The ways that printing and 3d printing are cursed feel different, to me.
My expectation is that if I manage to give a printer any instructions at all, it usually prints the thing I expect. If not, it's usually because it's out of paper or (more rarely) ink/toner. If it has raw materials and receives instructions, I expect it to print a document that looks substantially like I expect. But "trying to give it any instructions at all" may well be an exercise in frustration.
With my 3d printer, giving it instructions hasn't been the hard part. (It's maybe not quite straightforward. You need a microSD card, formatted correctly, with a .gcode file, and I can see those feeling cursed to someone, but they're the kinds of problems I know how to solve. Then you put the card in the printer and select it using the sufficiently-intuitive interface on the printer.) The hard part is that the instructions I give it don't reliably result in a physical artifact that looks or functions like I intended. Airflow, ambient temperature, properties of my filament, bed adhesion, calibration. There's too much that can vary in the environment, and those differences can mean I need to give my printer slightly different instructions (like different nozzle or bed temperature, more supports, slower speed).
2d printers, in my experience, seem to have solved that kind of problem. Though I imagine professional printers have exciting problems that I don't.
(John's blank page 1 is an admittedly weird case here, but "printing a blank page" is still less surprising than, say, "oops, near the top of the page I printed a black area that was too large, and that caused the paper to skip 3mm up higher than the printer thought it was, to fix that next time I need to make sure the printer slows down in that area, or inject some subtle yellow dots".)
(Maybe part of the difference here is "printing at some point on the paper is independent of printing at some other point"? There might be calibration errors, that mean every point is slightly offset or slightly the wrong color, but because they affect everywhere equally I'm unlikely to notice them. And there might be random errors, where ink is fired slightly too late and a specific red dot is in slightly the wrong place. But I don't expect that red dot to cause the next line to also be in the wrong place. With a 3d printer, a missing or unexpected bit of plastic causes the next bit of plastic to be in an unexpected place too, so the random errors compound, sometimes into a goopy blob. Part of the point of printing a skirt is to avoid this: the perimeter of the first layer is some of the most likely plastic to be not-where-expected, but if it's in a skirt it doesn't get printed on top of so that's okay.)
Hrm. "But" is better than "For." I think "Now" might be better than either, but I've been staring at these lines for a while- thoughts?
I prefer "but". To me, "now" doesn't have the "compare-and-contrast" feeling, and does feel like it's setting up for something that doesn't come.
If I turn each verse into a single sentence, I get:
A Snaw thinks something is true, even if it's really just a guess. [But/now] a scientist checks the things they believe. On a lake, a scientist's boat crashed into a Snaw's.
And the "now" makes me think that the third sentence will be more closely related than it actually is. In the actual poem, I guess the setup could be for the second half of the verse, but it feels like it needs more, or something.
Eh. I like "so the best off their work is the kind that'll replicate" over "so the best of their work is what can replicate" but admit mine isn't great.
Valid. In any case Richard's is a clear improvement on both.
Neat! Some suggestions:
by a person which we trust, quite wise and quite old.
"by a person we trust, who's quite wise and quite old."
You can check it yourself. You can and you ought.
"You can check it yourself. Yes you can and you ought."
For a Scientist checks things again and again
"While" or "but" instead of "for".
So the best of their work is the kind that’ll replicate.
Maybe "so the best of their work is what can replicate"? It's a lot less clear.
"Why test?" said the Snaw with a sniff.
"Why on Earth [should/would] we test?" said the Snaw with a sniff."
Not a proper reply, but on some of your specific points:
Why was Klurl paying specific attention to the rock-sharpening skill, when evolution has a great many more much more impressive natural feats?
Why was this specifically noticed in humans, rather than other animals that do this?
What examples are you thinking of here? I'm not aware of any other animals that deliberately sharpen rocks, or make any tools that I'd consider equally impressive to stone handaxes, let alone bows and arrows.
(Caveat that this article says monkeys have been seen making sharp rocks, but not using the sharp rocks they made.)
Why did Klurl think this was time-urgent, when the vast majority of the time this would be a bad heuristic?
"One does not live through a turn of the galaxy by taking occasional small risks."
Can you elaborate less metaphorically? I'm not sure what coincidence you're pointing at.
Another part of the calculus here is that Brightline is faster than driving. Very roughly:
Wikipedia says it takes 3:25 and Google says driving takes 4:03. If we call it half an hour saved per long distance trip, that's ~1.5 million hours saved.
Long distance trips were about 60% of the passenger miles in your model, so if we assume they were also 60% of the fatalities, that's a statistical cost of $1.5 billion, or $1,000 per hour saved. (Minus some adjustment because cars also kill people, so we can call it $950 instead if we take the 20x number.) Compared to the $40/hr that a life seems to be valued at (assuming a fatality represents 40 years lost and we value the cost at $13.7 million).
...I didn't actually generate an advance prediction, but if I had I think it would have been at least an order of magnitude lower.
By contrast: if we assume a fatality represents 40 years of life lost, and we value the cost at $13.7 million, that's about $40/hr.
Some details that might be relevant (in that I can imagine you'd get different results if the answers changed):
(Or if you think some of these aren't relevant, I'm interested to hear that too.)
Semaglutide (aka Ozempic and Wegovy) activates only GLP1Receptor. We’ve covered why that helps, but often comes at the cost of fatigue.
Hm, I'm missing why it comes at the cost of fatigue?
Both Willy and Toni had been swept off. In the fall, the rope had tangled itself around Willy's neck and strangled him. Edi, still at the top of the cliff face and tied to both the fallen men, had been smashed against a rock at the top, fracturing his skull before freezing to death soon after. But his frozen body remained pressed against the rock, saving Toni from certain death.
Not important, just something I noticed: wikipedia has it that these causes of death were the other way around.
[Willy] Angerer also fell and was killed when his body hit the rock face, while [Edi] Rainer quickly asphyxiated from the weight of the rope around his diaphragm.
But it doesn't source that claim specifically and I didn't go hunting.
I guess it can be hard to distinguish between "no strangers noticed", "someone noticed but didn't care", and "someone noticed, cared, but didn't react". I once saw someone do a wall backflip in public, and thought it was cool, but he presumably didn't notice me notice him.
I feel like jumping a fence is pretty likely to be noticed - though not shocking if it isn't, depending how many people are around. But even if someone does notice, and dislikes that you're doing it, what are they gonna do?
So distinguishing between them also doesn't usually matter.