Maybe, maybe not. I've still got 2x machines running old 7950s which were mined with for over a year and they're running perfectly fine.
Gaming and general computing is such a low intensity activity - if they didn't break while they were mining I figure that they're comprehensively stress tested at this point and they'll run til they're too old to be useful.
I already use this feature but I can reliably find my driveway on the heatmap so either a) they aggregate everything into the heatmap regardless of the privacy sphere or b) it's from my friends visiting, picking me up, etc.
Either way, there's a very clear route that leaves the road at my house and follows my driveway. It doesn't take much effort to find many, many more examples of this throughout the heatmap.
As I understand it, the iodine in dairy typically comes from the products used to clean and sanitise the milking and storage equipment (iodophor). It's not inherent in the dairy itself, otherwise we could just eat the cow's grass to obtain iodine
In the film 500 Days of Summer, Tom (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) wears a shirt with this design on it.
I have a similar shirt and had no idea what the design was. I know Joy Division, I was familiar with songs on the album, but had never actually seen the cover. My postman, a man in his mid-50s called me out one day, asking me if I was a Joy Division fan. I said yes and asked why he would ask that and he just pointed to my shirt. I assume he thinks i'm a tragic hipster now...
Can confirm. I have several wearables lying around no longer being used. The difference between the fitness devices that I use (smart scales, gps trackers) and the ones that I don't (pedometer/heart rate wearables) basically seems to be that the ones I use are measuring and recording data I was previously interested in before getting a device that tracked it. Ultimately, I can't get excited about a pedometer because I simply don't care about how many steps I take.
Also, the fact that the pedometers require near constant use to be worthwhile means that there's some degree of mental energy devoted to them - is it charged, am I wearing it, etc. A smart scale I step onto for a few seconds each day and my garmin head unit is only used when I'm riding my bike so there's almost no conscious overhead.
> the pedometers require near constant use to be worthwhile
> means that there's some degree of mental energy devoted
> to them - is it charged, am I wearing it, etc.
That's what I like about my Withings Steel: it's just a normal (and beautiful!) wristwatch. I am wearing it everyday anyway. Actually I do not take it off, because it tracks sleep too. I am not worried about charging it, because it lasts for months. It looks like I get activity tracking as a bonus functionality. Much much better experience compared to some ugly dedicated tracker. Let's hope Nokia will not ruin it.
Exactly this. Training principles are built upon the theory of supercompensation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercompensation) - by using something you make it weaker and your body makes it stronger.
It's not really very useful. Most serious but recreational cyclists are limited in terms of available training time and recovery. When faced with the option of spending their limited time on the bike or in the weight room with the objective of going faster, the bike is almost invariably the right answer. The reason for that is that watts/kg and watts/cda are the 2 basic determinants of how quickly a cyclist can get anywhere. Weight lifting will increase the watts but only on a very, very short time scale (ie, sprinting). Weights will increase the kg and cda for cyclists who eat in surplus. Thus, the cyclist will be no faster and most probably actually get slower.
The obvious exception to this is track and road sprinters who benefit considerably from doing weight work. Everyone else serious about riding should just ride.
That is a true statement, however when the objective is getting from point A to point B and those 2 points are >1km apart strength is rarely a limiting factor for cyclists. Available training time and recovery rate are however. Many of the benefits of gym based strength training can be achieved on the bike by performing on bike sprints all the while maintaining specificity. The modern, generally accepted principle is that weight training for cyclists is not the best use of training time.
The Australian system is far from perfect but does come some way to solving this. It is effectively 2 tiered:
1) Public Medicare, the publicly funded system available to everybody.
2) Private insurance, paid for by the individual and tailored to their needs.
To pay for the public system everybody pays a Medicare levy as part of their income tax. The levy is coarsely means tested. If you have private insurance then this levy is reduced somewhat.
The real critical differentiation between the public (Medicare) and private offerings are that any services deemed as elective in nature (ie, non life threatening conditions such as surgeries to treat injuries, etc) can be completed by the public system but there is a wait list which can often be quite long. If you have private insurance then you can get in very quickly with the surgeon you want.
Having private in no way restricts your usage of the public system so there is no downside to having private except that it costs more. There are also fee structures in place to encourage people to take up private when they're younger and the saving on the medicare levy.
As I said, it's far from perfect, but the 2 tiers offer a high level of customized cover for people willing and able to afford it while offering an acceptable level of cover for those who can't.
One thing I don't like about the Australian system is I think it is wasteful in someways. For example under my private cover I'm subsidized for ~$300 a year in optical expenses (split between lenses and frames).
From anecdotal conversations I know there are many people who purchase a new pair of glasses every year just because the system is basically set up to encourage this which smells like very wasteful consumption to me. I don't need a pair of glasses every year. I have gone through 3 sets of glasses in 15 years.
If I wanted to I could opt to exclude optical from my cover and save some money every month but then I'd worry about what happens if I lose my glasses or sit on them and I'd end up out of pocket so I keep paying for optical cover I don't use and feel like a sucker every year for not taking advantage of subsidized glasses.
Same thing with trips to dentist I know people who insist on general dental (unnecessary cleaning etc) because they are subsidized so they "need to take advantage to get their money's worth".
I suggest you stop thinking about it as a benefit and think about what it actually is, which is insurance.
My travel insurance is cheaper if I don't cover any lost property, but what if I need it? Anecdotally many young travellers who head overseas 'lose' their $1500 DSLR or their 6 year old macbook when in South America in order to make use of their $300 travel insurance
Agreed exactly why I pay for it. The fact it is advertised as a benefit probably contributes to this.
My insurer has gone as far as cold calling me last year "I notice you haven't been claiming any of these benefits, would you like to review your policy."
Having worked in both Public and Private Australian systems as a Dr, and as a Medical Student in the US, I agree with your comments - we have a 'reasonable balance' of a system that does a reasonable job of allocating resources in a reasonable manner.
As you say, nothing is perfect and in anything as complicated as healthcare there are going to be inequalities and problems... But even on the healthcare investment side, our Government has made some really intelligent decisions and built some beautiful facilities recently. It is rare that I work in a hospital that has not had a major renovation within the last 5-10 years (or about to undergo a rebuild)
Keep on at it. My partner and I fostered rescue puppies (mainly larger breeds) for several years before having kids. We taught bite inhibition, toilet training and general manners to umpteen puppies using positive reinforcement while they were in our care. We've used remarkably similar techniques on our children now aged 3.5 and 1.5yo. Every child is unique so YMMV but we have been very happy with the way our kids have responded to our approach.
Getting angry seems to just stimulate fear in our kids which shuts down communication and halts any opportunity for them to learn something positive from a challenging situation. I want a child who can communicate and is expressive. It's a long game so I feel like having a child who learning to communicate when they're 3 is more likely to communicate when they're a teenager facing bigger, real world problems.
We are also firmly on the positive reinforcement / attachment parenting camp. It does work wonders.
That being said, especially with kids older than ~3, we believe some form of negative consequences for bad behaviour are necessary. Especially if they e.g. push or hit another child. And I don't mean using physical punishment, more like "I'm taking this toy away from you now". The important thing is that the child is old enough to understand what they're doing is wrong, and that the consequence is relatively immediate.
Also, being angry is an emotion kids need to learn about. This means (IMO) it's OK for a parent to be visibly angry sometimes, as long as you are able to remain a good role model while angry. I.e. yelling at / insulting someone, hitting someone etc. is very much out of the picture. But yelling into the air "Aargh I'm so angry!!!" and then being able to cool down and acknowledge afterwards why you were angry is likely good for a child to see. Again, assuming that the child is old enough to understand, and that you discuss/explain it afterwards.
> Being angry is an emotion kids need to learn about. This means (IMO) it's OK for a parent to be visibly angry sometimes, as long as you are able to remain a good role model while angry.
Very true. The thing is, if you are somehow able to bottle up your negative emotions in front of your kids all the time, you're either superhuman, or you're letting them fester in some other way... Kids should learn that they have an impact on their parents' lives too, and they need to see examples of how we deal with it.
Some parents get pouty and act just like a toddler until they cave and give the kid something the kid wants. Other parents get angry, maybe even raise their voice, but then take control of their emotion and apologize to the kid, but still don't cave to whatever the kid (often irrationally) desires.
Physical punishment (outside of restraint, e.g. When one kid hurts another) is a different conversation entirely, of course.
Pride comes with embarrassment. I have an almost 12 year old steam account and am regularly ridiculed for playing CSGO poorly with a 10 years+ veteran's badge.
Gaming and general computing is such a low intensity activity - if they didn't break while they were mining I figure that they're comprehensively stress tested at this point and they'll run til they're too old to be useful.