It makes a huge difference if you get introduced to high temperatures and humidities over a period of weeks or months rather than all of a sudden. People live in hot climates year round without feeling miserable all the time. Most bodies are able to do a surprisingly good job of adapting to high temperatures if the transition is done very gradually.
Living in hot and humid climate is miserable even for people living there all the time. Yes humans persist and carry on but it doesn't make it less miserable, and any lucky person who was able to escape will never ever want to go back to that lifestyle.
I wouldn't want to live in an environment that's basically too hot for human life to thrive. There are people all over the world right now living in areas that are genuinely deadly if the AC goes out. People say "Oh, we do just fine in Death Valley, etc" (the American West in general) and that's just a person who is alive only because of AC. lol.
> but out of curiosity how much of your time do you spend in air conditioned environments?
Over 30y, I can give all possible answers to that question. I was 15y in scouting leadership. During June-Aug, I would be outdoors for weeks at a time. What I got used to was feeling sick every day.
That said, early heat stroke symptoms get old after a decade or three. Now I go outside after sunset.
I spend a lot of time riding my bike in the summer here in Massachusetts. Temperatures regularly get up to around 35 °C (95 °F), but fortunately the humidity isn't usually too bad. These rides are usually at least two hours long, and sometimes up to six. I'm always surprised at how tolerable those temperatures are when air is moving by you at a decent speed. It definitely requires a lot of water and mineral replacement to sustain. Aside from having to make more stops to refill and pay closer attention to hydration, I surprisingly find it more pleasant than riding at 30 °C (86 °F).
Weird! I replied to that comment because I didn’t think they mentioned humidity, though I see they did. I appear to have just completely overlooked it. Sorry about that!
GP started with the premise "we don't need one printed in the 21st century".
A more generous reading of that argument might be "we don't need one authored in the 21st century", not that textbooks would never need reprinting and last forever through two dozen owners
I'd have a problem believing that too, because I see that my oldest child's math textbook (for the last year before starting university) is better than my own was. Not very much, but enough to give me the impression that the textbook authors are paying attention to how their work is used and improving it (maybe by <0.1%) in each edition.
D'oh! Thanks. I had indeed interpreted the person they were replying to as talking about authorship rather than printing …despite them saying “printed”
No, one comment up. "No need for a calculus textbook printed after y2k" or words like that. I guess that's 23 years of use if you're pedantic enough, not 24.
A textbook that's gone through five students will have encountered someone like you and also someone like me.
I would not scan the QR code because that’s way less trouble. If the owner insisted on it I’d do it, but I’d roll my eyes and wondering why the owner thought this was an improvement.
> And if taking no stance makes your audiences leave, it might just be a symptom of an existing condition.
This is not why I or anyone else I know cancelled. We cancelled because the owner of the Post overruled the editorial board, which is extremely concerning
> You can, in theory use very strong lint rules (disallow `as` operator in favour of Zod, disallow postfix ! operator), but no actual codebase that I've worked on has these checks. Even the ones with the strictest checks enabled have gaps.
That's surprising. I've worked on a few codebases with reasonably mature TS usage and they've all disallowed as/!/any without an explicit comment to disable the rule and explain why the use is required there.
Is that possible for families with three kids under the age of ~8? The requirements for how large a child must be before they can ride without a car seat have gone up significantly since I was a child, and it seems like strollers have gotten much bigger as well. I remember my two siblings and I being squeezed into the rear seats of the station wagon. Even when just one of us was in a car seat it was a tight fit. My siblings and I are roughly spaced 2.5 years apart. These days we would certainly have all been in car seats at the same time which would just not have worked.
I have two short friends who live in the city and have two kids. When their second arrived (and their first was a toddler) they replaced their sedan with a "mini"-SUV specifically because it became difficult to fit all the things required for taking both kids somewhere at once, especially if they were flying.
It's been ages since I looked at child seats, and that is a valid concern. But, it doesn't change my stance on increasing the cost of owning a larger vehicle. Having a child is massively expensive as is it, adding a bit of cost to car ownership would hardly be a dent in that total.
Right now, it's just too darn cheap to own one in the US, leading us to policy decisions that prevent smaller, more efficient, cheaper vehicles. And diminishing safety for non-car uses of public spaces. We'd all be safer, richer, and healthier if more of us could get by without owning large vehicles.
And note you said "mini-SUV". I'm more concerned about the Escalade EXTs and super-cab pickup trucks and things.
> But, it doesn't change my stance on increasing the cost of owning a larger vehicle.
Makes sense, and fwiw that's not something I was trying to rebut. The article I read a while back argued that it might be good to relax the height/weight requirements on car seats. I can't remember exactly but I think it argued that a modest reduction in the requirements would result in an increase of ~30 deaths of child car occupants per-year and some larger number of injuries, but that the externality of reducing incentive for sizing up the family car would result in fewer childhood deaths in general (as well as reduce them for other age cohorts).
> Right now, it's just too darn cheap to own one in the US, leading us to policy decisions that prevent smaller, more efficient, cheaper vehicles. And diminishing safety for non-car uses of public spaces. We'd all be safer, richer, and healthier if more of us could get by without owning large vehicles.
Agreed. I'm really glad I live in a town with a centrally located bike path
> And note you said "mini-SUV". I'm more concerned about the Escalade EXTs and super-cab pickup trucks and things.
I ended up getting the same one (Hyundai Ioniq 5) but it's still larger than I'd like. Our other car is a Honda Fit, which--other than the legroom being a bit cramped and it not being electric--is the ideal car for me. The Ioniq doesn't have the insane completely vertical Everest-sized grills you see on the giant vehicles, but it's still much larger than the Fit. It also doesn't offer the driver the visibility of the Fit which makes me a smidge more nervous around small children, though it has cameras to somewhat compensate.
> One would think so, but there are incredible games in their portfolio that have never seen a single re-release - on any platform. The old Pokemon games are among it, as is A link to the past.
Maybe you're using a different definition of re-release than I am, but I recently played A Link to the Past on the Switch virtual console. I also played the Game Boy Advance re-release of it in the early 2000s. Apparently it's also been released for the Wii, Wii U, New 3DS, and Super NES Classic Edition.
A quick check of Wikipedia shows that in addition to their remakes, Pokemon Red/Blue/Yellow were also released on the 3DS virtual console.
reply