I think there are a number of word phrases in English that would be, what are called, Trennbare Verben in German. To give English speakers the idea, when somebody says they “work out”, it’s not like just “work” - it has a specific fitness idea because of the additional word “out”.

In German, the equivalent verb would be “outworking”. In common English grammar, the “out” is always separated. In German, many words can be inserted between working and out - so like “working on the elliptical machine out”. That need not be the case in English, but it often is.

In English I would like to say “I outbuffed the scratch in my car with a chamoisé.”, or “I uppicked a record from the flea market.” or “I uppumped my tires last week.” or “I downfell and broke my ulna while skiing.”

Which is more correct: “I pumped up my tires last week.” or “I pumped my tires up last week.”?

In German it could be “I buffed the scratch in my car with a chamoisé out.”, “I picked a record from the flea market up.”, “I pumped my tires last week up.”, and “I fell and broke my ulna while skiing down.”

I’m just saying we should normalize these two-word combinations as a “standalone verb” concept so the trailing qualifier is not so difficult to parse and locate correctly in a sentence - since each of the meanings absolutely requires both parts of the verb.

It has been my experience, anecdotal as that may be, that a considerable portion of Wikipedia editors are fervent deletionists about anything not found in a paper encyclopedia, Molly White’s impression notwithstanding. The mind-set is, that at some point in the future, Wikipedia will actually be printed out somehow, and any extraneous pages just add more cost with no redeeming value. My own vision is more along the Encyclopedia Galactica line - the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy comes to mind - where notability is a very low bar, as opposed to the current policy. Should there even be a deletion policy? Why? Maybe a better system would rank the topics by page views and surface the better ones. Why are some editors gatekeepers about public knowledge with their speedy deletion trigger happiness? That’s not the way it works in science publications - ooooh, I guess we need more that one Wikipedia to make that work.

There’s some good Art Deco in Guillermo del Toro’s Nightmare Alley

Theoretically, it seems second degree murder can be subject to a pardon… https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-pardons-two-police-officers-convicted-murder-black-man-washington-2025-01-23

From the office of the pardon attorney: https://www.justice.gov/pardon/clemency-grants-president-donald-j-trump-2025-present

January 22, 2025 - 2 Pardons

NAME and WARRANT		DISTRICT		SENTENCED							OFFENSE
Terence Dale Sutton, Jr.	District of Columbia	66 months imprisonment; three years supervised release	Murder in second degree; conspiracy; obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting
Andrew Zabavsky			District of Columbia	48 months imprisonment; three years supervised release	Conspiracy; obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting

You’ve obviously never opened a document (with tabs) where your IDE setting doesn’t match what the author used. It looks like shit. Spaces are never, ever, misinterpreted. Tabs are. If your experience in viewing a document depends on a setting that the author had in their IDE, then it is a failure. This is why .PDF files are so ubiquitous, it doesn’t matter if you created it in Microsoft Word with a uniform tab setting, or TEX in a console, it looks the same to the reader. If you cannot guarantee that the reader sees your source files as you see them, then you have failed. Full stop. Tabs should be cast into the dust bin as an archaic pre-optimization that failed in the real world.

Code indentation should never use tabs, only spaces.

My concern is that this will prolong the life of fossil fuel generation in Minnesota (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Minnesota) which is twice as much as all other generation sources combined (8662MW vs. 4453.3MW). So, it’s hurting the environment to assert sovereignty - which is probably not what the average Canadian wants.

OK, it’s really a mathematics equivalence, rather than a scientific fact, but Euler’s Identity:

e^iπ + 1 = 0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_identity

it shows a profound connection between the most fundamental numbers in mathematics.

Here is a relatively short presentation: https://www.youtube.com/live/3us83qvzopM and the slides.

Disheveled hair. If you have long(ish) hair and you’re going out in public, at least drag a comb through it so you don’t look like a bed-head.

This is 100% a China and US problem - nowhere else in the world would these Wankpanzers be a status symbol. What’s required is a re-education of the Nouveau Riche to make a better choice.

Yes, living well. Happy mostly. Embodying values and dreams - as much as possible since some dreams would have needed to be started years ago to be realized - like my vineyard and my orchard. Mostly it was reinventing myself every five or seven years to follow the lucre (in software development world look for the bright and shiny new thing).

I was self employed for most of the time, and I can recommend that for those who have a pretty good work ethic. Having a goal in high school was also a key factor, since it led to a useful degree. I was also doing constant internal evaluation - like the feeling where you’re going over your desired job description for a job interview - via a journal or a self help program like “The Red Bucket Strategy”. So, in answer to how did this happen question: it was pretty methodical in using the steering gear you have to make course corrections all the time.

There’s this back story about the “LoongArch instruction system, a RISC ISA that blends ideas from MIPS and RISC-V”. The article says it is MIPS-compatible and even runs the same Linux code [Loongson’s] old MIPS-based CPUs did. Why not just use RISC-V? MIPS is licensed from the USA. I guess they have a lot of legacy people at Loongson.

Graph A (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189) just has model year and not the actual year in the common era. I just assumed all of it was extrapolation from today, which shows a cliff in about 1700 years, so give or take 3700CE.

Is it just me, or does anyone else who sees temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit (without a Celsius conversion) in a summary of a scientific report like this just automatically consider it an American fluff piece and click-bait to be ignored?

You should read the actual report https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189.

It might be my naive reading, but it seems that flooding the ocean with 4-5% of the gulf stream flow with fresh water from glacier melt (I think that’s a lot) will cause a shut down in the year 3700 or so. Even I, as a climate change believer, think that’s a little too far out there to be considered germane.

Joplin with a WebDAV server (for me it’s Infomaniak’s kDrive) provides syncing across multiple devices and is pretty much transparent. You should just force synchronize when leaving one of the apps to be sure (kind of like the save button in most programs).