robryk @robryk@qoto.org

@delroth Did you happen to try measuring its resonance(s)?

@lutzky

I thought that people you blocked couldn't reply on your posts (or, expressed in observable terms, that neither you nor unrelated 3rd parties would see their posts in your replies).

@janl @grrrr_shark

In my experience they heat up just as slowly. Is it also yours?

@autoerot1ca @mairin Yes, it does have such a rule: https://hub.fosstodon.org/why-fosstodon-is-english-only/

@msuriar

A contrary opinion: it's terrible. You can do whatever you can do with it with subqueries, any reasonable optimizer will treat both identically, and HAVING makes things appear less composable than they are (tbf group by by itself already has that property, but knowing about HAVING but not about subqueries makes one assume that SQL is noncomposable).

@neilk

What's the typical sequence of steps if (a) no one volunteers why (presumably because no one knows) (b) when ~half the people think it's obviously self-explanatory and the other ~half think there's no good reason?

@niconiconi Or maybe a problem with authority.

@rq @starshine unless your serial connection is fast enough to support e.g. vi and everything knows which escape sequences to use.

@niconiconi You mean you'd get 3 of them per word? You could fit 5 12-bit values in each 64-bit entry, but that's not that much of a gain over 4 16bit values~~

@lauren Interesting. I never considered that earthquakes can cause more noticeable rotations than accelerations (I guess the noticeability thresholds might not be intuitive).

@lauren What's a rolling earthquake (sadly, the MTG card of that name makes looking it up nontrivial)?

@mjg59 Ah, I see. Indeed this is how one often sees posts from people one does not follow.

(One of my gripes with how APub is used by all(?) Fedi software is that they try to make it impossible to interact with the boost itself, and try to redirect all such interaction to the boosted message.)

@mjg59

Unless you (or someone else on your instance) actually follow that person, in which case replies should have been forwarded; or am I wrong?

@niconiconi

Would they also ignore any responses?

@rq Do you mean clauses preventing commercial use? If not, then I'm really curious what kind of clauses you meant.

@grrrr_shark

Hm~ this made me realize that I don't really know whether acquiring one autoimmune problem makes acquiring other more likely (and I wonder how one can try to tell, given that likely there are confounders that are hard to notice and that make acquiring autoimmune issues more likely).

@grrrr_shark

From what I know, the most important failure mode of rapid tests (and to a lesser extent ~any tests) is that they will yield a very large fraction of false negatives early on. Do you know any estimates of repeated false negative probability over 2-3 tests over 2-3 days (i.e. probability of 2-3 tests being negative over 2-3 days while sick with COVID and symptomatic)?

When I tried to estimate it most recently, I ended up finding things that suggested wildly different rates of singular false negatives across different test manufacturers (by more than 2x IIRC), but sadly couldn't find anything about the repeated testing setup (I baselessly suspected that it would decrease the inter-manufacturer spread).