Yeah. Which is exactly why if the benefit is being aware of your hand posture you're better off just sticking a note on your keyboard than buying a new one every few months.
I don't buy a new one every few months. I simply have a collection of keyboards, and I swap them out every few months. That's really the only point - you don't have to do this expensively.
Besides, keyboards are cheap... cheaper than therapy and drugs and all the other hassle. This really is the simplest, cheapest solution. And no, I don't buy the 'woo woo hand wavy' aspect you imply - I believe that having different geometry to deal with, keeps my hands from becoming accustomed to the repetition of previous keyboards, and thus it exercises my hands in a different way - and it is the difference that matters, above all else, to keeping RSI away ..
It doesn't change a thing and I do not acknowledge the efficacy of such an action. Sometimes in life you have to actually do things, thinking about them is not enough..
> it's modern scientific dogma that the world is deterministic
Really? Maybe I've lost touch with dogma while working to complete my physics PhD with one of the big LHC experiments, but this sounds hyperbolic to me. Could you explain?
> Even if you take into account quantum uncertainty, as Hawking points out, it is determined probabilities.
That the probabilities are governed (determined?) by precise equations doesn't mean that quantum mechanics isn't stochastic; it gives us only probabilities. The indeterminacy principle is a better better name than the uncertainty principle. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.
Even if the universe is deterministic, its future is still unknowable, as in to predict the future of the universe you would need something to simulate every subatomic particle of all matter etc and so doing that computation would need something bigger than the universe.
I like to think of the universe as a deterministic computer that is calculating its own outcome - there is no shortcut to jump to the end.
If there is no one to determine "correct" behavior, then there can be no bugs. If the universe crashes one day due to a mishandled null atom, we'll just have to take it as correct behavior (too bad for us!)
Causality. We know that everything follows a cause-and-effect model. And if you're a physicalist -- philosophical term that you believed the world doesn't have any supernatural forces -- then, leaving aside quantum uncertainty for a second, the next state of the universe is determined by all the previous ones.
They didn't teach you in your physics PhD that stochastic != Undetermined. We may not know how to predict stochastic processes but that doesn't mean they don't follow cause-and-effect.
> But his comment about professional dress could have been made far more constructively. When I encounter provocatively-dressed women...
It's not at all clear from her blog post that she was dressed provocatively, or that he was sincerely commenting on the appropriateness of her appearance. This could just as easily have been a scenario where a man thinks a woman looks good and lets her know that he thinks so, while simultaneously criticizing her for his advantage, ie, negging.
But with the information we have, we just don't know. It's like an ambiguous personal email that one can project attitudes onto; if you're feeling defensive or threatened, then it's easy to read a perfectly neutral message as being hostile or even sarcastic.
