE&t=64

Three big guys here with full grips do pretty poorly, then the big guy turns it to pulp in a second. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eICtcsd0TvY&t=288

I think you’ve got your work cut out for you.

Ha, those are crazy. I was thinking of something with tons of buttons and axes. It looks like people are making those though https://www.svg.com/113674/untold-story-insane-game-controller-ever-made/

Do you know how that compares to USB today? I assume those need ADCs and some sort of digital logic, which overall is similar to midi. I assume that whatever USB is doing is much simpler though, still making midi more expensive. Maybe not though, and we’re missing out on some crazy joysticks?

That’s nifty. If I understand this, the advantage of a joystick using game port instead of MIDI is much simpler hardware. The game port seems like a sort of ADC which means the joystick needs only very simple analog components. A midi joystick would need those same analog components, plus its own ADCs and some digital logic for midi comms. Without the need in most games for dozens of axes and buttons, the extra cost and complexity wouldn’t be worth it.

I did find this though, if someone has midi stuff and wanted to go wild. https://github.com/c0redumb/midi2vjoy

Did joysticks actually use MIDI or they just use the same port? You can program so many buttons with MIDI. You could set up an entire cockpit on one device.

Yeah, and the risk of death with euthanasia is even higher!

Lobbyists have even polluted the ingredient label on the back. Now they can list a brand name as an ingredient, then list the ingredients of that. This lets them disguise the most prevalent ingredients if they’re also part of the brand.

Water, oil, sugar, xantham gum, Bob’s secret spice (enough sugar so that if the label were truthful, sugar would be the second ingredient instead of the third, cinnamon, nutmeg).

Is your claim simply that XX folks have twice as many X genes as XY folks? It doesn’t take anything from the article or what I said to understand that. That’s tautological.

The article is about the mechanism explaining why women have more autoimmune diseases than men. Nothing in the article implicates the number of genes themselves in the mechanism. Theybstayes that the gene that deactivates one of the X chromosomes has side effects. They do not describe the details of that. Maybe ultimately there is some reason the pair of X chromosomes is itself involved, but nothing in the study indicates that, and what they describe doesn’t necessarily involve that as part of the mechanism.

No, and nothing in what I wrote implies that.

I wondered what this could possibly look like and found some examples here: https://www.baeldung.com/linux/view-media-no-graphical-env.

I was expecting ASCII art. It’s low resolution video though. Seems like a small use case, but pretty nifty.

That is not the summary. The summary is that the molecule involved in deactivation of one of the X chromosomes has side effects that lead to autoimmune problems. Most men don’t have a second X chromosome that needs deactivation.

Or heating it for longer. It doesn’t get hotter in a kettle or microwave once it boils.

What’s with this Dateline-style reporting in the NY Times? If I wanted subpar stories, I’d watch Netflix.