The only trouble with this casserole dish is that every time you try to move it from the oven to the counter, you just slip and drop it and it always somehow lands on an uninhabited planet with no working engines or communicator.
I bought 2 of these dishes and lost about 11 of them this way
Whoa, be careful with that stuff on the bottom panel! It's frequently used as an industrial solvent, it's a major component of acid rain, and just breathing it in can be deadly! Stay safe!! (/s)
I was on Strattera (atomoxetine) some years ago. It worked very well for me for about five years then kind of stopped making much difference. However even after I went off of it the symptoms seemed noticeably easier to deal with than they were before (and still do to this day), so I still count it as a win.
Now I will say though that Strattera is a bit harder to judge than the stimulants, as its action is longer term; you take it daily but it has to build up over weeks, so you don't get that immediate feedback like with the stimulants.
I found that for me, Strattera made it hard to sleep if I took it at night, and caused stomach upset if I took it too close to caffeine in the morning, but mid-day proved the sweet spot for me.
So a tesseract is a term for a specific geometric shape that exists in 4 dimensions. Specifically it refers to a 4-d version of a cube, in the same way you could say that a cube is a 3-d version of a square. It is a shape with 16 corners and and all right-angles.
You may have seen a tesseract represented as two cubes, one inside the other, with their corners connected (example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Schlegel_wireframe_8-cell.png). This is best understood as a drawing of a tesseract. Just as you can draw representations of 3-dimensional shapes onto a 2-dimensional piece of paper, you can also draw representations of 4-dimensional shapes onto a 3-dimensional space. The "cube within a cube" representation is kind of like drawing a cube as a square within a square, with the corners connected (left image here: https://www.math.brown.edu/tbanchof/Beyond3d/Images/chapter6/image01.jpg). It is a perspective drawing of the cube in wire-frame, viewed end-on. The outer square is the near face of the cube and the inner square is the far face of the cube, smaller because it is farther away. The other four faces are depicted as the four trapezoids formed between the inner and outer squares; these actually represent square faces but they are distorted into trapezoids by the perspective.
So the cube-within-a-cube drawing of the tesseract is just the next-dimensional version of this. It is a tesseract viewed end-on, with the outer cube being the near cell (in 4-d geometry, the 3-d shapes that make the outer surface of a 4-d shape are called "cells" - kind of like how the 3-d shapes that make the outer surface of a 3-d shape are called faces; a cube is made of six square-shaped faces, while a tesseract is made of eight cube-shaped cells), while the inner cube is the far cell, smaller because it is farther away (in the extra, 4th dimension), while the other six cells are the six "3d trapezoid" (a "frustum" is the technical term for this shape) spaces formed between the two cubes; these actually represent cube-shaped cells but they are distorted into frustums by the perspective.
4-d is hard to visualize. We live in a world of 3 spatial dimensions so visualizing that comes naturally to us, but we have to strain to understand higher dimensions beause our visual system can't help us in the same way. Analogy to 3-d is one way, in particular looking at how we represent 3-d objects using a 2-d image (a common thing for us to do), and trying to do similar things to represent 4-d objects using a 3-d "image".
I hate those. Even worse are error messages that are clear, descriptive, and wrong ("incorrect username and/or password" when actually the server or your internet is down)
To my undestanding chess is based on the Arabic game Shatranj, based on the Indian game Chaturanga, and in both games the piece next to the king is the "general" or "minister" which moves one space diagonally.
It really looks to me (a non-lawyer, non-legal-expert) as if the "oh we just need the rights necessary to fulfill the requests you make to Firefox" terms are kind of trying to confuse Mozilla-the-organization with Firefox-the-software-running-on-your-computer. Like, they seem to be saying that if you e.g. submit some text to a comment box on some website, then in order for Firefox, i.e. the copy of Firefox running on your computer, to send that text to that server, it is necessary for you to grant Mozilla, an organization that does not own your computer and whose computers are not running your copy of Firefox, all the rights necessary for them to send your data to the requested server.
It's as if they're trying to say that the copy of Firefox on your computer is considered to be part of and acting on behalf of the Mozilla organization and therefore anything it does, even actions directly requested by you like loading a page when you click a link, are legally the actions of Mozilla and not you. Which doesn't make any sense to me. Like, if a user uses Firefox to do something illegal is Mozilla then liable for that? If I go into my file manager and make a copy of a file whose contents I own the copyright to, do the makers of the file manager and of the filesystem and of every other piece of software in the chain all need to be granted the legal rights to make copies of my content, just to protect against me turning around and suing them for copyright infringement over the copy I myself instructed the file manager to make? That seems completely bonkers.
My understanding is that websites have this sort of language in their ToU because once you submit a comment / post / whatever to be displayed publicly, it is necessary for software running on their server and under their control to then transmit copies of your content whenever someone loads the page. But when you operate Firefox as a web browser to access a (non-Mozilla-owned) webpage, no server owned or operated by Mozilla should be involved in the process unless you have explicitly opted into telemetry, data sharing, VPN/proxy services from Mozilla, etc.
I feel like “downloading a file removes it from the computer you’re downloading it from” was a weirdly common misconception in the 90s. I’m sure I remember some Star Trek episode that felt the need to specify that a bunch of data had been “copied and downloaded” from the hero ship’s computer so that the audience wouldn’t think that the data was now gone. Maybe the desktop metaphor where files are presented as physical objects that can be moved around contributed to this belief. Maybe also all the anti piracy PSAs that likened downloading music to stealing a car
The only trouble with this casserole dish is that every time you try to move it from the oven to the counter, you just slip and drop it and it always somehow lands on an uninhabited planet with no working engines or communicator.
I bought 2 of these dishes and lost about 11 of them this way
Whoa, be careful with that stuff on the bottom panel! It's frequently used as an industrial solvent, it's a major component of acid rain, and just breathing it in can be deadly! Stay safe!! (/s)
I was on Strattera (atomoxetine) some years ago. It worked very well for me for about five years then kind of stopped making much difference. However even after I went off of it the symptoms seemed noticeably easier to deal with than they were before (and still do to this day), so I still count it as a win.
Now I will say though that Strattera is a bit harder to judge than the stimulants, as its action is longer term; you take it daily but it has to build up over weeks, so you don't get that immediate feedback like with the stimulants.
I found that for me, Strattera made it hard to sleep if I took it at night, and caused stomach upset if I took it too close to caffeine in the morning, but mid-day proved the sweet spot for me.
So a tesseract is a term for a specific geometric shape that exists in 4 dimensions. Specifically it refers to a 4-d version of a cube, in the same way you could say that a cube is a 3-d version of a square. It is a shape with 16 corners and and all right-angles.
You may have seen a tesseract represented as two cubes, one inside the other, with their corners connected (example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Schlegel_wireframe_8-cell.png). This is best understood as a drawing of a tesseract. Just as you can draw representations of 3-dimensional shapes onto a 2-dimensional piece of paper, you can also draw representations of 4-dimensional shapes onto a 3-dimensional space. The "cube within a cube" representation is kind of like drawing a cube as a square within a square, with the corners connected (left image here: https://www.math.brown.edu/tbanchof/Beyond3d/Images/chapter6/image01.jpg). It is a perspective drawing of the cube in wire-frame, viewed end-on. The outer square is the near face of the cube and the inner square is the far face of the cube, smaller because it is farther away. The other four faces are depicted as the four trapezoids formed between the inner and outer squares; these actually represent square faces but they are distorted into trapezoids by the perspective.
So the cube-within-a-cube drawing of the tesseract is just the next-dimensional version of this. It is a tesseract viewed end-on, with the outer cube being the near cell (in 4-d geometry, the 3-d shapes that make the outer surface of a 4-d shape are called "cells" - kind of like how the 3-d shapes that make the outer surface of a 3-d shape are called faces; a cube is made of six square-shaped faces, while a tesseract is made of eight cube-shaped cells), while the inner cube is the far cell, smaller because it is farther away (in the extra, 4th dimension), while the other six cells are the six "3d trapezoid" (a "frustum" is the technical term for this shape) spaces formed between the two cubes; these actually represent cube-shaped cells but they are distorted into frustums by the perspective.
4-d is hard to visualize. We live in a world of 3 spatial dimensions so visualizing that comes naturally to us, but we have to strain to understand higher dimensions beause our visual system can't help us in the same way. Analogy to 3-d is one way, in particular looking at how we represent 3-d objects using a 2-d image (a common thing for us to do), and trying to do similar things to represent 4-d objects using a 3-d "image".
The trunk fell off
I came out to my D&D group and it went really well! Everyone was super supportive. I thought they would be but it's still a huge relief!
I hate those. Even worse are error messages that are clear, descriptive, and wrong ("incorrect username and/or password" when actually the server or your internet is down)
“Mom… dad… I’m a closet”
"I live in Japan
without the J"
Rook thinks he’s so clever until he gets clobbered by that bishop
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/
Humanity had a good run. Until the evolution of rocketspiders.
All gifts are accepted by Aranaktu
To my undestanding chess is based on the Arabic game Shatranj, based on the Indian game Chaturanga, and in both games the piece next to the king is the "general" or "minister" which moves one space diagonally.
https://www.chessvariants.com/historic.dir/shatranj.html
https://www.chessvariants.com/historic.dir/chaturanga.html
If you think about it, and I suggest you don’t, this is a Markov model for all people regardless
Your unit files should be launching daemons, common typo
Come on, this has been a thing for the last 19+12i years
It really looks to me (a non-lawyer, non-legal-expert) as if the "oh we just need the rights necessary to fulfill the requests you make to Firefox" terms are kind of trying to confuse Mozilla-the-organization with Firefox-the-software-running-on-your-computer. Like, they seem to be saying that if you e.g. submit some text to a comment box on some website, then in order for Firefox, i.e. the copy of Firefox running on your computer, to send that text to that server, it is necessary for you to grant Mozilla, an organization that does not own your computer and whose computers are not running your copy of Firefox, all the rights necessary for them to send your data to the requested server.
It's as if they're trying to say that the copy of Firefox on your computer is considered to be part of and acting on behalf of the Mozilla organization and therefore anything it does, even actions directly requested by you like loading a page when you click a link, are legally the actions of Mozilla and not you. Which doesn't make any sense to me. Like, if a user uses Firefox to do something illegal is Mozilla then liable for that? If I go into my file manager and make a copy of a file whose contents I own the copyright to, do the makers of the file manager and of the filesystem and of every other piece of software in the chain all need to be granted the legal rights to make copies of my content, just to protect against me turning around and suing them for copyright infringement over the copy I myself instructed the file manager to make? That seems completely bonkers.
My understanding is that websites have this sort of language in their ToU because once you submit a comment / post / whatever to be displayed publicly, it is necessary for software running on their server and under their control to then transmit copies of your content whenever someone loads the page. But when you operate Firefox as a web browser to access a (non-Mozilla-owned) webpage, no server owned or operated by Mozilla should be involved in the process unless you have explicitly opted into telemetry, data sharing, VPN/proxy services from Mozilla, etc.
I feel like “downloading a file removes it from the computer you’re downloading it from” was a weirdly common misconception in the 90s. I’m sure I remember some Star Trek episode that felt the need to specify that a bunch of data had been “copied and downloaded” from the hero ship’s computer so that the audience wouldn’t think that the data was now gone. Maybe the desktop metaphor where files are presented as physical objects that can be moved around contributed to this belief. Maybe also all the anti piracy PSAs that likened downloading music to stealing a car
Well, God has concepts of a plan anyway