Octopodes have a different nervous system than vertebrates. We have a brain that does almost all of the “thinking” while the rest of the nervous system is either sending or receiving signals (with some “thinking” done below the brain like in the spine).

Octopuses have a brain, but much of the “thinking” is done by nerve clusters in each tenticle.

While grasping on object for humans requires signals going from hand to brain and back, for octopi, a lot of the signals can literally just stay in the tentacle.

It makes sense in that context that they would learn tasks in specific tentacles.

I think the main thing that’s happening is analogous to what’s happened with a lot of electronics over the past couple of decades. It seems like every electronic device runs off of a way more powerful computer than is necessary because it’s easier/cheaper to buy a million little computers and do a little programming than it is to have someone design a bespoke circuit, even if the bespoke circuits would be more resource efficient, robust, and repairable. Our dishwashers don’t need wifi, but if you are running them off a single board computer with wifi built in, why wouldn’t you figure out a way to advertise it?

Similarly, you have all sorts of tasks that can be done with way more computational efficiency (and trust and tweakability) if you have the know-how to set something bespoke up, but it’s easier to throw everything at an overpowered black box and call it a day.

The difference is that manufacturing costs for tiny computers can come down to be cheaper in price relative to a bespoke circuit, but anything that decreases the cost of computing will apply equally to an LLM and a less complex model. I just hope industry/government pushing isn’t enough to overcome what the “free market” should do. After all, car centric design (suburbia, etc) is way less efficient than train centric, but we still went there.

My work would be improved by the dumbest of dumb retrieval augmented models: a monkey with a thesaurus, ctrl+f, and a pile of my documents. Unfortunately, the best they can offer is a service where I send my personal documents into the ether and a new wetland is dried in my honor (or insert your ecological disaster metaphor of choice).

Highest average distance driven per person per year, combined with the fact that basically all driving in Wyoming is at highway speed.

Any chance you know of any “official” info on safe usage of these types of jars? In the US, the national center for home food preservation has a lot of scientifically validated info for proper preservation in Mason jars (ph, processing times for water bath and pressure canning, etc.). I’m assuming there must be an equivalent source of info on the use of weck jars where they are more common.

Agreed. Truly nailing a specific style of pizza can be tricky, but overall it’s not hard to make really good pizza. It seems like so many places just don’t even try. Dishonorable mention to Texas, who otherwise produces really good food.

If there is a demand for a forensic capability, there’s someone willing to sell it to a police department (and a jury).

The real reason behind all the gelatin salad abominations is that after gelatin was first discovered/isolated, it was very costly to produce, but new technology made it much more affordable.

Isolating gelatin requires long cook times (which require lots of fuel) at ideally fairly low temperatures. Then there needs to be some level of filtration to make it as flavorless as possible, and then dehydration to sheets or a powder.

Finally, to actually make one of these “salads”, you need refrigeration.

Production of gelatin was industrialized to make it much cheaper, and refrigerators became normal household appliances. You went from gelatin being only really used in “fine dining” to something you could do at home. In the same era, pineapple went from being a fruit that only the rich could get to something anyone could, so it went through a similar explosion of popularity.

The alternative funny answer is that the company that sold gelatin, Knox, was run by a husband and wife, and all the crazy stuff didn’t start until the husband died, so either he was holding her back, or once she lost her husband, she thought everyone else should, too.

I think full modern-strength liquor is relatively new-ish (500-1000 years). I’m just thinking back to the meme of the wikipedia article on the “timeline of Irish inventions” that has the invention of whiskey and then a gap of 300 years before they invented anything else.

“Fortified” means that liquor is added which acts as a preservative and it also stops further fermentation so you can have more sugar left in the wine. Oftentimes, herbs are added, too, which also acts a preservative.

In beer, IPAs are similar in that greater amounts of hops were added so it could survive the trip to India with less chance of spoiling.

I’ve made wine (and a lot of beer). It’s not hard, and people have been doing it for ages, but creating a good, consistent product does rely on chemistry/biology knowledge that they wouldn’t have had back then.

I suspect that a lot of the mystique around wine (like the idea that terroir is magic) is just down to the fact that a few hundred years ago, most wine/beer was trash, and the only stuff we’d consider “good” by modern standards is just down to luck that a batch didn’t get infected with the wrong yeast/bacteria, or exposed to too much oxygen, or a style that is meant to be drunk young (vinho verde) or oxidized (sherry).

There’s probably good reason that much of the wine that was aged/transported long distance a couple hundred years ago was fortified (Madeira, Port, sherry, vermouth, etc.).

Millenia of selective breeding have changed grapes, too. Without knowing for certain, my guess would be that on average, the sugar concentration in the raw grape juice would be roughly the same as now, but relying on wild yeasts or polycultures would not ferment as completely, so the final product would have lower ABV and higher sugar.

In beer, the actual grain and malting technology has greatly changed over time. 150 years ago, German immigrants to America couldn’t brew the lighter styles they were used to because American grain was much higher in protein so they had to dilute it with corn/rice. Older grain had a higher propensity for certain defects, too. Basically you had more inconsistency back in the day, and also just some things that were different.

Yeah, it’s really frustrating when someone with higher body fat that floats like a cork tries to tell you how to do it.

Technique can’t overcome density. I will say that I got slightly better at it after learning to SCUBA dive (or maybe I just got fatter). In scuba, you move up and down in the water column by adjusting the range of your breathing. You basically try to get your neutrally boyant setpoint at 50% lung capacity. To go down, you try to control your breathing from 0-50% and to go up, you breathe from 50-100%. It made me slightly better at keeping my lungs really topped up with air.

To float, I basically have to hold my lungs at max capacity, and then exhale-inhale as fast as possible, which is unnatural and takes concentration. I usually have to use my arms for a little bit of upward thrust through that breath.

There’s no lungs in my legs, so those will sink no matter what. People claim you can “use your core” or some other BS to keep your legs afloat, but the fact of the matter is that if your upper body is positively buoyant and your lower body is negatively buoyant, there will be a rotational moment pulling your legs down, and it can only be counteracted by external application of force (i.e., kicking your feet). I can either float on my back with a mild amount of kicking, or i can do like a face-in-water deadman float, and just pull my head out of the water occasionally to quickly breathe.

I’m going to disagree with everyone here. Loads of people throughout history have learned to swim by literally being thrown in. It’s not a good way to learn, but people do it. Even babies can do it.

Given a little bit of reading first, you’d do just fine. Yeah, the motions might be a little off cause it’s hard to learn a complex movement from a book, but it would be good enough.

I’m not sure. I know in a lot of those places, the rationale is that the terrain is too flat, so rifle bullets can travel too far.

The problem is that I don’t know if that actually corresponds to increased risk of death. It sounds plausible, but idk if there are real stats to back it up.

A quick search for some plausible data turned up California’s official stats, and going back a few years, I never saw more than 5 deaths in a year. Extrapolating the rate to the whole US, that’s like 50 per year. Other sources just say “less than 100 per year for the whole US”.

Without a specific study, it’s just as plausible to attribute the fatalities to sheer proximity of the shooter to the victim rather than bullets traveling far. Bigger targets are easier to hit. Just looking at the California data, which includes injuries, this seems to bear out, and most injuries and fatalities are due to close range shotgun bird hunting (i.e. the Dick Cheney).

And really, if you wanted to completely eliminate the risk of rifle bullets traveling further than intended, you could mandate the use of any elevated shooting position (which some places do for archery).

Here’s an example: Delaware only allows shotgun, pistol/pistol caliber long guns, and muzzleloader, no true rifle.

https://www.eregulations.com/delaware/hunting/deer-seasons

Connecticut only allows rifle on private land.

https://portal.ct.gov/deep/hunting/2025-connecticut-hunting-and-trapping-guide/deer-hunting#PVSHOT

Iowa has no rifle allowed.

https://www.iowadnr.gov/things-do/hunting-trapping/iowa-hunting-seasons

Lots of states have restrictions against modern (and by modern, i mean bottlenecked) rifle rounds, and if you want to use a rifle, you have to either find a 150 year old cowboy gun, or buy a really expensive new gun using one of several specialized cartridges that cost like $2 a round.

And then when it comes down to it, if you live in a state where it is legal to hunt with a regular rifle, you end up finding that half the time any public land that you can hunt on is restricted to archery only, so unless you happen to be a large landowner, you can’t hunt with a rifle.

There are a lot of differences between how the US and how Australia do hunting. For one, there is no commercial deer/elk harvest in the US. Commercially sold venison can only be from farmed deer/elk. I think deer leather can be sold, but there are a lot of hoops to go through.

Also, in the US, most hunting regulations exist not for ethical or conservation purposes but to prevent people from being able to subsistence hunt. They wanted hunting to be a rich man’s game like in the UK. The existence of hunting seasons is a good example. Another is regulations on method of take; for example, you often must use outdated equipment like bows and muzzleloaders, and the use of modern, effective rifles is severely curtailed. Compare that to Australia where you can use night vision/thermal scopes and rifles with supressors, and i believe there is no “hunting season”.

The reality is that both countries have an overpopulation of large herbivores in areas, and the answer anti-hunting people give is the reintroduction of large carnivores. While we should do that in more rural areas, it’s not feasible in urban/suburban areas where deer proliferate.

Many municipalities actually have to pay to have deer culled, and they do that rather than making it easier for people to hunt.

Tl;dr, i think there are some things I like better about how Australia handles hunting, but theres also things about the US’s method i like.

Yeah, as someone with some all-clad, it’s really nothing special. I heard that the handles are geared towards maintaining the ability to prevent twisting of the pan in your hand while using pot holders/towels, and i think they work well for that.

I strongly agree with this. You aren’t necessarily going to get fancy brand names, but you can get a stainless frying pan with a big billet of aluminum on the bottom for heat distribution for $20. Spending 5 times that amount basically just gets you a mirror finish, a brand name, and the ability to put it in a dishwasher (and who does that with pans?).

Carbon steel pans are another one. You shouldn’t need to spend more than $10 on a carbon steel pan. The materials are cheap and they can be easily mass produced. There’s nothing that should make it expensive.

pH doesn’t necessarily tell the right story if you are concerned about acidity for your teeth, GI tract, or taste. Something like distilled water will turn acidic with a pH of 5.8 due to co2 absorption. There’s barely any “acid” there, though, it just doesn’t have any buffering capability compared to water with some dissolved solids in it (like tap water). What really matters is what they call “titratable acidity”.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-45776-5_22

But you don’t call it “point four five caliber” you call it “forty five caliber”. Similar is 7.62 mm AKA “thirty caliber”. It’s reasonable that someone wouldn’t know that it’s literally just hundredths of inches.

Shotgun gauge is wonky, so it’s not a given that the number would just be a diameter in units they are familiar with. “Grains” are also a meaningless unit to most people.

Yeah, the focus the landscaping part is weird. It seems more relevant to me that 5 years ago, he was in high school, rather than that he did landscaping.