I'm really impressed by how long apps remain in RAM on my 8 Plus. I'll play a game before bed and find it still where I left off during my commute the next morning, and that's with some browsing/podcasts in between.
I’ve had migraines, both ocular and the “real” kind, so I know how bad they can be. I wouldn’t say they were anywhere near frequent enough to take a preventative drug for it. I’ve also worked with multiple people who’ve had chronic attendance problems, and migraines were one of their many go-to excuses. I know that sounds bad, but at least two of the people I’ve worked with would frequently use migraines as their excuse for coming in late, yet they never once got one while at work. Stolen cars, sick pets, the bus never showed up, etc. It was constantly something, more than once a week. If they were real, and I’m just being judgmental and seeing patterns that aren’t there, then I’m glad they’ll get relief. If not, it’s one less excuse.
>I’ve had migraines, both ocular and the “real” kind, so I know how bad they can be. I wouldn’t say they were anywhere near frequent enough to take a preventative drug for it.
These two sentences contradict each other. If you never had to consider taking a preventative for your migraines, then no, you do not know how bad they can be. Migraines are much more than just "ow my head hurts today, I should take the day easy". For some, they are debilitating to the point of sometimes making it impossible to do basic tasks like washing the dishes, reading, or sometimes even watching TV. Sometimes during a migraine you literally cannot do anything other than sit in darkness and wallow in misery, hoping that maybe it will ease up for long enough for you to fall asleep. Any kind of professional work is out of the question during a migraine.
Not getting a migraine while at work isn't uncommon, as sometimes having something to focus on (like work) can help stave off whatever triggers the migraines. Migraines also aren't something that just suddenly happens; people who suffer from chronic migraines often get warning signs that one is coming on 12-24 hours in advance, and they can take just as long to develop as well. If someone was already at work, it's unlikely that a migraine would progress to the point of being debilitating before the workday was over. This is probably why your coworkers usually call in sick, but never leave in the middle of the workday. They typically will know before the workday even begins if it will be a migraine-filled day or not.
Chronic migraines can lead to depression, which can cause a downward spiral of deteriorating health/diet, which can in turn cause more migraines, and more depression. Often time migraines can lead to thoughts of suicide because of how badly it hurts, and how badly it impacts life as a whole.
I understand it's frustrating if your coworkers bail often, and shame on them if they are faking their "migraines" and just using it as an excuse. But as someone who has an SO who suffers from severe migraines 15-20 days per month, and still forces herself to go to work most days even through severe, debilitating pain and depression precisely because she has coworkers with judgmental attitudes like yours, I find your analysis insulting.
My migraines have robbed me of pretty much any really stellar life I could have achieved. Undergrad was very tough because of the preventative meds I took. I straight up couldn’t finish grad school and in large part due to the migraines. Yes, I know I could probably have put up some academic fight. But this is also at a point where I had essentially no healthcare and no income. It’s done similar destruction to any social networking desires I may have. I could go on.
As for frequency, without meds I’m basically getting one every day. With meds, I get some days free of pain per week.
Sorry to hear about your condition :( I really hope you find relief in new drugs. Many people here by their comments have no idea what a chronic migraine looks like.
> If you never had to consider taking a preventative for your migraines, then no, you do not know how bad they can be
That is just as judgemental. I get a mix of migraines and cluster headache every now and then. The pain is always concentrated at a specific point behind my right eye, and I can feel it coming hours before it turns bad. Usually I can stop it with something as simple as paracetamol if taken at the first sign. When I fail to do that it progresses to the point where I have to lay completely still with my eyes closed, or I'll empty the content of my stomach right then and there.
But I've never considered any significant medication.
Do you actually have a diagnosis of cluster headache from an MD?
The reason I ask: the pain from cluster headaches is legendarily terrible. The pain has been described as "remarkably greater" than migraine, and probably _at least_ on par with a spinal headache.
I don't have cluster headaches, but I've had a (diagnosed) week-long spinal headache exactly once before. A spinal headache is where your CSF fluid leaks out your back and your brain physically begins to "hang" in your skull. It lasted for a week, I was shot full of so much hydromorphone I couldn't physically coordinate my legs, and I was still in tears from the pain, begging doctors to knock me out. I honestly think I would have died by my own hands had it gone on for another week. It was unbearable.
I would suggest that the odds of someone managing cluster headache without medication – i.e. the headache that's earned the nickname "suicide headache" and causes people to carry around emergency inhalers of hardcore pain killers like butorphanol – is very, very low.
I've read some of your comments about your symptoms and experiences with headaches: I don't envy you.
I had a couple of minor surgeries and some were in full anastesia, some with spinal injection only. Once the nurse said that I may experience headaches and I thought, heck, I know a thing or two about headaches, but noone ever told me how fucking painful it is going to be.
It lasted for two days and the only good thing was that I did not vomit and had no tunnel vision, but the pain reached an astonishing level.
Yeah, this was a case of being rushed out of an ER after a lumbar puncture (negative). You're apparently supposed to be held as an inpatient for at least a few hours while lying still; I was discharged in 15 minutes.
Mine ended up never self-resolving and they had to use a blood injection to produce a clot and "plug" the hole. Before that they tried IV caffeine – apparently that not only exists, but is actually indicated for spinal headaches. Trip report: meh, drinking coffee is much more fun.
The symptoms are consistent with cluster headache, and my doctor has instructed me to get in touch if it reach a point where I'm unable to manage it. For all I care, it's equivalent to sticking a knife in my eye - so very painful. My eye also get severely red and is constantly running when it happens.
> I would suggest that the odds of someone managing cluster headache without medication
Do you find it hard to believe that I, as a person that has managed this particular condition my entire life, is able to tune out the pain as long as I'm completely still and have my eyes closed? I was 30 before it even occurred to me that it was not what other people calls a headache, and I would feel guilty not doing anything with a headache, because people around me constantly said "I have a headache" but acted like nothing was wrong.
>Do you find it hard to believe that I, as a person that has managed this particular condition my entire life, is able to tune out the pain as long as I'm completely still and have my eyes closed?
Quite frankly, yes. I don't mean to belittle your condition or be a gatekeeper, but cluster headaches and severe migraines can be so bad that you are physically incapable of doing anything but laying still. It's not a choice. It's not just "knife in my eye, I should lay down and try to tune it out", it's "firecrackers are constantly exploding inside my skull and it's affecting my cognitive functions so much that I cannot walk straight, I cannot speak clearly, I cannot see things two feet in front of me, I cannot chew, etc". And it is simply impossible to "tune out the pain".
I don't doubt that you've had some bad headaches and I'm sorry that they have negatively impacted your life, but again, if you've never considered heavy medication for them then no, you do not know the full extent of how bad they can be. You should be thankful for this, not belittling other people's experience with them by implying they can "just take a paracetamol and tune out the pain". The fact that you are able to take paracetamol and that's enough is testament to the fact that you experience less severe migraines/headaches than some others do. A single, severe cluster headache/migraine the likes of which some people get would have sent you to the ER immediately begging for any medication to ensure that such a headache never, ever, ever happened again in your entire life. These are the types of headaches that paracetamol has no chance of even touching. Only incredibly powerful opiods/barbiturates even have a chance of relieving them. And that's just talking about the acute pain. The other terrible part about migraines is their chronicity.
I realize that my entire comment is ridiculous because it's essentially saying "no, my headache is worse than yours!" But saying "well I have headaches too and I'm fine" (like you are doing) is just as stupid.
>and I would feel guilty not doing anything with a headache, because people around me constantly said "I have a headache" but acted like nothing was wrong.
This is essentially what your comment is doing right now, and that's why it's insulting.
A nonzero number of cluster headache sufferers have actually cracked their teeth from involuntarily clenching down in response to the pain.
It's possible OP has a more mild presentation or something, but what was described is pretty damned atypical – and also about a half-micron away from "I can, so why can't you?".
> about a half-micron away from "I can, so why can't you?".
That was not at all the intention! I've developed a way to handle my issue, to the point where I can more or less shut my mind out of my body for hours. Kind of awake sleep. I have no notion of how many hours I'm out, but I'm aware the entire time.
What I've gone through to get to that point, I wouldn't wish for my worst enemy.
> Quite frankly, yes. I don't mean to belittle your condition or be a gatekeeper, but cluster headaches and severe migraines can be so bad that you are physically incapable of doing anything but laying still. It's not a choice. It's not just "knife in my eye, I should lay down and try to tune it out", it's "firecrackers are constantly exploding inside my skull and it's affecting my cognitive functions so much that I cannot walk straight, I cannot speak clearly, I cannot see things two feet in front of me, I cannot chew, etc". And it is simply impossible to "tune out the pain".
You're mixing the two up I think. What you've described is severe migraines. During a "typical" cluster headache episode, you're restless, because movement doesn't make it worse. You are gatekeeping pretty bad. The MD I've seen have given me the diagnosis cluster headaches with symptoms of migraines. Last time I had an episode, I was laying new flooring, noticed it coming and do the only thing I could, take some painkillers and power on. Before long I was cutting boards wrong, trying to lay them the wrong way around, and at some point my wife directly asked me if I was okay because of the atypical behavior. I wasn't and I made my way into the bedroom and didn't emerge again for 3 hours. Any sound, light, or movement during an episode is pretty bad.
> not belittling other people's experience with them by implying they can "just take a paracetamol and tune out the pain".
I've never implied that. I've said that is what I can do. You seem to be incapable of accepting that cluster headaches can range from something manageable, to something that makes people commit suicide. As I've mentioned, one of the leading MD on headaches in Denmark have diagnosed me with cluster headaches.
> A single, severe cluster headache/migraine the likes of which some people get would have sent you to the ER immediately begging for any medication to ensure that such a headache never, ever, ever happened again in your entire life.
Except a 10yo can not just go to the ER for that, and when you grow up being told to get over it, you find other ways to manage it.
> These are the types of headaches that paracetamol has no chance of even touching. Only incredibly powerful opiods/barbiturates even have a chance of relieving them. And that's just talking about the acute pain. The other terrible part about migraines is their chronicity.
Paracetamol is not handling it, they often stop it, or rather, it stops the thing that is causing it to develop. Why it's working, I have no idea - but it's, according to the MD, normal that medication in the initial stages can significantly reduce severity or even stop an episode.
>> and I would feel guilty not doing anything with a headache, because people around me constantly said "I have a headache" but acted like nothing was wrong.
> This is essentially what your comment is doing right now, and that's why it's insulting
Let me get this straight. I'm saying I've been diagnoses with it. I can often successfully stop it, and when I cannot I'm "out of service" for hours. How on Earth is that making people with the same condition feel guilty?
> Paracetamol is not handling it, they often stop it, or rather, it stops the thing that is causing it to develop.
Actually, this is pretty interesting. I'd be really curious if NSAIDs like ibuprofen or naproxen have the same effect. APAP has a novel mechanism of action at the cannabinoid receptor type 1, because it's a prodrug for AM404. That's the only target that I've ever found that kills my migraines (N.B. prescribed synthetic, not so much smoking joints or anything).
My GP send me to the "pain center" (I don't know what it's called in English), and the MD that I've seen a does nothing but headaches. His words are that by the clinical definition of a cluster headache, that is my diagnosis. The reason he call it a mix between migraine and cluster headache is because movements makes it worse and I get sensitivity to light and sounds during an episode.
I have "The Big Clusterfuck" twice a year and "just" tension headaches nearly every day. They start around 3pm and they intensify 'til they kill me, even on weekends - but I'm totally 100% sure that there are people at workplace who think this is just an excuse to get me home earlier (though this happens only once or twice in a month, because I'm so ashamed of it).
I also have to sit and "do nothing" for an hour after my breakfast, because I get such a bad stomach aches if I don't that I can hardly walk (yes, yes, I have seen many doctors about it, I have tons of good advice et cetera) - so I usually start work at 9pm and whenever we have an early meeting or gotta see the doctor early in the morning I feel like shit and scared. This I guess too can be categorized as a chronic attendance problem :)
You may find that enduring years of frequent unpredictable debilitating skull pain that lasts for unpredictable amounts of time, causes hours of intense vomiting progressing to dry heaving, and is frequently dismissed by others because the pain isn't visible enough to be seen as a "legitimate excuse"... tends to help other parts of your life become disorganized.
This is great. One piece of feedback, about the reviews themselves: Every time you use parentheses, there’s no space between the preceding word and the opening paren(like this).
I only read through the ACF review, but I saw it a number of times there.
The reason I ask is I've always learned to put a space in front of the parentheses and a quick Google search also only yields sources that say to do so. That being said, I'm American and my Google sources seem to be mostly American sources. Are you British, perhaps?
I think the custom is different depending on where you're from. I'm American and I have always used a space between the text and the opening paren. On that note, another American thing is to put two spaces after a period (something I've long stopped doing).
I think two spaces after a period is more of a typewriter bad habit than American thing. Back when you had a single monospace typeface, I think it just made things more legible. People who learned it then passed it on to generations who never used a typewriter.
anecdotal, but when I was in grade school (in the US) I was taught that it was a MLA rule to use two spaces after a period. I had teachers that deducted points from a paper if the extra spaces were missing.
Blue Apron is sooo time consuming. Everything arrives just rolling around in the box. You need to sort it, then find a place to put it in your own cabinets and refrigerator. Their time estimates for cooking are often off by half, and the recipes are hard to follow. I really don't like Blue Apron.
Some of the others I like have the food for each meal all come in a single bag, so I don't have to keep track of it in my fridge. My wife usually handles these and she switches them up frequently, so I can't remember all of them, but my favorite is Terra's Kitchen, because it has the least waste, and short, accurate prep times. All the items are numbered to match the meal they're for.
What I like about Waze: All the data other than the route itself, he location of speed traps most importantly.
What I like about Apple Maps: The actual on-screen navigation experience. I find it’s the clearest about which lane I need to be in.
Waze is terrible about weirdly-shaped intersections and ramps, both in the maps themselves and the instructions about where I need to be to turn/exit.
If you think all the alleys and left turns are annoying, that’s nothing. On I-270, outside DC, it often has me bouncing back and forth between the local and express lanes, for no reason. Probably because some other user nearby in each lane is going a slightly different speed.
Because, as was hashed out in court on exactly that question: the purpose of speed enforcement is to reduce speeding, not generate ticket revenue. If making people aware that they’re going to get caught speeding -makes them slow down- then the police presence is reducing the crime.
Average speed check zones. Multiple cameras that identify your car and ensure your average speed between point to point is not above the legal limit. Sure, you can go above the speed limit and then slow down, but it would be a pain to have to slow down, specially if you put cameras the entrance and exit of service stations in highways to discount breaks.
This would be a crazy revenue boost for metro areas outside of rush hour, where interstates are typically 55mph zones, while the traffic collectively moves at 65-70mph; going any slower than the flow is dangerous, but it's a dilemma to risk a ticket or risk a rear-ender.
Not OP but limit cars sold in a country to whatever the speed on the freeway is. e.g. in the UK, all cars registered here must have limiters fitted to stop it exceeding 70mph.
This would prevent speeding (but stop overtaking) on motorways, which I argue are the roads that need the least speed control. Speeding is probably more harmful on all other roads where you have pedestrians, cyclists and complex road layouts.
Oh sorry - to be clear, I was being a little pedantic about he question the parent mentioned - what is his solution to stopping speeding. I agree that reducing Speed limits (particularly on motorways) isn’t the answer. There are other reasons for it however, eg Ireland [0] is attempting to reduce the speed for environmental reasons.
If Waze's police and red light camera indications cause more people to comply the law while driving, isn't that already better than not having this feature at all?
Though interestingly, in France it is nominally illegal to have your SatNav warn you of speed cameras. You are meant to turn that facility off when visiting.
Indeed, and the TomTom interface for reporting speed cameras becomes instead an interface for reporting 'hazards' (with no prizes for guessing the kinds of 'hazards' that people then choose to report).
That's a different tangent. Can enforcers abuse their enforcement privileges? Sure. Is the point of traffic regulations 'to stop people speeding in every location'? No.
There is another solution which is being implemented in my country: average speed traps. Instead of the measuring your momentary speed it measures the time you take to go over some particular distance and then calculates your average speed. If it is over the limit, you are in trouble.
The reason there aren't speed bumps every few miles is the same reason it's not illegal to tell each other where the speed traps are: there is tension between public support for the goal, and public annoyance at enforcement.
This is also why it's not illegal to buy a car that can go 120 mph, even though there is not a single road in the U.S. with a speed limit that high.
> This is also why it's not illegal to buy a car that can go 120 mph
That, and I can take my 120+ mph car to the track. (Also, I can think of a couple times having a car able to go 120 mph has helped me get out of the way of some accidents a slower car would've got caught up in.)
I'd love to hear about the times going 120 mph kept you safe from an accident.
Keep in mind I'm not talking about powerful acceleration; top speed can be electronically governed. You could have a car that goes 0-60 in under 4 seconds, but is governed to 75 mph top speed by law.
I don't think you can easily ban people telling each other about speed traps, and by extension having a program with similar features.
But I agree that it's an unethical feature. The people who have the most interest in it are the same people who routinely exceed the speed limit -- otherwise, what's the point!
Eh. If it were up to me, regular streetworthy cars would be both sensibly limited in power (say, 60 HP) and speed (say, 80 kph).
I grew up in Virginia, where radar detectors are illegal. I was surprised to learn that Virginia is in fact the only US state to ban radar detectors. It's also the only state to consider going 20 over the speed limit (or over 80 even on a 70mph highway) automatic reckless driving.
Providing this information makes it easier for people to speed in other places, making the roads a more dangerous place. This rule has definitely cost lives. If you don't think it is unethical, then what is your definition?
Seeing how people react to unmarked speed cameras(police on the side of the road): full brakes with zero concern what is behind them, I'd say not telling people where cameras are is far more dangerous.
That's a meta-analysis that doesn't focus on police activities, but rather unattended camera installations. Results of such studies have hardly been unequivocal, unlike the financial benefits to the camera operators.
Setting aside the fact that you can find a pubmed link to "prove" the efficacy of almost any intervention, the original assertion -- that the roads are more dangerous when drivers are informed of the presence of cameras, police, or both -- is not addressed by this survey.
As speeds have gone up, the death rate has gone down more or less steadily, at least until the last couple of years when drivers collectively decided that their cellphones are more interesting than their driving. A study that purports to exonerate speed traps must first address this rather inconvenient truth.
I think hq4x has a slight edge because it doesn't go all the way trying to make everything smooth, still preserving some pixelation. There's actually an analog to this in denoising: if you denoise too heavily you end up losing detail. Smart denoising manages to preserve edges, giving a better result. In this case, pixels are the same as noise, undesirable, but containing useful information.
Take a while and watch toads eat if you ever get the chance. They're absolutely voracious. When I lived in the south, they used to hang out on my front porch, eating all kinds of bugs attracted by the light. I once saw a toad try to eat a slightly smaller toad. If it's smaller than them and it moves, they'll try to eat it.
I’m totally convinced that if toads were larger, they’d eat us too. Frogs are pretty tough as well.
The hairy frog is also notable in possessing retractable "claws" (though unlike true claws, they are made of bone, not keratin), which it may project through the skin, apparently by intentionally breaking the bones of the toe.[1] In addition, the researchers found a small bony nodule nestled in the tissue just beyond the frog's fingertip. When sheathed, each claw is anchored to the nodule with tough strands of collagen, but, as Gerald Durrell[4] discovered firsthand, when the frog is grabbed or attacked, the frog breaks the nodule connection and forces its sharpened bones through the skin.
I had my gallbladder removed a few years ago. It required a major incision and I was in the hospital for five days after surgery. I had to get up and walk a lap around the hallway a few times a day. I felt it get easier every day, but those first few times were excruciating.
It was good that they made me do it—by the last day, I was starting to develop nerve pain from so much sitting, propped up in the hospital bed. Walking was torture, but so was sitting.
