The observation of injury must be the main “scientific” reason to infer that, but notice that we look at the world from our head, because that’s where eyes are.

Some of them do. My Cat s61 has an ambient temperature sensor with VOC sensor and humidity. It also has a thermal camera, and laser distance measuring tool. The ambient temp is usually a few degrees high when I'm holding the phone, but it's decently accurate when it's sitting on a table for a few minutes. My thermostat shows 72°f in my house right now, but the phone says 74°.

However, all these took up space that could have been used for other things, like a larger battery, better antenna, or a thinner profile. Basically, it boils down to "who needs this" and it's easier just to get local temperature information from the internet, or a separate tool if it's really important. As a result of this and the rubberized/reinforced body, my phone is large and bulky. That being said, for my specific use case I'm willing to make these tradeoffs.

Wound care nurse here. People who routinely go barefoot, especially outside, put themselves at a much higher risk of developing a limb-threatening infection. This especially applies if they’re diabetic or a smoker, but you don’t have to be either of those to pick up a nasty bug that creates an abscess. If the infection reaches bone, the simple fact that your foot is the furthest place from your heart (affecting circulation) means you may not even heal it after a prolonged course of IV antibiotics. If that happens, the next step is generally amputation.

Keep your feet clean, wear shoes, moisturize. And for the love of Pete, ALWAYS wear shoes if you’re diabetic, even house shoes indoors, and inspect your skin daily. Try not to listen to “well I’ve never had anything happen to me personally, so it’s fine” advice you read from randoms on the internet.

(P.S. If your shoes are causing problems, then they very likely don’t fit properly or have a poor design.)

Franchise model has more stability, for owners and fans.

The drawback, depending on your point of view, is that it's locked down. No one can force their way into American football, without permission.

In European football, you or I could conceivably start a team tomorrow, and we could hypothetically be in the premier league in a few years.

The downside, major cities could be without a competitive team, the team you've always rooted for could fall apart.

Franchises can be anticompetitive, which is why they do things like drafts and salary caps to help maintain equilibrium since there are no external forces to balance it.

When you click on a link the browser loads a lot of stuff, including page layout information (HTML & CSS), references to images, and Javascript code, which is like a program to do things. Normally the code communicates with the host platform to get information from databases and pass along things like passwords and emails, but that can be changed to do bad things.

Search engines don't do that. The contents of the page are downloaded and scanned for text, links, and images, but no code is run. It's like the difference between looking at directions on a map, and actually following those directions.

[deleted]

TLDR: Electric vehicles get way more miles per unit of energy, but not per unit of mass/volume of energy storage.

Internal combustion engines are fundamentally pretty inefficient-only about 30% of the energy they use goes to actually moving the car forward. This is related to how energy is extracted from the gasoline (research Carnot efficiency if you want to know more about the theory of how heat engines like we have in our cars work). The reason we can still make practical cars this way is that gasoline has a lot of energy packed into a relatively small mass/volume.

Electric motors have much higher efficiencies-around 90% of the energy they use goes to moving the car forward. However, the range is limited by the capacity of the battery, and the energy to mass/volume ratio for a battery is way less good than gasoline. We've only gotten the battery technology good enough to compete with gasoline on range relatively recently (especially if you consider the difference in recharge vs refill time).

>level 4ChickenEnthusiastOp · 4 min. agoSo it's like we should stop talking about "the richest/wealthiest person" and start talking about "the person with the highest valued assets

Exactly! For a recent example, see Bernard Arnault (owner of Louis Vuitton) passing Elon Musk this year for "world's richest" person - not because LV sold a bunch of merchandise, but because the things Elon owns became less valuable to potential buyers due to his damaging of them. In the earlier analogy it's like he dropped his own trading cards in the mud and "lost money" because their value decreased.

As for your second point, no I'm not aware of such a metric, but I agree that it would be useful and intriguing to see. Maybe someone else here can inform us. I imagine the problem would be where to draw the line re: "consistently valued". If gold is included, what about silver? Copper? Bonds? It could get complicated.

I was just looking this up and couldn’t find anything! My friends had me convinced I was crazy. Thank you!!

One big pro is that the team gets a somewhat guaranteed revenue. In the American sports, a bad team may still be quite profitable. In European soccer, if the team is bad and gets relegated, they stand to lose millions of dollars.

[removed]

Well what are the results.

To add to this: Some people then say that it's not real money, and it's not like those billionaires actually have those money... But it's quite easy for them to sell they assets at some rate, like 100 million/month, if they wanted to.

So while it's not currently real money, that's like saying that you having money in your bank account is not currently real money. True, it's not, but it could easily be.

To be fair, I might too if every time I met someone they said, “hey what’s with the rod?”

No

Yes it only considers the combined total mix, not each individual source. All it can do is measure the soundwave that actually reaches your ear, using a built in microphone.

Think of being in a pool. You've got 4 different people swimming, splashing, diving in - making different sizes and types of waves at different locations. But that doesn't really matter - you're at one end of the pool with a little float that bobs up and down and traces the net combined total of all these waves as their combined peaks and troughs reach you.

That little float is like the microphone in noise-cancelling headphones. The microphone measures the total net combined sound wave peaks and troughs reaching your ear, and then the headphones play an "opposite sound" that has peaks where the room noise has throughs and troughs where the room noise has peaks. The peaks and troughs cancel, and the room noise is imperfectly but substantially eliminated.

And yes it's an engineering marvel that this measurement and active response can happen at the speed of sound in an ear-sized device.

Idk about that i had one budgie who’s wings weren’t clipped after we took it home my bird started chasing it and the budgie kept running into stuff even though I found it outside

Imagine a wave of water coming towards you in a wave pool.

Ignore anything to do with things like currents under the water, etc.

If you slap the water as the other wave is coming your way, and make a wave the exact same size, shape, etc, but going the opposite way to the wave that's about to hit you, one stops the other.

Sound in air is much the same, it's just waves that you can't see. The headphones or earbuds with active noise cancellation, simply (or really, not so simply) detect other sounds, and play a sound that is the exact opposite, or close enough.

The waves hit each other, and the sound of both goes away!

[removed]

The value of these persons' imaginary money doesn't really matter to you. It really doesn't matter for most people.

Do we want rich people to get richer? Generally no. Does it mean you're losing money as they gain your (former) money? Also no.

So it's like we should stop talking about "the richest/wealthiest person" and start talking about "the person with the highest valued assets as dictated by the market", lol.

Is there ever a metric/list of the biggest hoarders of cash or gold in the world - something that is a bit more consistently and constantly valued with fewer fluctuations? Like a real-life Smaug? I always hear talk of Apple having ridiculous cash reserves, but never a particular person... maybe a sheikh or the Saudi king...

Billionaires mostly get richer by creating value. If they lead a company that creates $100 billion of goods (ie, the value of their product is worth $100 billion more than the value of the raw materials), and they scrape $1 billion off the top and use the remaining $99 billion to pay employees and taxes, then they are $1 billion richer. And everyone else is $99 billion richer (divided among all of the employees and customers and government, so each only sees a tiny fraction of the created value). But yeah, the billionaire got richer and you should be mostly happy about it because you're richer too. If you've ever bought a smartphone, you gained something of value (the difference between how much you like the smartphone minus the amount you paid for it), and you enriched a billionaire who owns the company that made it simultaneously. Oops oh well, at least smartphones exist and you get to buy one if you like them. Sometimes capitalism works and nobody loses (only sometimes, there are like a million caveats, but billionaires existing in theory is not one of them)

The good side is that there’s… tradition, for lack of a better word. Your rivals are always going to be your rivals, they’re not going to drop out of the league after a bad year.

The bad side is it encourages tanking. You have owners spend just enough on the roster to keep people coming to the games, and sell it as ‘ we’re retooling for the future ‘

Yes, this. It's like if you had a trading card and one day someone offered to buy it from you for $100. Nice! You don't sell though, maybe you'll get an even higher offer some later time.

The next day someone finds a whole sheet of that same card, and now the most anyone would pay for your card is $5. The value of your card has decreased by $95. In a sense, you lost $95 of value (because you could have sold it in the past for $100). But you didn't actually lose money. No cash has changed hands. It's just the agreed-upon worth of something that has changed.

That's what's happening when billionaires "lose millions". No money is changing hands, it's just the agreed-upon (aka "market") value of their assets changing.

>It took more studies to get a more precise understanding,

Just adding that in comparison to the rest of the body, we still know very little about the brain and that there's so much left to discover