Ecosystems aren’t built by any homogeneous group of people. They’re a sum of their parts. It’s not like there was a committee and that committee decided how things should work wrt wheel reinvention. People publish packages, and the result is something we call an ecosystem.
Not in a way meaningful to assessing infectious risk, no.
I consider outdoor air to be unshared, except in cases of large dense crowds (such as say outdoor festivals or sporting events).
I consider risky shared air to be indoor air with one or more other individuals that are not known to be taking infection-prevention precautions.
One can measure CO₂ as a proxy to rebreathed air fraction.
For example, a CO₂ reading of 2300ppm (common in a small or medium room with a few others, or larger rooms with a crowd or conference room, or in a car) means 5% of your air is rebreathed (5% of your intake is output from another person's lungs).
A way to think about this is we take ~20 breaths a minute on average. So in that scenario, it would be equivalent to one breath every minute coming directly from someone else's lungs. If they happen to be contagious with an airborne contagion (such as Covid, or influenza, or RSV), there's a high likelihood that you will catch it if you're spending more than a short time in that environment.
There are nuances, such as maybe the air is being scrubbed (eg by a HEPA filter) which won't affect the CO₂ levels but will drastically lower the infectious risk of that environment.
> One can measure CO₂ as a proxy to rebreathed air fraction.
On this topic, I got a CO₂ meter fairly recently and was shocked how quickly it spikes with a couple of people in a car with the windows up and on recirculate. Easily over 2000 after a few minutes. I have to remind myself regularly when it's really hot or cold outside to keep the vent setting on fresh air.
I had a Jaguar that had an air quality sensor that would switch to recirc based on particulates and then back to fresh air when the threshold indicated.
Beats me. The only dosage forms I've seen are blotter and sugar cubes, maybe some of the blotter diffuses through the lining of your mouth if you keep it under your tongue but it also works great if you just swallow it -- it's very orally available.
Lilly though had a bad relationship with drugs, he crashed his bike when he was high on ketamine long before ketamine was fashionable.
In the early 1990s accounts of drug experiences on Erowid were mostly positive ("I smoked weed and got high and had a good time") but by the early 2000s it started to look like anti-drug propaganda but I think it was a lower quality tranche of users [1] and you started seeing negative ones ("I took a fistful of random pills, went out on the street, lost motor control and was laying flat on the ground, everybody was really sympathetic until I rolled over and a huge baggie of pills came out of my pocket, then I got kicked by a cop.")
[1] y'all know I am not inclined to believe in natural hierarchies but I think that early adopters of most things are "better" than later adopters however you define "better"
Wikipedia lists the cutoff for ancient at 500AD so I don’t think this comes down to perception. Insofar as words have meaning, TFA is using “ancient” incorrectly. Then again, language always seems to slouch towards the extremes. If literally dead can mean slightly amused, maybe ancient can mean a couple hundred years old.
That's just the rough point at which historians stop referring to things as "ancient history", it's not some kind of definition for the word "ancient". Ancient just means really really old. You need to use the context to know exactly how old.
For example if I said "your dad is ancient" I obviously don't mean he was born before 500AD.
That said I think "ancient ruins" is so commonly used to refer to ruins from ancient history (i.e. before 500AD) that it is a pretty odd choice for the headline.
That's not quite true. There are a number of languages which compile to JavaScript, e.g., Elm, and provide an API for interacting with the DOM, as well as some kind of FFI.
Couldn’t you use WebAssembly? I think (?) GP’s point is that it would make more sense to use a different language that compiles to WebAssembly. (Or transpile to Javascript I guess, but I don’t know why you’d do that.)
WebAssembly still doesn't have direct DOM bindings. That's at least two levels deeper and several more standards to go after the very basic Wasm GC that was only just recently standardized. For the moment you basically have an FFI/IPC bridge that you can send TypedArray buffers and attempt to UTF-8 decode them and then JSON.parse that on the JS side. (We don't even have strings agreed upon yet, mostly just arrays of bytes. Wasm Strings is a possible standard still in the process.)
Anyone doing serious HTML rendering with WebAssembly today A) has a build step, B) still has a bunch of JS to do memory buffer FFI/IPC and decoding/encoding, C) is usually using some form of Virtual DOM in the Wasm side and the JS side is some version of JSON-driven React/Preact-Lite. It is not today more efficient than React's build process nor React's runtime experience.
I’m amazed no one has mentioned AI in this thread. The nice thing about LLMs is that, in a way, the framing of the question serves to “seed” the LLM with the context about who is asking. Ask something specific, and it will assume you already know what you’re talking about and give you only what you need.
It'll scroll (well, perform a swipe action, which usually translates into a scroll, except the wrong way around), but it's not the physical knob normal mice have.
I also find the scroll response rather unpredictable. I usually love touch gestures, I'm even considering getting one of those Apple touchpads for my Linux machine, but the scroll area on the tiny curved mouse surface isn't intuitive to me.
