I think they are the same thing, the magazine just put it in fun language so the reader would be more interested.
This structure is why I don't like those ridiculous interviews where it starts with "the actor sits in his home with [long description of furniture], wearing [long description of clothes], he sips coffee from a [long description of mug]". I just want the interview, I understand that the actor is living somewhere and wearing something, it does not matter.
> This structure is why I don't like those ridiculous interviews where it starts with "the actor sits in his home with [long description of furniture], wearing [long description of clothes], he sips coffee from a [long description of mug]". I just want the interview, I understand that the actor is living somewhere and wearing something, it does not matter.
While I agree with you that I find this style of writing commonly found in the entertainment section of a weekend piece to be very grating, I would argue that this still follows the bottom line up front. For the audience that these pieces are geared towards, the important part is whether the actor passes the vibe check or not. The latter part of the interview itself is not too important because it is mainly promoting whatever the actor wants to promote in the piece.
For instance, "the actor sits in his home with [long description of furniture]" describes how they keep their home's interior stylistically. What the actor wears shows how good their fashion sense is. Sipping coffee from a fancy mug shows how wealthy they are and/or shows the morning vibe they would exude on a good day.
That's true. The interesting thing is how D&D creates branching trees of inverted periods, scene by scene and character by character.
In great fiction, IMO, there's usually something big that you are not certain of yet that makes it propulsive. Sometimes it's "which hard choice will the character make in a given scene?" D&D offloads that decision to the players.
With journalism and I guess alt text, you have one big inverted pyramid, and then a recipe for sentence structure that attempts to pack all the relevant facts in for each node. It's actually trying to front-load how it eliminates the unknowns.
Why are you reading a lifestyle interview with <entertainment celebrity> if you don't care about their life and how they live? What content in this interview do you care about?
I think it's more likely that while the punishment might be significant it will be more profitable to continue as long as possible violating the law or at least pushing the boundaries as much as possible instead of proactively being compliant.
After a court order they will know exactly where the limits are and tiptoe them as much as possible. If they proactively try to be "overcompliant" they might loose more money in the long run.
It's messed up to be honest. I would prefer harsher punishments, but on the other hand if companies are scared all the time it might have a chilling economic effect so there is a balance to strike as well.
> while the punishment might be significant it will be more profitable to continue as long as possible violating the law or at least pushing the boundaries as much as possible instead of proactively being compliant
This is it. The law is ambiguous, and until someone specifies the line it makes no sense for either side to concede. Both Epic and Apple are multi-billion dollar companies taking maximalist positions.
There is also the shadow component of it being an open question—given the present state of European politics—as to which will outlast the other, Cupertino or Brussels.
These look really good, I love the style. Don't know if I'm interested in them as trading cards but posters or "stickers" with this style actually seem like a very cool idea. Instead of traditional paper stuff you get a display thing which you can change and make better or fit your taste more.
Lynch has very unique tastes, so it is very possible that he likes the material and the color and there is no other reason for it. But he is also a very funny man with a good sense of humor, so it can also be a joke from him specifically to have people argue about the curtains.
It also feels a little strange in writing. Examples:
"Figure Figure11 shows a mountain gorilla lying on the ground on his side without a pillow" - Of course it is without a pillow, it's a mountain gorilla! What is this clarification?
"To start with, some Westerners have to hold on to a doorframe." - Would it not be better to say "you may have to hold on" or "newbies"? It is not like Westerners have some special physiological feature that makes them do it, it's about lack of practice.
I have read your comment before reading the article, and at that time I have thought that you must be right.
Nevertheless, after reading the article I have seen that the clarification about the gorilla sleeping without a pillow made perfect sense in its context, because it has not been added to provide any additional information, but it was added for emphasis, in a context where the sleeping positions in modern environments were contrasted with their correspondents that are common both in non-modernized environments and for similar primates.
Moreover, I interpret his phrase "To start with" as having the same meaning as your suggestion "newbies".
Using a door frame in the beginning is indeed good practical advice for achieving the full squat position for those who are not used to it.
It did not made sense to me, because I am not a gorilla. They have different bodies. They look kinda similar in body shape, but they climb treat the way I will never be able to no matter how much I train.
So, gorila sleeping position implies exactly nothing for my sleeping position.
A pillow doesn't need to be a factory-made product that you buy at a store. Plenty of humans make pillows out of natural objects when sleeping outdoors. I can totally imagine a mountain gorilla using a chunk of wood, or even a body part of another gorilla, as a "pillow" if it makes them feel more comfortable.
My dog loves pillows. But he doesn't move them. If he's laying down, and a pillow-like object is near, he'll use it. But if the sun moves, he'll move, without the pillow.
Humans are environment-changers. That’s why dogs teamed up with humans. Humans seem to spend a lot of time doing strange and seemingly useless things, like banging rocks together and looking at shiny boxes, but at the end of the day there is always extra food and the environment around humans is full of mysteriously comfortable objects.
If our dog wants to rest and a fleece or wool blanket happens to be in reach, it will pull it in position (and sometimes even fold it) in order to rest its snout on it. But admittedly it does not move the blanket substantially. I have yet to understand how it decides where to rest though. There is a lot of places and none seems to really dominate the other ones.
I have been paying more attention and ours loves head rests. So maybe they don't understand how to make or move them, he definitely prefers them. Disputing the original claim, or dogs differ too much from primates.
Yeah im sure there are many tribespeople with pillows. It feels wierdly racist that this guy is acting like people in societies like this just live instinctually like gorillas and don't actually have the universal human trait of creating and relying on manmade tools.
The thing that makes it not racist for me is that he's clearly trying to point out that, as primates, in non-Western surroundings and when not socialized to prefer soft beds with fluffy pillows we tend to adopt similar sleeping positions as other primates do. It would be very racist if he had adopted a sneering "look at the lowly primitives" tone, but he's trying to show that these sleeping positions have helped him immensely and he's suggesting that we might research sleep positioning more as there seem to be differences in the two populations under comparison.
You can look at the COVID pandemic for an example of how body positioning has helped change how well people can breathe. Proning of severely sick patients substantially improved outcomes. That's literally just rolling the patient from their back to their stomach. So there might be something interesting there that we can learn if we pay attention. And he's trying to say "we can learn something from these people if only we pay attention."
He's viewing humans and gorillas as primates, not viewing tribespeople as gorillas.
Tribes people don't live instinctually. They have culture, like us. The critique here is our culture could benefit from observing how their culture does it.
Indeed. Many animals build nests. It's not a skill unique to humans at all. Finding something comfortable to rest on isn't a particularly difficult skill to master.
But that was the point... why don't gorillas make pillows then? My contention was that making a pillow is actually difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if pillows were seldom used by early humans.
You (most likely) have two comfortable potential pillows distal to your elbows...
(I don't use any of these positions, but I most commonly nap on a heated wooden floor in an insect-free environment. Oddly enough, I also support my temple on the dorsal surface of a wrist; it had never occurred to me that in addition to comfort, it keeps both ears free?)
> It is not like Westerners have some special physiological feature that makes them do it, it's about lack of practice.
Lack of practice causes a "special physiological feature": ankle inflexibility. For some people it would take a significant amount of time stretching the ankles every day to recover enough ankle flexibility to squat, and that could perhaps still be insufficient, as joint mobility is established based on the range of motion used in childhood.
All the babies/toddlers I've seen (my own kids included) naturally do that "asian/slav squat" - for example to pick up toys from the ground, or when they want to rest a bit without completely sitting, right?
So at which point/age do some of us stop doing that type of squat before "use it or lose it" kicks in?
Funnily, as a brit, I have always had the ability to sit in a deep squat comfortably and it's not even from tons of practice. I only even realised that its unusual to be able to do and that it may be good for you when I was about 21. By which point there were many people who couldn't do it already. I certainly hadn't been practicing it throughout my teenage years.
I'm a Brit who can squat too, and I think it has quite a bit to do with not weather shoes at home and wearing "barefoot" shoes / zero-drop trainers outside. I have a hunch that it's lengthened my calf muscles and achilles tendons, which makes squatting much more comfortable. I couldn't really do it before switching to barefoot shoes.
I have never worn shoes at home, that's for sure. Not into barefoot shoes though. I'm not really sure why it is for me. If it's to do with calf muscles, I guess we could attribute it that my mother never learned how to drive and so we used to walk EVERYWHERE. And we lived in a tiny town.
I read they only showed ads in a few countries as a test and now plan to expand. They also said they'll share the money from ads with channel owners, since ads are only shown in public channels. No idea which countries will be included, though, wonder if the EU will get them.
Perhaps it is because it is a USA thing, but I do not understand the limits they talk about in the article. These Amish cannot use electricity... but they can use solar power? Why is regular electricity in their faith worse than the same energy harnessed via solar power? What is the difference from their point of view?
I think the key thing to remember is that they aren't trying to find loopholes or focused on the letter of the law with these decisions.
The rules they have are for practical reasons (whether you agree or disagree with them). It isn't as important to them whether it is perfectly consistent with the letter of the law as whether it fits with the purpose of the rule in the first place.
Which is contrasted with strict Jewish communities that take the opposite stance — the letter is what matters and there's a certain joy in finding loopholes.
Automatic elevators, timers, an odd definition of inside, pre-torn toilet paper it's all fascinating and clever.
A very interesting example of this is the eruv in Golder's Green in North London[1] which is a thin wire which apparently converts outside areas into a private space, allowing observant orthodox Jews to do things on the Sabbath they would not otherwise do. There are proposals for a couple more of these in North London.
As someone who is not religious at all I find it fascinating.
> Which is contrasted with strict Jewish communities that take the opposite stance — the letter is what matters and there's a certain joy in finding loopholes.
I think there is still something in common with the Amish approach, in that whether a theoretically possible loophole is allowed in practice often comes down to rabbinical judgement over what the practical consequences would be.
And, just like different Amish groups have different rules, different subgroups within Orthodox Judaism differ over the set of "loopholes" permitted – e.g. some Hasidic dynasties are much stricter about certain areas of halacha than others
I think you are more or less correct with regards to electricity but the rule applies more broadly to technology. Obviously, the Amish use wheels and other tools. The problem for them (and which I think a great many people would agree) is when technology ceases to serve us and we (society) become indentured to the technology. Consider all these "phone-free" movements, limited screen time, and social media detoxes. In this light, the Amish seem very much enlightened that they take many years to deliberate whether a technology is an overall positive or detriment. Going back to the use of electricity. I think probably a huge part of a grid that works at nighttime is that it definitely changes society in the sense that nightlife is all of a sudden possible. You can debate whether or not it's a positive impact to society but the impact is inarguable. People will fall on different sides of that debate.
> The problem for them (and which I think a great many people would agree) is when technology ceases to serve us and we (society) become indentured to the technology.
The Amish view of technology is a bit more nuanced than "modern technology bad". Generally, technology needs to have a legitimate purpose for the community in order to be adopted. So a grid connection would be bad as it's a connection to the outside world, and electricity on tap would encourage vices like television. But battery power, or solar power, where the purpose is simply to power your tools to make your work more efficient is acceptable. Were people to start hooking up smartphones to the solar panels and posting videos on TikTok, the opinion about the technology might change.
If you squint, solar-charged e-bikes are just removing a few middlemen. The sun grows the grass, the horses eat the grass, the horses convert solar energy into motive power.
From what little I know about the topic, the Amish are careful to only allow the change that doesn't threaten their culture. So they might have no problem with renewable energy (they have been using wind to pump water for a long time), but they might have a problem with connecting to the regular electrical grid and becoming dependent on it.
They don't like to be in debt or use credit. They don't like billing plans where you use a service now and pay for it later. They don't like being bound by contracts. Back when you couldn't get a cellphone without a contract, they didn't use cellphones. When prepaid smartphones came out, they sold like hotcakes in Amish country. They don't like to be billed for using the power grid, but owning your own solar panels is kosher.
I'm speculating here, but utility electricity involves a continuous billing relationship and dependence on an entity that most certainly does not share their values.
We can hope it's not for the rest of one's life but only until a better solution is found. For people with deadly allergies, a few years of injections might not be too big of a price, I think.
Yeah this is one of those perspective things. I’m on a once-a-month regimen of eyeball injections to stave off macular degeneration. I’d trade it in a heartbeat for allergy-reducing injection. But even my case feels “routine” now.
I am not optimistic. The pace of progress in the field is very slow. Barring an AGI-induced revolution in medicine (not out of the question) I think the chances of curing common allergies in my lifetime are not super high.
Why would any of the pharma companies out there want to invent a permanent cure, when there's far more money to be made with a cure that is not permanent? Makes no sense.
My wife has been on Xolair for about a year, monthly injections (more would be nice, but that is all we can get from insurance). In her case, MCAS (Mast cell activation disorder) her body reacts to everything as if it were a food allergy - even though she isn't allergic to these foods.
They don't know the root cause for MCAS, so they sure don't have a cure or barely a clue it seems.
She lives a very restricted lifestyle, can't go in public places were people have perfume/strong smelling products on, can eat about 25 different ingredients (including a few spices), so eating out is not an option. A ripe banana in the room is enough to set her off and the impact is usually 2-3 days.
Xolair had allowed her to feel like a normal(ish) person - as long as all of the restrictions are followed.
Yup, it sucks to have to inject her monthly to have something that resembles normal and is in no way a cure - but I'll take it. Treating symptoms is far better than treating nothing. But a cure? If shell out quite a bit for that!
Copy paste for those wondering what MCAS does to a person. "MCAS is a condition in which the patient experiences repeated episodes of the symptoms of anaphylaxis – allergic symptoms such as hives, swelling, low blood pressure, difficulty breathing and severe diarrhea."
>Why would any of the pharma companies out there want to invent a permanent cure, when there's far more money to be made with a cure that is not permanent? Makes no sense
Then why are there permanent cures credited to pharmaceutical companies such as
First things first, pharma companies are OK with cures. Cures bring money as well, and some cures bring them patient trust.
Pharma companies aren't the only factor here either. Insurance companies, patients, and governments are definitely invested in cures. Preventative measures are OK with these groups as well - vaccines are one of these. Not all research is by big pharma either.
You are assuming other things bring magic profit when they don't do that as efficiently as you think.
Curing one disease doesn't cure them all, and there would still be profit to be made off of your other sicknesses. Probably especially those tied to lifestyle.
You are also assuming that we know how to cure the diseases we have treatments for. This is the real reason we don't have more cures - we know a good deal about the body, but there is a good deal we simply don't know.
It isn't that I think these folks are innocent - I have anger towards those exploiting sick folks to make obscene profits and the industry is greedy - but I don't buy your argument at all. It doesn't allow for the nuance that actual life has and only works if you don't look below the surface.
This structure is why I don't like those ridiculous interviews where it starts with "the actor sits in his home with [long description of furniture], wearing [long description of clothes], he sips coffee from a [long description of mug]". I just want the interview, I understand that the actor is living somewhere and wearing something, it does not matter.