bloodfoot

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Sure but the high performers are usually the first ones out the door. That’s arguably gonna cost them more in the long run but who cares about the long run when this quarter’s profits are so high.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Local roaster in Champaign Illinois called Columbia street roastery. I don’t live in the area anymore but I order online and they ship wherever. My personal favorite is their black velvet; it’s dark but incredibly smooth.

here's their website

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

And if you’re male.

Edit: FFS does no one realize that women experience sex differently from men? Bad sex with an oblivious partner can be downright painful for a woman. The same is typically not true for men. My point was not that women don’t have sex or that they don’t enjoy sex. My point is that they don’t experience it the same way as men.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More than one, actually.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

My personal take is that intelligence is much like muscular strength. Genetics probably play a role but the more important factor is how you use and train your cognitive strength. A cognitively sedentary person will almost always be less intelligent than a cognitively active person, I doubt genetics play a large role unless we’re talking about people who put similar levels of effort into their development and upkeep.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

This gonna be a shit show.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

A healthy office culture and team members to collaborate with. I go to the office because interacting with my coworkers in person is enjoyable and I learn new things faster through those interactions. It helps that we also have free coffee and snacks and the commute is less than 10 minutes but I primarily go in because of the people I work with.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

If we stick with your 1/44 assumption, we can then assume 50% chance that the following day will also be a record setting day (probably too low still but the math is easier). Your one week estimate would be (1/44)*(1/2)^6.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not to be too pedantic but your back of the envelope probabilities are based on inaccurate assumptions and probably several orders of magnitude off. Specifically, your not just assuming uniform but also independent from one day to the next. A more accurate treatment would be to assume conditional dependence from one day to the next (the Markov property). Once you have a record hot day, you are significantly more likely to have another record hot day following it.

That said, it’s still low probability, just not as low as what you’re saying.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

No, that seems right to me.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Atropine? My cat had keratitis right after we adopted her and we gave her that with a cocktail of antibiotics and steroids. The atropine caused her eye to dilate so she looked like a Bond villain while her eye was healing.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I also don’t get it.

view more: ‹ prev next ›