An interesting point to note is that one of the world's strongest climbers, who recently put up the hardest problem in Fontainebleau, is Charles Albert, who spends most of his time climbing barefoot: https://www.planetmountain.com/en/news/climbing/charles-albe...
All for 3x45s holds. Don't overdo it to the point where you are sore from stretching.
I also stretched my hamstrings and hip flexors. I do believe that it's all related. Specifically, I know that hip flexor tightness and weak glutes can put more strain on the IT band.
You can strengthen glutes with planks, glute bridges, and step ups.
Author here. I often find when working on rich editors that I want to see a graphical representation of the editor dom with the current selection and any hidden or hard-to-see characters. That's what ViewDom does. Unfortunately it still needs some work on mobile devices but I already find it useful.
Author here. I started this when the original comic was released in 2012 but it fell by the wayside. Recently I decided to pick up where I left off. It was interesting to take my own legacy coffeescript code from a time in which I didn't really know what I was doing and try to make it into something fun.
I often tell people that I love my dog more than any human has ever loved a child, but I don't love this study.
The result is fairly obvious to any dog owner, but the study is representative of the type of "pop" science that appears so often in the news but carries little actual significance. 34 dogs total, 17 in each group (humming vs crying), 9 of which respond to humming and 7 of which respond to crying, albeit the latter much faster than the former. Of those 34 dogs, 16 were therapy dogs. While the time difference is large, more dogs respond to humming than crying.
So we have a very small sample size which is biased towards therapy dogs. It is also very susceptible to p-hacking. Why "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star"? Was this the song that produced the largest effect out of 20 different songs? Why do more dogs respond to the humming than crying but the dogs that do respond to crying act so quickly? Were the crying sounds much louder than the humming? Why not crying vs yelling, both of which are likely of similar volume? And so on.
CNN really doesn't produce infotainment content that passes the acid test of HN guidelines. CNN is far from cerebral these days, and there are a number of factors that have caused them to shift focus. CNN's coverage of the early days of the 2003 Iraq invasion is pretty much the last useful thing they've covered, and certainly they weren't in the business of criticizing it at the time.
Do you think you experience emotions differently than other human beings? It seems really presumptuous to say you love somthing more than others ever have. Presumptuous and insulting.
Furthermore, i think alot of people would say sacrifice is the greatest display of love, and I would bet a whole lot more parents have sacrificed a whole lot more for their children then anything you have sacrificed for for dog.
Downvoted because this comment seems fairly OT. The post this responds to was clearly not actually making a literal statement about how all parents in the history of humanity bonded with their children. It was a criticism of the methodology of the study.
I'm sure he takes his dog to "dog care" every day, where it's played with constantly (not caged). He would never leave his dog alone in his 500 square foot apartment all day, barking it's loneliness to the delight of his neighbors.
While such dog care can be very expensive, he sacrifices that money even more gladly than a mother would for her child's care. This is what he implies with his statement, and I see no reason he would lie to us.
You can't analyze a person's behavior, especial their emotional behavior, without including cultural context. Society does not appreciate people leaving toddlers home alone, but they do not care if you do so with a puppy. That alone is enough to make the matter of "dog care" irrelevant in assessing someone's feelings on the matter.
As an American living in Europe I would call pastries for breakfast a western breakfast. The idea that the US eats nothing but sugar for breakfast and this is unique in the world is way off base. Among my friends and colleagues, mostly Europeans from many different corners of Europe, it is exceedingly common to eat some form of croissants or pastries for breakfast. I think the difference lies in the portion sizes and density of these pastries.
I'll have pastries once a week when I have breakfast with my wife, but otherwise I tend towards yogurt, bananas, and a handful of cereal. I'm not on the "sugar is evil" bandwagon. I definitely do manage my weight but it is more about calorie control than sugar intake. A serving of yogurt will have between 100 and 220 calories depending on if it is plain or has a bunch of good stuff added (I like both), a banana around 100 calories, and a handful of cereal about the same. I love sugary cereal and don't want to eliminate it from my diet. The difference between how I consume it now and when I was a kid is that I really eat one handful at breakfast time whereas in my childhood would eat one to two large bowls.
Granola is the killer. The crunchy kind of granola has more calories per gram than sugary cereal and unfortunately is more dense. I see many people trying to eat a healthy, low calorie yogurt and granola breakfast only to fill the bowl with granola. Game over.
"Having performed thousands of similar hair examinations over the previous 10 years, the FBI agent told the court, there had been only eight or 10 times when hairs from two different people were so similar that he could not tell them apart"
At worst this is a 1% error rate, at best 0.1%. Scientific validity aside, I find it unbelievable this was not considered reasonable doubt.
If those 1000 pairs of hairs really were from different, randomly choosen people. But we don't know the quality of that sample. Maybe the examiner looked at 1000 pairs of hairs, 10 looked similar to him and those 10 were from different heads, while the 990 that looked different were from the same head. That would give an error rate of 100%.
Even if we assume there were no errors in the sample, then we still don't know anything about the correlation between the judgement of the examiner and reality. Maybe he randomly considers one in 100 pairs of hairs to look similar. So while yes, the error rate would be 1%, his judgement would have absolutely no informative value. It would be as good as throwing dice.
The comments section adds an interesting counterpoint to the Guardian's spin: he was also jailed on the evidence of the victim identifying his photograph, picking him out of an identity parade based on appearance and voice and testifying against him in court.
Whilst DNA evidence has subsequently exonerated him, there were pretty good reasons for the jury at the time to consider the case proven beyond reasonable doubt that didn't involve placing too much faith in dubious "expert witness" testimony about hairs.
It's possible the jury wouldn't have convicted him on eye witness testimony alone, but the fact that the physical "scientific" evidence agreed made it seem more legitimate.
>The victim had seen her assailant only fleetingly and in the dark, and the composite drawing that had been based on her description – the one that the police officer had thought looked just like him – referred to a black male of “medium complexion” when Odom’s skin is very dark.
Interesting that you get downvoted for saying that.
There are good grounds to be somewhat suspicious of forensic evidence; however, my understanding is that technical evidence like this is usually far, far more reliable than e.g. eyewitness statements. Those are horribly unreliable, and experienced investigators (or should we say "investigators") are able to convince their witnesses of having seen things that did not really happen at all.
Eyewitness statements aren't reliable (hell, I've given an eyewitness description that wasn't that reliable, judging by the reaction of the police officer who had just taken a statement from somebody else), but I'd see it quite hard for a court in a pre-DNA testing era not to have convicted when a reasonably certain and consistent testimony from a rape victim is supported by the supposed forensic experts at the time, especially not if the chief argument for the defence was a weak alibi offered by the accused's mother.
Though since they've had DNA techniques sufficient to overturn the expert witness evidence for rather a long time now it's surprising it took this long to overturn.
So take two people, take two hairs of each, pick two random hairs of those two, and compare them. I guess this could work out quite well. Do this for 1000 pairs of two different people, and 10 will fail, so that is 1%.
This is how I understand it now. It's not that he says that he compares one hair to those 1000, and then still was sure to be able to keep them apart. That was how I first read it.
For a good comparison, he should have used a line-up. Take one hair from 100 persons with similar hair color and use that as test sample. If he was still able to tell which was from the same person, he would have a case.
1% chance a person is innocent is probably roughly around the reasonable doubt standard.
The problem is courts often misapply statistics. Prosecutors will often say in a case like this that there is a 100:1 chance that he did it because of the error rate.
Well, scientists are like priests: their word is gospel to the unwashed masses. I suppose the defendant didn't have a scientist on his side who could identify and challenge the bullshit.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/FINAL_VWFitFitnessAnnotations2-5ba3f35f4cedfd00250bcd98.jpg){kind=link}
