It is comparing height paw to the shoulder, not the length. It’s the standard way to measure quadrupeds.

It’s all about composition

Alca torda, aka razorbill.

Entirely different things, and I think the meme actually correctly corresponds to orthopedics. It’s a pediatric specialty, and unfortunately, most of the treatments are some form or another of restraining body parts so they grow straight. Hence the snake tied to the rod in order to remain straight instead of wrapping and slithering around.

I told you, I’m not arguing. I actually agree on that point.

Not arguing here. But just want to point out that disability subculture usually arises as a survival response in the face of discrimination and segregation. Everyone has a need for community and a sense of belonging. When broad hegemonic culture rejects you and your presence, belonging is found in the one distinctive feature that is the cause for the rejection and the source of cohesion with your peers. See also gay subculture as a response to homophobia, US black culture as a response to racism, feminist sorority subculture in response to misogyny, etc. So it is not rare to see disability subculture as a response to ableism. These communities are very important for security and preservation of individuals. Just as everywhere else, security is always a trade-off with something else.

She probably did. But the reviewer won’t know that as the paper (should) get anonymized before review. The author’s own name will be censored all the way throughout the paper with certain publishers.

It’s a catch-22 situation. You are supposed to disclose if you wrote the thing you’re citing, but also cite in third person, and also it should be obfuscated for the peer review. So, what happens is that you write something like “in the author’s previous work (yourownname, 2017)…” then that gets censored by yourself or whoever is in charge of the peer review, “in (blank) previous work (blank)…”. Now, if you’re experienced in reviews you can probably guess it is the author of the paper you’re reviewing quoting themselves. But you still don’t know who it is, and you could never guess right whether it is Ruth Gotian or not. So you’re back to the tweet’s situation.

Pourquoi pas?

The fold and the flip have already cycled several years of continuous improvement. The hinges now are a massive improvement over the original flimsy hinges. The crease has been getting smoother as well.

It’s interesting, it’s still an early adopter kind of product. But it obviously has a market, however small it might be.

Aura is the medical term for a visual artifact seen by people right before a migraine. I have chosen this interpretation of the name and find it apt.

Just like the huawei trifold. It’s merely a toy for early adopters to kink out flaws and test waters in the market. Neat tech, overtly expensive, utterly unnecessary.

And if farts were rocket fuel I could fly. We all have dreams.

Exactly, if you’re a hardware designer, no amount of money will turn you into a software developer within a month. A dollar of software development is not equal to a dollar of product design. That’s the mindset of shareholders. “Give me $12.99 engineering, and give it now”

They have said in interviews that the main reason they made it was to respond to the fact that the majority of steam deck owners keep it docked to a TV most of the time. It is meant to be a living room appliance with all the sound and heat dissipation issues related.

It’s smaller than an Xbox and barely larger than a GameCube. According to the reviewers that saw it, it is also much quieter and smaller than the smallest ITX case, while also being six times more powerful than the deck. It’s targeting a very specific audience that just wants a plug and play gaming experience and don’t want the hassle of PC building.

That’s not how engineering works.

Canonical, leading the charge towards enshittification of Linux. Who would’ve guessed this 20 years ago?

You’ll be surprise how often paradox is just a proxy term for we don’t fully understand it yet. The point remains, scientists, as subjective human beings we all are, can only approximate natural truth through our own perspectives. Socially constructing knowledge that we deem our truth. Is it a game? Yes. Can it be politized by bad faith actors? Absolutely. Best we understand it to fight it than try to pledge absolutism as a banner, because that will pe politized too. And there we will lose. Absolutism feeds fascism, nuance and empathy are the enemies of fascists.

You had shitty teachers. That doesn’t mean social-constructivism is wrong. Quite the contrary, it kind of bizarrely proves how social relations alter your perception of reality.

Oh, please. Let’s not go there. Epistemologists have never suggested or promoted any such thing, your wariness is misplaced, it seems. If anything, fascism will use any and all rhetorical resource to promote their rise and stay in power. Remember, before post-modernism—which is the source of the “every person has their own truth” thing you dislike, not epistemology which predates post-modernism by a couple of centuries—fascism used objective truth as justification for the superiority of the in-group in power. Eugenics was touted by fascists in the 1800s as the epitome of scientific enlightenment. It was obvious and proven scientific knowledge that black people were an inferior race, etc. All the classical Nazi pseudo-arguments. A harsh and closed view of objective truth is precisely the kind of mindset where fascism thrive. Fascists like absolute truths quite a lot, even when they contradict each other.

The point of epistemology is to analyze the ways in which humans come up with and use knowledge. It has absolutely no prescriptive tenets at all. It is entirely descriptive.

Like, you can’t look at me in the eye and seriously suggest that Bertrand Russel, Jean-Paul Sartre, Locke, Hume or Immanuel Kant were fascists.

Exactly, remember the point was not to be right. But to have the discussions. It wasn’t the physics we were interested in, but in the ways to construct knowledge. Definitions and models are human constructs. The universe doesn’t care that we do or do not have neat words and models of its workings. However, language and knowledge, as human endeavors, require human interaction.

An interesting one way to illustrate this point was: An hermit, all alone in the wilderness, by sole virtue of reasoning acquires absolute objective truth of the fundamental laws of the universe. Way beyond any current scientific knowledge. However, he doesn’t tell anyone. Has any knowledge been gained? If he dies, not telling anyone what he discovered, has any knowledge been lost?