There are a number of small units, the hose+mask will end up taking the majority of the space, which is annoying but not sure of an easy way around that. (Maybe short hoses?) Resmed airMini is pricy but very small, needs an external battery, Philips makes a portable unit that’s a bit larger and has an optional integrated battery. You’d likely need a solar charger for backpacking. Humidification is probably the biggest trick - there are in-line moisture exchangers that help a lot, but if you have dry mouth issues it’s hard to beat a water chamber. Suppose you could boil water on a camp stove for use as well.
Def recommend try to get a study if you can find/afford it. I have a mild case, but getting used to CPAP was still life changing. That said, I find sleeping on my side is enough to avoid most symptoms for a few nights, and if I’m camping I stick to that (there are tricks for preventing back sleeping if it’s an issue).
Many responses already commenting that science (the process) is intentionally capable of addressing these issues, but that timespan can be longer than we’d like.
One major point in this comment and in many others in support is the observation that the quality of research output is increasingly poor and degraded. It reads to me there is an implicit assumption that because of this the overall process is no longer valid.
It’s not at all clear this is the case, and jumping to that conclusion is taking a very emotional and unscientific stance. Many academics get a shock at some point early on when they look into how things actually work at a small scale, and often later in their careers come to see the effectiveness of consensus and reproduction (or don’t care and just try to get credit for them and theirs). Jumping to the conclusion that science is somehow falling apart requires taking about change over time, not point observations.
Now I’m not providing evidence either way, and definitely see reasons why it could be the case. But at the same time the volume of scientific output is larger than it has ever been, and many fields are developing at an unprecedented rate. And we’re seeing the result of this in rapid technological advancement in many fields, so it’s clearly not all complete horseshit. It’s possible, likely even, that due to comparatively rapid advancement in comparison getting to solid consensus appears to take longer.
I’m not quite sure what the analogy you’re considering is, but if we’re equating fusion power plants to transistor-based circuits, I think we’re currently proving different types of solid state diodes are possible to create in a lab.
Can you give some examples? I'm guessing there is a different in definition of understanding here.
As I interpret GP, the claim is you can't describe something in sufficient detail to simulate it, then you don't actually understand it. You may have a higher-order model that generally holds, or holds given some constraints, but that's more of a "what" understanding rather than the higher-bar of "why".
I don't think that's what they're saying. We could have the detail and understanding but lack compute.
It seems that they are saying that a simulation is required for proof. We write proofs for things all the time without exhaustively simulating the variants.
I explicitly called out the case where issues arise solely due to lack of compute in my original comment.
I never claimed that a simulation is required for proof, just that an unexpectedly broken (but correctly implemented) simulation demonstrates that the model is flawed.
No? It honestly seems like you're being intentionally obtuse. The simulation being correctly implemented is an underlying assumption; in the face of failure the implementer is stuck determining the most likely cause.
Take for example cryptographic primitives. We often rely on mathematical proofs of their various properties. Obviously there could be an error in those proofs in which case it is understood that the proof would no longer hold. But we double (and triple, and ...) check, and then we go ahead and use them on the assumption that they're correct.
> Can you give some examples? I'm guessing there is a different in definition of understanding here.
I'm not the previous poster, but how about the Halting Problem? The defining feature is that you can't just simulate it with a Turing machine. Yet the proof is certainly understandable.
By not preheating the oven you will generally end up with a denser, smaller loaf. This isn’t a bad thing if you’re happy with the result, but the style of bread this recipe is aimed at typically is very light with a very airy crumb.
When the loaf goes into a hot oven, you get some steam generated as water boils, and the yeast gets heated quickly, giving a minute or two of high gas output before it is killed by higher temps. This all adds air to the inside of the loaf while the dough is still very soft. When cooking at a low temperature, the crust often hardens more before this process happens, limiting the amount the loaf can expand.
Nothing to imply the trade-offs explicitly worse, it’s down to if you like the result.
But it will definitely change what you get out of the oven.
Highly recommend trying it yourself and compare two loaves cooked with and without preheating to see how much it changes the result and if it makes it easier and more enjoyable for you to bake!
reply