As far as source, I was going off my memory from what an instructor had said when I was taking a culinary arts class several years ago, so nothing I could easily point you to. The original statement as I recall it was that microwaving meat can break down the proteins, and therefore it should be cooked instead of microwaved… but, a quick google doesn’t find anything along these lines, and instead shows many people saying microwaving meat is perfectly fine… so consider that a strong update against my original statement.
It’s possible my memory completely made that statement up, or that the teacher was saying something not widely held to be the case, among other possibilities.
For example, on Newcomb’s Problem, rational irrationality chooses to take only one box (despite the fact that many methods of ‘rational’ analysis would suggest it receives more by taking two), thereby earning $1,000,000; while irrational rationality chooses to take both boxes, and finds itself with only $1,000.
Rational irrationality chooses to commit to a seemingly “irrational” course of action, but actually wins. Irrational rationality tries to use rational analysis, but by doing so forfeits utility.
I think I remember hearing that microwaves break down / degrade proteins, which there are plenty of in cheese. This shouldn’t change the nutritional value of the dish, but may change the eating experience. Microwaving only the pasta and tomatoes, then adding the cheese before baking, may alleviate any problems this causes.
Not just in the latest TCEC season, they’ve been neck-and-neck for quite a bit now
I’d say that this is a better argument for calculus and PDEs than trigonometry- the sine function can be defined purely from a calculus point-of-view, and that definition is more similar to what you describe than the trigonometry perspective
Today, I learned that Vite Ramen is making a version of their healthy & convenient noodles that comes in a quick cup. If you haven’t tried Vite before, I recommend checking it out.
I hadn’t seen the experiments on Jessicata’s posts before, and I assume others will have not as well, so here’s a link to one of the posts featuring the experiment. (It’s a two-axis thing, with ‘overall’ and ‘agreement’ as the two axes. Part of me prefers that setup to the one used in this experiment)
I like this one
Always check for bikes when you get out of your car. Always.
I can confirm. I once got hit by an opening car door while biking. It hurt a good bit.
Personally, I don’t find these 4 axes to be too much to handle. I don’t necessarily agree that the axes have to be very orthogonal. The point of this system is to promote LW’s desired culture of seeking truth, so it makes sense that the axes are going to have that all in common. The important thing is that each axis should have some significance that is not communicated by any of the other axes- which I feel at least 3 of the 4 axes accomplish (“true” is about whether something is actually true, “clarity” is about how well the thoughts are expressed, regardless of the truth, “seeking” is about demonstrating proper epistemic hygine, (Which overlaps slightly with clarity, but clarity is more about having a line of thought that can be followed, with less emphasis on the quality of the tools of reasoning, while truth-seeking emphasizes using tools that give good results, with less focus on how clear their use is, or the actual resulting thesis).
I’d say I have the hardest time distinguishing “aim” from “truth”, because ultimately something that hits the mark is true, though “misses the point” seems not quite the same as “false”. Actually, now that I think about it, “hits the mark” and “misses the point” don’t really feel complementary to me- ‘hits the mark’ is basically about agreement, while ‘misses the point’ seems to be more about how well the thoughts in a comment understand and relate to the conversation it is a part of.
I would maybe suggest trying to adjust “hits the mark” to also be on this axis- highlighting not just truth, but relating to the broader context of the conversation in a good way.
I believe ‘aim’ refers to “hits the mark / misses the point”
I think sparkles works well, clapping hands is also okay (and I’m actually personally fine with the 🎉 icon). 100 doesn’t feel like it matches “enthusiasm” very well. Hugging face kinda works, but I prefer the others (aside from 100), and I agree that yellow faces should be minimized (though I’m probably less opposed to it than Ruby)
The UI for the reactions works pretty well on iPhone, the only issue is that it’s tricky to dismiss the dialog, though it can generally be done with less than 10 seconds of fiddling (usually closer to 1 or 2 seconds). If there was a button to dismiss the dialog, that could make it a lot smoother to use (and should work well on other platforms as well, even if it’s not strictly needed on other platforms)
I agree that ❤️ and “empathy” don’t really match with eachother
I generally think having toggles is good design, as long as things function well for everybody without needing to use toggles
I wish the buttons for ‘truth’ said ‘agree / disagree’ instead, because while sometimes the truth is objective, other times comments are more subjective, and I desire to communicate that I disagree (‘false’ feels more icky, because I feel they are honestly communicating what they feel, I just don’t agree with their perspective)
In the case that some people say ‘true’, and an equal number say ‘false’, I would appreciate it if the ‘truth’ box (same for the other boxes) was still visible, and said ‘truth 0’, instead of disappearing. That way, one can distinguish between no box (Which means no-one has expressed an opinion), and a divided opinion.
I’d appreciate it if clicking on the regular upvote / downvote didn’t open the more complex dialog, and rather just did a simple up / down vote, and instead there was a button to access the more detailed voting. That way, by default, voting is easy and I can ignore the more nuanced system unless I deliberately wanted to use it.
(Also, since we’re on the topic of the voting UI, I’ve mentioned to multiple members of the LW team that strong upvoting is broken on iPad, since the OS says long press = select text. On iPhone, a different gesture is used, but it’s activated based on screen size, so it doesn’t work on iPad. This should be easily fixable by simply adding a check for OS that makes the double-tap always work on iOS (though things are often not as simple as one may expect). I’m a little frustrated that this hasn’t been fixed yet, though I also understand that dev resources are limited)
I agree that it should be an option to turn this off for oneself, but I currently feel that this will be net-positive for most users
I broadly agree, but I’d say I consider myself a regular (have been active for nearly 2 years, have deeper involvement with the community beyond LW, have a good bit of total karma), and I still expect this to provide me with useful information.
Given that my understanding is that most people, even those who are vaccinated, will at some point in the coming months be infected with Omicron (this is relatively fine, because the vaccines make the effects much milder):
If you are not currently in the habit of doing aerobic exercise (e.g. running), I suspect that doing so in the coming months would be a good idea. Covid is known to affect the lungs, so your aerobic capacities will be negatively influenced by the virus, and doing aerobic exercise (both prior to and after infection) will ensure that this function (which affects both your mental stamina as well as general quality of life) will continue to be high-quality even after getting covid.