7700/516 = just under 15 miles a day or around 100 miles per week. Typical mileage for any elite distance runner or even a decent D1 college runner (and low for an elite marathoner). But they often do it in one or two continuous sessions, often with significant intensity. The task of just covering the mileage in a day (without trying to do it in one go or trying do any of it fast) is nothing particularly exceptional. Heck as a slow 50-something dude I did 100 miles weeks during Covid when I had some free time. Health effects: assuming you were biomechanically inclined to do okay with lots of running and built up to it over a long enough time to avoid the usual overuse injuries it would almost certainly just make you healthier.
Only on HN you'll see a comment like this downplaying the achievement. With Endurance sport, it's the lack of rest days that make it exponentially harder, you really can't compare with what you've.
15 miles a day is pretty tame for any long distance runner. Even without rest days. You're going to be doing 15 miles in ~3 hours. That's plenty of rest time.
I suspect this guy was actually running significantly more every day but also took some significant time off.
Russ Cook, who also ran the length of Africa, ran a route that was 2000 miles longer, in about 5 less months. He covered on average about 28 miles per day.
They're both very impressive accomplishments, but not as physically impressive as mentally, at least in my opinion.
Funny, you bring us Russ Cook, his body was literally breaking down. Again, 15 miles on average is tame for a long distance runner. It's starts to become exponentially harder when there are no rest days involved. Both of the achievements are nothing to scoff at.
> 15 miles a day is pretty tame for any long distance runner.
His Strava log clocks him at double that (34+ miles per day) over the last couple of days. So I'd say the average is not representative of his normal, on-the-road pace - which makes sense because he was detained for 3 weeks, visited extended family for part of the 517 days in addition to whatever breaks he took.
28 miles per day? That is 45 km. How is that possible? What would your feet look like? When I read about people who did immensely long walks, it is always your feet that give out.
I had several friends who ran 15-20 miles/day 7 days a week pre- and through- COVID.
At a slow enough pace (relative to the individual), 15-20 miles isn't a hard run for many distance runners. (For the BQers in the bunch, their recovery pace was faster than my race pace. However, their race paces would be considered recovery paces for professional marathoners.)
>7700/516 = just under 15 miles a day or around 100 miles per week.
Does your calculation factor in the lost time when he had to stop due to immigration, war zones, being jailed for weeks? IE. When he does run, he could be running 25 miles/day but on some days, he runs 0.
That's the 'vector search' people are talking about in this discussion. Use the LLM to generate an embedding vector that represents the 'meaning' of your query. Do the same for all the documents (or better with chunks of all the documents). Find the document vector that's closest to your query vector and you have a document that has a 'meaning' similar to your query. Obviously that's just a starting point. And lots of folks are doing hybrid where they combine bm25 search with some sort of vector search (e.g. run them in parallel and combine results, or do a bm25 and then use vector search to rerank the top results).
I'm no network guy so someone please explain why using 10.x.x.x. on a plane might "potentially cause routing issues"? It doesn't jive with what I understand about unrouteable address spaces. Is the 10.x.x.x space somehow different than the 192.168.x.x space that millions of people use VPN's out of every day (basically every WFH person on their cheap NAT'd home Wifi)?
Because IPv4 sucks! If you don't have enough publicly routable addresses then you are forced to use reserved ranges like 10/8. That means you'll get collisions, ie. multiple networks using the same addresses. With IPv6 you'd just get a real public IP address and all would be fine.
Edit: I feel bad for saying IPv4 sucks. It's one of my favourite pieces of tech and an astonishingly good one at that. It just doesn't have a big enough address space.
Hopefully I'm not too late to the party. When you setup a VPN, you are telling your network stack that all connections for a set of IP addresses will be handled by it, in this example case, all 10.x.x.x requests will be routed through the VPN's application. The VPN will then wrap up all requests through that connection and send them out to the Internet towards the public IP address on the other end of the VPN. To send things out to the Internet, you use your default gateway, basically an IP address everything is sent to when it doesn't match any other configured route `ip route`. If your local network is using the 10.x.x.x subnet for local connections, it will likely be 10.0.0.1 or something. But who handles that route? Your VPN which would then just recursively keep handling its own request.
Now, I think VPN applications are smarter than that and will still get the outgoing packet to the default gateway (citation and research needed), but what happens when it doesn't know to handle a route automagically. For instance, with DHCP, a router can tell your computer what DNS server to reach out to. If that's on the local network, now you see all DNS requests actually routing into the network on the other side where you almost certainly aren't going to be talking to a DNS server. And now, you can't go to any websites.
Hopefully this helps. I'm not the most knowledgeable about VPNs and routing, but I'm pretty sure this is all fairly accurate.
There's a huge parallel to this mentioned in the next paragraph of the article. The 'research contract' is the foundational element of the National Science Foundation (which Bush brought into being) and is a core funding source for science in the U.S. ($9 billion last year).
Well, except the number of English speakers outside the US is much larger than inside the US (as per the wikipedia page you point to) by 5 to 1. Granted many folks are speaking it as their 2nd (or nth) language. But when you take into account the limited set of languages supported by ChatGPT one could reasonably assume English-speaking (typing) users of ChatGPT are from outside the U.S. as non-U.S. folks are in the majority of 'folks for whom english would be their first option when interacting with ChatGPT'. Even if you only count India, Nigeria and Pakistan.
Though of course OpenAI can tell (frequently, roughly) where folks are coming from geographically and could (does?) take that into account.
The color scale on this map distorts one's perception of where there are significant differences. There are sharp color boundaries at arbitrary points on a color scale and counter-intuitive gradations of color (while greens reflect the driest counties, the darkest green is actually the least dry of the greens). With a more continuous color scale this map would seem a lot less dramatic.
Agreed, the differences aren't as stark as the map seems. Almost all of the states fall between 15% and 25% percent of the population.
Wisconsin stands out at 25.29% of the population labeled as excessive drinkers due to the large amount of dark red, but South Dakota is at 22.43% -- less than 3% difference, but that state is mostly orange.
For a county example, Hardin, TX is 19.13% and Rusk, WI is 20.82%. A difference of just under 1.7%, but the Wisconsin county is bright red and the Texas county is orange.
When all those creative, skilled IT people found they could make double the money moving out of higher ed into start-ups and industry at the same time that the administrations realized that crazy IT stuff was actually mission-critical and that they needed to use what cash they had to double-down on reliable rather than creative the die was cast.
It's a wrapper around a bunch of API's. If that makes you nervous then wait until you hear about how the rest of the modern web is strung together. It's been working reliably for me for a decade.
That's not how it works. The copyright holder (the photographer your case) has exclusive rights to produce works that are 'derivative' of the original. So your Dad would likely be in violation of copyright law without permission of the photographer. Now one could argue your Dad's painting was fair use on the grounds that it was 'transformative'. But given case law as I understand it (IANAL), that would be unlikely to hold up on court. That said practically it seems unlikely the photographer would sue given the likely market for your wedding photo...
