Agreed that more studies are required. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25705824/ This and some others studies correlate a 40% reduction in all cause mortality (that is, 40% reduction in risk of dying from anything) with sauna use. Even if the correlation is proven to be weak, still seems worth it to get a shvitz whenever you can.

> "We performed a prospective cohort study of a population-based sample of 2315 middle-aged (age range, 42-60 years) […] During a median follow-up of 20.7 years […] A total of 601, 1513, and 201 participants reported having a sauna bathing session 1 time per week, 2 to 3 times per week, and 4 to 7 times per week, respectively."

They are comparing the health differences of the number of sessions, using only people who claim to do sauna at least once a week over 20 years. They have nothing to say about lower frequency or no sauna at all.

"Chinese national" feels like a pretty critical detail to this sentencing time.

Can't wait to cash my $2.43 check is 3 years!

Ok, so dont shower, and punch my date in the nose. Got it!

It's an intriguing idea, but the scope of any such formal definition would essentially be the entire scope of physics, materials science, thermodynamics, etc. For much more bounded problems (like that very fun website you linked) I think something like that would be more attaintable, but still challenging.

Take the example of the differential gearing shown. I doubt there exists any functional differential/mass produced assembly that looks exactly like the example presented. The concept of differential gearing may be able to be broken down into more symbolic representation of forces and motion, but at some point it becomes simplified to the point of impracticality.

All models are wrong, some are useful.

Form follows function.

Same here. I had no idea they were this toxic, I feel like someone should have told us this as children!

>Living this way, he acknowledged, incurred a “20 percent cognitive” overhead.

Great article. I wish I had the time, money, and dedication to be able to try some of the techniques, even if only for the principle of it. But like the author says, it really is a Sisyphean effort. There is too much convenience, too much money, too much power in your data.

I appreciate that you have given this some thought, but it is clear that you dont have much or any professional experience in 3D modeling or mechanical design.

For the guitar amp, ok. Maybe that prompt will give you a set of surfaces you can scale for the exterior shell of the amp. Because you will need to scale it, or know exactly the dimensions of your speakers, internal chambers, electronics, I/O, baffles, and where those will all ve relative go eachother. Also...Do you need buttons? Jacks/connectors/other I/O? How and where will the connections be routed to other components? Do you need an internal structure with an external aesthetic shell? Or are you going to somehow mold the whole thing in one piece? Where should the part be split? What kind of fasteners will join the parts and where should they be joined? What material is the shell? Can it be thinner to save weight? Or need ribs or thickness for strength? Where does it need to be strong?

These are the issues from 30 seconds of thinking about this. AI (as suggested) could maybe save me from surfacing an exterior cosmetic cover, given presice constraints and dimensions, but at that point, I may as well just do it myself.

If you have a common, easy, already solved an mechanical design problem (hinge e.g.), then you buy an off the shelf component. For everything else, it is bespoke, and every detail matters. Every problem is a "wine glass full to the brim"

I think you’re jumping too fast to the “vibe CADing” extreme. It’s been a while since I’ve used Solidworks in anger so I’d rather use ECAD as an example: I’d kill for the ability to give Altium a PDF datasheet and have it generate footprints or schematic components tailored to my specific pinout for a microcontroller. Or give it a pdf of routing guidelines and have it convert those to design rules tied just to those nets. Those are the details that take up most of the time (although I’d still spend quite a lot of tine verifying all the output).

In MCAD it’s less of a problem because all the big vendors like Misumi, McMaster, et al have extensions or downloadable models but anything custom could probably benefit from LLMs (I say this as someone who is generally skeptical of their vision capabilities). I don’t think vibe CADing will work because most parts are too parametrized but giving an AI a bunch of PDFs and a size + thickness is probably going to be really productive.

This, and stratospheric aerosol injection are both:

1. Incredibly cost effective 2. Mimic natural effects 3. Could pretyy easily cause anotger ice age if miscalculated

I wonder at what point the potential benefits will outweigh the potential risks for using these geoengineering techniques. Cant be far off, right?

Sulfur dioxide injection could halt global warming in its tracks for a measly $18 billion a year. I wonder if a vigilante billionaire climate activist gonna take a try in the next few decades..

> 3. Could pretyy easily cause anotger ice age if miscalculated

Could they? At least for stratospheric aerosol injection it would be easy to just stop doing it if things seemed like they were tipping. It doesn't happen _that_ fast, we'd have time to notice and react.

It depends on how badly we may miscalculate the aerosol deterioration rate. If we inject a bit too much and it stubbornly stays airborne, that would be a hard geoengineering problem to tackle!

I'd say that things are not bad enough for anyone with the means to take the risk. When the things get bad enough for the Overton window to admit geoengineering, it may be too late for simple and affordable solutions, as usual.

We have some experimental data on this, though, since jetliners and volcanoes both inject sulfur into the stratosphere. The global air traffic halt of 2001 and the aftereffects of eruptions have been heavily studied.

(It would be ironic if the world's response to fossil CO2 emission is to mandate extra high sulfur jet fuel, but nothing would surprise me)

Another example is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer caused by the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora

I wonder whether you have studied what happened in the past several centuries after major volcanic eruptions.

Imagine a nation state started doing this. Lets imagine the Netherlands because they realise that it is worth it for them alone when so much of their land is at sea level. They hope to reduce worldwide temps by 1.75C (to pre industrial levels) within a year or so, which would immediately halt sea level rise.

I think other nations will demand they stop - with threats of sanctions - simply because there are other nations who now depend on the higher temperatures and increased agricultural output.

Conversely, imagine a nation state like India that will experience mass death events if heat/humidity waves become too much worse. They would continue geoengineering even in the face of threat of nuclear retaliation because the consequences would be so dire.

People knew smoking killed for decades. Do you think that with no policy change and no regulation, that Marlboro and Philip Morris would have let their market tank?

Advertising - banned, smoking indoors - banned, and most importantly, taxing the hell out of them (every 10% increase in cigarette prices results in a 4% decrease in adult consumption and a 7% decrease in youth consumption).

There isn't really directly comparable policy to taxing these free social media platforms., however, and the whole thing is a bit stickier. Before any policies can stick, the public needs to be aware of the issues. That is tough when most people's 'awareness of issues' comes directly from social media.