Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)E

exasperation

@ exasperation @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts
2
Comments
638
Joined
9 mo. ago

  • Is there a process by which courts check access logs of a server to verify the data hasn't been tampered with?

    Jump

  • Each side has the opportunity to use their own experts to ask those questions and analyze the forensic integrity of the evidence at issue. Even if your side doesn't have an expert, your attorney still has the chance to question the other side's expert.

    So if there's a piece of evidence based on an email sent from Alice to Bob, the way the evidence gets introduced is that it gets authenticated, by someone who would be in a position to speak to whether a particular document is authentic. The other side can seek to exclude the evidence if the basis for authentication isn't strong enough. Or, it comes in, and the other side might want to challenge that the document actually represents what the other side wants to prove: maybe casting doubt on whether other people had access to Alice's account, etc.

    Or if you want to use a surveillance camera video, you'd generally have someone who maintains the system testify as to how the system records, where it stores the data, and how it adds timestamps to different videos. Then that technical person can usually testify that the timestamp is accurate, etc., and might have to answer questions about what happens when the system loses power or a connection, etc.

    So it's not that the courts in the US actually test the validity of evidence. It's that the parties involved in the case can challenge the validity if the circumstances call for it.

  • flowers for the lost

    Jump

  • Without looking up the details, I'm just gonna assume both facts are correct (no anatomically correct women dummies before 2023 and a pregnant dummy in 1996), by saying that the 1996 dummy was a pregnant man. Only two years after Arnold Schwarzenegger started in Junior.

  • flowers for the lost

    Jump

  • Why do I have to pay more for a seat that won't crush my knees?

    I mean, it sucks, but the larger seats do cost the airline more to provide. I pay more for shipping inanimate objects that are long, even if they're the same weight.

  • bird based storage

    Jump

  • Your starling enthusiast is named Sterling?

  • Removed

    Why is Chicago so violent?

    Jump

  • I'll answer your question directly:

    No, Chicago doesn't have a problem with violence.

  • How Does This Community Handle GoComics DMCA Issues?

    Jump

  • Bill Watterson has clearly expressed dislike for corporations and profit seeking, but there's also no question that he's in favor of very strong copyright protection. It's how he enforced his vision of preventing unauthorized use of the Calvin and Hobbes characters.

  • What famous people in history do you think would be disgnosed with autism if they lived in modern day?

    Jump

  • Peter Mark Roget, best remembered as the person who compiled Roget's Thesaurus. He was a physician by trade, but was actually pretty slow to start up that career, taking multiple detours along the way. Biographers noted that he suffered from depression most of his life, and, from an early age, compiled lists as a relaxation mechanism. After he retired as a physician, he earnestly compiled lists and lists of meanings of words and phrases, and indexed and organized them so that they could be referenced.

  • It's the dream

    Jump

  • Close, but I spell my name with a "ph" so it's Phteven, or Phteve for short.

  • It's the dream

    Jump

  • It's not social media if your accounts aren't doxxable in either direction. People who know me in person and know I'm on Lemmy wouldn't be able to figure out which account is mine, and people who encounter my account on Lemmy wouldn't be able to figure out who I am out in the real world.

  • Edibles

    Jump

  • Is it really impossible to make a protein bar savory?

    In order to make something that is shelf stable without refrigeration, it needs to be either hostile to harmful microbes or sealed in a way with no harmful microbes inside (and will have to be refrigerated after opening).

    There are a few ways to do it without sealing, including reducing water activity low enough that microbes can't grow. Flour, rice, oats, nuts, and other bulk dry goods generally follow a dehydration process. Oil doesn't have water in it, so sometimes there are high oil substances (peanut butter) that don't have enough water to support microbial activity.

    Another way to reduce water activity is to bind the water molecules with other molecules. Sugar is by far the most common substance useful for reducing water activity, because it's possible to mix water with a lot of sugar. Honey is shelf stable because it's something like 15% water and 85% sugar. Maple syrup is about 33% water and 67% sugar. At those sugar levels, microbes struggle to actually resist the osmotic pressure and use the water present in the substance.

    Note that salt can't really do the same thing. A brine that is 95% water and 5% salt is basically inedibly salty. But 95% water is still top high to really inhibit microbial growth. At most, you hope that good microbes outcompete bad microbes (this is the basis for pickling sauerkraut, Kim chi, certain types of pickled cucumbers, where lactobacillus strains will outcompete harmful bacteria and mold). But even these foods may keep much longer when refrigerated. Even soy sauce, at 16-20% salt, is recommended to be kept in the refrigerator (for quality, not necessary for food safety).

    There are other ways to inhibit microbial growth, or just the harmful microbes: acid or alcohol can do a lot.

    But as a result, the easiest way to make a shelf stable bar is to dehydrate it, maybe add a bunch of sugar, and use ingredients that still have good taste/texture when dehydrated. So they use a lot of things like nuts, chocolate (high enough sugar to have low water activity), trapped air bubbles (good crunch when totally dried out). And the sugar allows it all to bind together.

    And there are other ways to bake savory goods. They just have to be crispy all throughout, and usually thin enough to bake/fry dry without making it too hard to be pleasant. Think chips, pretzels, even savory mixes like Gardetto's or Chex mix. Even the bread stick components have to be dehydrated to the point of being brittle and crispy, like a crouton. Turning that into a shelf stable bar form that actually tastes good, without adding sugar, would be difficult.

  • Edibles

    Jump

  • I don't know shit about weed or THC but I do know enough about butter to tell you that you can easily get a grilled cheese sandwich to soak up an entire stick of butter in its two bread slices.

  • Edibles

    Jump

  • I'M SORRY WEED HAM

  • Why is everyone still on Reddit when they could be on the Fediverse?

    Jump

  • Not enough niche communities

    Not even just niche communities, either. There are interests with possibly hundreds of millions of English speakers that don't have good representation on Lemmy (or piefed or Mbin). There's no critical mass of discussion about sports, much less for specific sports, specific leagues, or specific teams. Same issue with food and cooking, a handful of posts on a handful of communities, but very few discussions. Television and film have seen an uptick in activity (I'm subscribed to television@piefed.social and that's been getting better), but it's still not quite at where reddit was in even 2010 or so.

    Local city subreddits are still a valuable source of information and discussion around what's happening in any particular place, and I haven't seen anything like that on lemmy.

    I don't expect Lemmy to have the same level of discussion around smaller niches, but I hope we can soon hit the point where more mainstream topics can get actual discussion. Lemmy has plenty of great discussion around lots of topics, especially around technology, but it's still got a long way to go.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • That's one of my pet peeves, when people use relative comparisons to overstate things that have very small absolute differences.

    55g of CO2 is basically nothing. A gallon of gasoline represents about 2400g of CO2 emissions when burned. So for a typical vehicle that gets 30 miles per gallon, 55g of CO2 is basically the equivalent of driving 0.6875 miles (1.1km).

    It's less than the carbon footprint of a cup of coffee (60g).

    Or, alternatively, eating a single quarter pound hamburger would be about 3 kg of CO2, or 55 hours of video viewing at this rate.

  • RFK Jr wants bright artificial dyes out of food. Are Americans ready to let go?

    Jump

  • Fun fact, though, Kraft Mac and Cheese removed artificial dyes in 2013, didn't tell anyone at first, and waited to see if consumers would complain. Nobody did, so they announced that they were able to replace the artificial yellow colors with really colorful spices like annatto and turmeric.

    So you're still gonna get staining. Turmeric gets in everything.

  • 2.06 meters tall volleyball player Anna Smrek (1.60m man next to her for scale)

    Jump

  • every line on graph 1 has a slope less than 1, so this is not a meaningful evaluation to determine anything, in and of itself.

    It's meaningful to the only question I've asked, whether tall women prefer as large of an absolute height difference as short women do. The answer is no. Tall women prefer taller partners than short women prefer, but they prefer a smaller gap between themselves and their partners. According to the graph you posted (fig 1, which says it's the confidence intervals for "preferred partner height"). As the paper explains:

    We found that male height was positively correlated (r = .69; p < .001; N = 188) and that female height was negatively correlated with preferred partner height difference (r = .49; p < .001; N = 461; ESM Table 2). Thus, taller men and shorter women preferred larger height differences, i.e. the male partner being much taller, whereas shorter men and taller women preferred smaller height differences, i.e. the male partner being only slightly taller (in line with Pawlowski (2003)).

    So I think I'm reading that graph correctly and you're not. Your discussion of fig 2 seems to be talking about the part of the paper on people's satisfaction with their partner heights, which is a different metric than preferred partner height.

    Everything else you're talking about is not particularly interesting to me, and wasn't what I was asking about.

    Delta typically refers to change over time.

    Delta just means difference. A change over time is the delta of that variable over delta t.

  • 2.06 meters tall volleyball player Anna Smrek (1.60m man next to her for scale)

    Jump

  • My question (do taller women have a preference for less height difference compared to shorter women) was actually answered by the graph, because the slope of the line is less than 1.

    A 1.6m woman seems to most prefer a 1.78m partner (18cm taller), whereas a 1.8m woman seems to prefer a 1.89m partner (9cm taller). I other words, it's not that they're less choosy, it's just that they expect a smaller delta when they themselves are tall.

    Of course, the thick line in that graph doesn't correspond with the headline numbers mentioned (21cm), but I also notice that the thick line isn't the center of the acceptable range. That is, women seem to be more forgiving of people who are taller than their ideal than they are of people who are shorter than their ideal. That's an interesting finding, too.

  • 2.06 meters tall volleyball player Anna Smrek (1.60m man next to her for scale)

    Jump

  • He played 7 seasons in the NBA, was kinda a journeyman playing backup center for a bunch of different teams.

  • 2.06 meters tall volleyball player Anna Smrek (1.60m man next to her for scale)

    Jump

  • But her height is actually useful. She's a starter in a sport in which height is a useful physical trait, which helped her with university admissions with a scholarship. She's apparently a professional who has been on the roster of some overseas teams, and plays for her national team (Canada).

    Plus growing up in a family with tall people might make it easier to deal with. Her dad is former NBA player Mike Smrek and presumably has a social circle of very tall people and maybe even their very tall children.

    So I don't doubt that a lot of tall women actively dislike their own height. But this particular woman probably has reason to like being tall.