The New Coffee Room

I'm going to listen to some Prokofjew next week. This will be great.

https://www.gasteig.de/veranstaltungen/muenchner-philharmoniker-prokofjew-schnittke-mozart/

I don't quite understand how this is supposed to work.

The body can't make fat out of thin air.

Unless you eat more than you burn, you won't get fat.

So you'd only get fatter if either that "memory" somehow causes you to eat more, or somehow causes you to burn less.

Does the source also list the least attractive hobbies?

That's a good comment. Thanks for posting!

@George-K said in Pelvic floor and sexual dysfunctions after genital gender-affirming:

@Klaus said in Pelvic floor and sexual dysfunctions after genital gender-affirming:

I guess it depends on how you define sexual dysfunction.

Being unable to get and maintain an erection would qualify.
Being unable to sense "vaginal" penetration would qualify.
Dysparunia would qualify.

I assume dysfunction is measured relative to the "best case" outcome of the procedure,
which I assume would be something like "you can manually inflate the fake penis or have
a semi-rigid fake penis and you feel some kind of sexual arousal during intercourse and don't feel pain".

In particular, it's not measured relative to how healthy biological men have sex.

Well, I guess it depends on how you define sexual dysfunction.

That looks very bad for the NY Times indeed.

Would it be advisable to have that in your home emergency kit?

For some reason I can't quite explain I'm always a little hesitant to mix professional and private relations.

One reason might be that I'm completely apolitical in my professional life, and I don't give a damn whether the person I work with is a marxist or a libertarian anarchist.

The point in your house where the signal from the base is still strong enough that the extender gets full speed but maximally close to the devices that are supposed to connect via the extender.

@jon-nyc said in Puzzle Time - polynomials:

This puzzle is me being a dick. The smallest number in the smallest solution has more than 80 digits. Which is pretty amazing if you think about it.

But is there a way to come up with the solution analytically?

I know that Diophantine equations are undecidable in general, and analytical solutions only exist for a few special cases.

35,132,627 seems to be close. I didn't think of course.

Edit: OK, that's not the solution. It's only close.

There are no solutions in the range 1 to 10,000, even though 411 812 4601 is really close!

Hard to conclude much from that data.

One would need to have data on different first names at the same point on the Y axis to conclude anything about IQ and religion.

It might just as well be the socioeconomic factor that plays the main role here.

Concluding "muslims are stupid" from this data is itself rather stupid.

@jon-nyc said in Will Donald actually be strengthened by being a Lame Duck?:

What’s your over/under on when he suggests he should get a third term?

Is that legally possible?

Ok they can of course still be very wrong, but they should be measured by how well they predict votes, not electoral college seats. The latter is basically impossible because it's not a continuous process.

You can only make predictions and simulations for situations where small changes to the variables lead to small changes in the outcome.

I think the bashing of the pollsters is a little unfair, no?

Due to the winner takes it all system, very few votes can make a huge difference. This makes it almost impossible to predict outcomes when the popular vote in a state is close.

That's not a post from Elon.

@Mik said in Meanwhile in Germany...:

Wow. That's messy.

How do you think it will play out?

Not clear. The most likely outcome is early elections. Which would probably mean that the next chancellor will be from the CDU.

We have no government anymore!

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-coalition-government-collapse-olaf-scholz-finance-minister-christian-lindner/

@George-K said in C'mon, ChatGPT, do better.:

Tried it on my Mac - confirmed.

That doesn't necessarily mean anything.

It could be that for every "bias" you can detect towards one side you got three examples of bias for the other side that you never hear about.

If people just look for examples of one kind of bias, they'll find those examples.