One thing that helps me write is to picture someone I know who I'm talking to. This helps me to include the appropriate level of context, and it also impacts the "voice" I will use. I think the author basically mentions this as one of the their list items.
I have noticed that when people are explaining the rules of a game, they tend leave out the goal of the game, or wait to mention it toward the end of the explanation. You gotta lead with what the goal of the game is.
The rulebooks (or videos) as well, do often omit this.
But even when the overall goal is either obvious or explicitly stated, it's very common for none of the described options or actions to provide a motivation for the action or option that connects to the goal.
In other words--yes, I can read some rules that say "on your turn, you can draw a BLANKLY card, play a FARB token, or advance one of your MORTGAGED BULLETS on the community barrel."
But why would I do those things? So many rulesets could improved by adding motivation, like "If you think an opponent that owns your MORTGAGE is getting to close to the BULLETPROOF PIT, then you can beat them to the pit by advanced a MORTGAGED BULLET toward the target." Ah! Okay, those are the circumstances under which I might want to do that.
Or, "If you aren't getting enough FARB tokens to block opponents, you might need more of the FARB-earning resources you can get by drawing BLANKLY cards. Remember that you're trying to either build a ROBOT--using parts on some of the FARB tokens--or destroy others' ability to build ROBOTs by shooting them."
The rules of the game aren't really "how you play"; and a newcomer doesn't have a playstyle. You need to mix the basic strategy with the rules instead of just giving a bunch of options and no pointers as to why you might want to do one thing over another.
This is where the choice of theme can make a big difference. If chosen well, the players will be naturally guided to appropriate choices. Stock market game? Buy low, sell high! Farming theme? Can’t reap before you sow. Etc…
I would like to know if the plastic used in my Moccamaster is subject to these hazards. I bought it specifically because they claim to use food-grade quality plastic that is supposed to be safe.
Even if you don’t care about chemicals, plastic does in my experience absorb a lot of “burnt/old” coffee flavor, especially if it goes through rubber/plastic/silicone tubing.
I can recommend porcelain pour over and paper filters. I fill up around 1L in the morning with hot water from the boiler. It’s very boring and non-fancy, takes about as much time as a coffee maker (pouring is slower but cleaning is faster). Use a thermos if you want it hot for longer. Great flavor for non-snobs.
I just went through a whole thing trying to get rid of plastic from my coffee setup, since I make coffee almost every day (sometimes twice). I couldn't find any plastic-free drip coffee makers, other than maybe the Ratio 8. In the end, I settled for a Chemex and doing pour over, which I've actually really enjoyed. So I recommend that if the plastics are giving you pause, although I can imagine giving up your Moccamaster is a hard sell! How do you like it, by the way?
My problem with a pour over is how agonizingly slow it is, and it requires 3-4 refill interactions to actually make a decent “pot” of coffee even with the largest chemex they sell.
I timed it once and I can literally get in the car and drive somewhere and get home with a 32oz coffee faster than my chemex can produce the same amount.
I’d pay $3k or more for a coffee maker that
1) had water line hookup capability, or at least a large glass reservoir
2) integrated conical grinder
3) all stainless/glass internals/zero plastic
4) timer functionality
I want to wake up and get ready finding a perfect pot of coffee on my schedule, with the only manual work being to remove the previous grounds each day and periodic maintenance.
Just checked my Moccamaster and it says that it uses PET 7 plastic, which supposedly designates "other" resin. Not sure what that means if anything for food safety.
One other thing about Lael that I don't think the article mentioned is that on top of being an amazing ultra-endurance cyclist, she also has had to deal with lots of respiratory problems. I don't remember if it's Asthma or what, but her lungs literally shut down at times. This makes it even more impressive to me.
I’ve read about the prevalence of chest infections on other long events (Tour de France). I’ve just been searching and can’t find any supporting evidence.
Breathing very hard for hours at a time for days on end would seem to have consequences
Athletes in most sports report significantly above-average rates of asthma. Athletes with an asthma diagnosis generally outperform their non-asthmatic rivals. Some of that is almost certainly confounded by the fact that many asthma medications - most notably salbutamol - are performance-enhancing drugs; an asthma diagnosis allows an athlete to take drugs under a therapeutic use exemption that would otherwise result in a ban.
> Some of that is almost certainly confounded by the fact that many asthma medications - most notably salbutamol - are performance-enhancing drugs; an asthma diagnosis allows an athlete to take drugs under a therapeutic use exemption that would otherwise result in a ban.
I think all of it might be explained by this. At least to me it was always "common knowledge" that many athletes find a doctor willing to diagnose them with asthma so that they can get the medication.
Some of that is almost certainly confounded by the fact that many asthma medications - most notably salbutamol - are performance-enhancing drugs; an asthma diagnosis allows an athlete to take drugs under a therapeutic use exemption that would otherwise result in a ban.
That's not true at all.
WADA does not require a therapeutic usage order for normal usage salbutamol. Anyone who needs it can use it at the dosages required to control asthma.
At these dosages it has not been shown to improve performance, as mentioned in the abstract of the first link you cited.
Further I would offer [1],[2] and [3] as evidence for why you are wrong. Salbutamol does not improve performance at normal dosages.
A test showed that they couldn’t get 12 trained cyclists to have a level above 510ng/ml in their urine, when they took salbutamol at the maximum WADA level of 600ug in an 8 hour period. [1]
The WADA threshold for salbutamol is 1,000ng/ml [2] So this level is about twice the level performance tested in your first link above.
Athletes can get TUEs for levels higher than the 1,000ng/ml limit or to take it using other methods than inhaling. [2]
Cyclists have been banned for having levels at 1,900ng/ml and 1,320ng/ml, and they were banned because the sport considers it a performance enhancing drug.
I imagine (but have no evidence, since they aren't published) that cyclists with a TUE regularly race with levels similar or above that. And without spending hours researching, I imagine this translates to other sports similarly.
1) Even if it doesn't improve performance, athletes might still think it does and try to get the asthma medication. It might surprise you how much lore and voodoo surrounds professional sports. People are willing to try almost anything if it has even a small chance to improve performance by 1%. Also, both of the studies you linked are quite new. Athletes have been obtaining (possibly false) asthma diagnoses for decades.
2) Maybe they don't use normal doses. As long as they get the prescription, they can take however much they want, right?
3) A few studies might not be enough to thoroughly prove that there's no effect under all possible circumstances. Again, as long as there is even a small amount of hope of it helping, many athletes are willing to try it.
That makes sense for tour de France. They spend a lot of time attacking and then conserving energy. The attacks are zone 5 (hr) efforts. High toll on the body and immune system. Endurance athletes ride differently, they avoid higher power zones and focus on max efficiency from which the body can more easily recover.
Key to it, exertion and recovery are non linear. Lael likely can push 300 watts at zone 2. For comparison, a strong amateur cyclist can push 300 watts only for about 15 minutes (and would be in zone 4 - very likely exhausted the following day)
The focus in ultra endurance is extreme efficiency. Extreme aerobic and metabolic fitness.
Bottom line, tour de france riding and ultra endurance are quite different. The athletes from one to the other do not necessarily do well in the other mode of riding.
therapeutic use exemption for salbutamol. same reason the entire norwegian winter olympic team "has asthma". or why the a ton of russian athletes "had ischemia" and needed meldonium. or why many gymnasts "have ADHD"
all your favorite athletes are cheating, especially from rich countries :)
What are you talking about? You don't need a therapeutic use exemption to use salbutamol at the doesages required to control asthma. It does not improve performance.
Breathing cold air does induce asthma, so it's perfectly plausible that everyone on the Norwegian Olympic team could have exercise induced asthma and not be gaining any advantage from it.
Stop casually mixing genuinely asthmatic athletes using, non-controlled, non-performance enhancing medicines with state sponsored dopers.
Sadly, I have found this to be true for many things. Not dismissing any real, physical aspect, but there's always a psychological aspect that comes into play as well.
My view is that shell scripting feels like the wild-west, so I try to conform to POSIX to maintain some level of sanity, though it feels restrictive at times. I rely on ShellCheck to help me write shell scripts that are POSIX compliant.
reply