I generally tell people the only reason to do it is if your career pursuits require it, and even then I warn them away unless they’re really sure. Not every research advisor is abusive, but many are. Some without even realizing it. I ended up feeling like nothing more than a tool to pump up my research advisor’s publication count.

It was so disillusioning that I completely abandoned my career goal of teaching at a university because I didn’t want to go anywhere near that toxic culture again. Nevertheless, I did learn some useful skills that helped me pivot to another career earning pretty good money.

So I guess I’m saying it’s a really mixed bag. If you’re sure it’s what you want, go for it. But changing your mind is always an option.

I do the same, metro commuting and a short trip to visit family (~50 miles each way) every couple weeks or so. I don’t even have to plug in every time I get home, I only need to make sure I am charged up at least to 75% for the family visit. Level 1 charging is more than sufficient, I’ve only ever used a charging station just to see what it’s like and try to use up some credit I got for them through my dealership.

For those without EVs: level 1 charging is just plugging into a standard 120V outlet. I have no special equipment at home, though I did need to confirm my breaker could handle it. For my 2023 Bolt EUV I charge about 1% per hour on the reduced charge setting (8 amps). If I do need to charge a little faster I can swap it to 12 amps, but I typically don’t need to do that.

I have an uncommon but not unique name and I have firstlast@gmail.com. As far as I know, others with my name usually include a middle initial in their email address but they sometimes forget it. I’ve gotten family event plans, car maintenance reminders, digital receipts, contractor quotes, and even once added to a daycare group (that one I did reach out to the coordinator to let them know and then removed myself from the group).

Getting screenshots or videos off the Switch is laughably arcane. Nintendo is so weird about modern tech conveniences.

I disagree that that’s what it means, IMO “shuffle” explicitly means each track exactly once. Pedantry aside, what I meant was a truly randomized order when you shuffle a playlist. It’s a major critique of Spotify among users and has been for a very long time.

I really don’t get it. Users have been begging for a true random shuffle for years. It’s not a hard thing to implement.

I’ve lost interest in movies over time but maybe for a different reason. I far prefer TV shows these days, especially sci-fi and fantasy, because for me the point is the escapism. With movies there’s just not enough time for the level of immersion I’m after, with rare exception (Lord of the Rings being the main one, but that was more of a miniseries in movie trilogy form). I want to escape into the world and get to know it, what the rules are there, what it’s like to be there.

My current workplace has an official policy of flexing hours for salaried employees. Which is exactly what you just described: if you work time outside of your regular hours, take comp time off for it. And my supervisor is probably the best boss I’ve ever had, she’s super respectful of our team’s time and work-life balance so we don’t even need to run flex time by her. As long as we mark it on our calendars we can just do whatever. A good boss makes such a huge difference.

I’m also 9-5 salaried, hybrid with 1-2 days in office each week and the rest from home. It’s very nice.

Salaried can be a double-edged sword. The occasional self-motivated “I actually really need to get this done” is no big deal, but some workplaces will pile work onto salaried workers with no respect for work-life balance. So you’re left with either not getting your work done and feeling stress because you can’t keep up, or regularly working extra hours for free so you feel stress because you don’t have enough personal time. What kind of job it is can depend really heavily on your direct supervisor and general workplace culture. I had to suffer through a few of the bad kind of salaries positions before I lucked into finding a good one.

Yep, that sure is a word from my comment.

These violent delights have violent ends.

No sorry, I didn’t mean the image was AI generated. I interpreted the person in the image as being the employee correcting AI mistakes, but because of their hands they don’t correct any of the deformed hands in other AI image gen.

I’m getting a kick out of this hypothetical person responsible for correcting AI mistakes looking at AI image gen with deformed hands and saying “looks fine to me, totally normal.”

The bunnies in my neighborhood appreciate this very much.

For better or worse, my local/state government doesn’t consider them noxious weeds because they’re so firmly established that we can never get rid of them.

I’m pretty sure the age and gender in that table is just showing the frequency of the ages in the sample, not a crosstab of age or gender with personification/anthropomorphism.

So that’s saying their autistic population skewed younger than their non-autistic population. Which isn’t unsurprising, it’s a lot easier to get a diagnosis as a child, and generally easier to get diagnosed now compared to a few decades ago. So people over 35 or so are going to just be less likely to have had the opportunity for diagnosis. The authors do address differences in gender representation between the samples but I don’t see age addressed specifically. It could just be that younger people tend to personify/anthropomorphize more, so since the sample of people with autism skewed pretty heavily towards the 16-24 group the results could instead be displaying differences by age. I don’t think they quite have the sample size to delve into age too much. I think they’d only be able to get away with doing two groups at 34 & under and 35+. That would be a good start though.

This is also a heavily self-selected population, apparently largely from social media. I’m always automatically skeptical of social media sampling.

I would’ve liked to see a little more detail about exactly which tests and assumptions they were using. The gender difference looks like they did a t-test, but it’s left to the reader to assume they ran a two-tailed t-test. They could easily have bolstered their numbers by reporting the one-tailed test.

Oh nice, I picked this up a while back to play on Steam Deck. Very nice 2D Minecraft/Terraria-esque sandbox game. Looks like I’ll be starting a new playthrough for 1.0. 😁

The ways of compression artifacts are mysterious.

deleted by creator

As I said in another thread where this was posted, that original post has the distinctive voice of ChatGPT. Could be another similar model, but I’d bet money that was written by an LLM.