Being able to see the random seed used in the console and use it in the hash is a nice touch. I found a few large ones and one with a single path between two points (1592751582695)
> So, I forgive myself but still cringe hard whenever I remember it.
This has actually resonated with me as advice in its own right. I have wasted a lot of time worrying about past mistakes that I have made, wishing I could change the past etc. I'm not so bad for it now, but still struggle sometimes and worry myself with what people think of me now remembering what drunk (and sober) me did at university 10 years ago (and at other times in my life). This line has helped reframe it a bit in my mind: it's ok to still cringe at how I behaved and forgive myself for it - the former does not rule out the latter.
(of course, they don't make it anymore, I think. But the Extrem 5000 is very similar. They added a pocket, moved the other two)
For years before this, I had been reasonably happy with an old North Face goretex jacket. It last about 15 years, but had a lining and in the end the exterior water shedding ability (not waterproofness) was shot.
The Berghaus is just what I always wanted: single layer, goretex, lightweight but very heavy duty fabric, the perfect hood design.
I wore it to hike the 230 mile Cape Wrath Trail last year, and verified once again that it was completely waterproof, very comfortable, perfect in every way (for me, at least).
If you forced me to make one criticism, I'd like a slightly larger patch of slightly softer material where the neck/hood comes up over my mouth/chin when it's fully "on". But even 2 weeks of wearing it every day (sometimes all day) in Scottish rain didn't really make that much of an issue.
git blame suggests the change was made 15 months ago, though that doesn't take it to account time to publish.
Which I guess just goes to show that it can be tough to find information on the docs, despite them been relatively decent as far as docs go (in my opinion).
Not sure where you are or why you experience this - I've made £300+ payments on my phone for sure (car service) and I think I might have done one close to £1000 at one point.
The "Teacher Effects" paper is demonstrating that the value add to student achievment is likely noise and not representative of the teachers doing a better job.
The "Parachutes" paper is demonstrating that parachutes make no difference when used out of a stationary grounded plane.
I think the point is that both papers are demonstrating that the numbers alone don't tell the full story.
The parachute paper says this, which I think is their “punchline”:
When beliefs regarding the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community, randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the applicability of the results to clinical practice.
So... was there some kind of selective enrollment in the teacher study? I don’t think that’s the issue here.
Sure, not the same mechanism (selective enrollment). But the papers seem parallel in that they try to demonstrate something we know to be crazy, using steps that are accepted when studying things we don't know.
And the author acknowledges that those individuals are not the problem.
> the problem is not individual engineers — who are not responsible for writing docs; that is the responsibility of dedicated coumentation teams. But that does not make it any less a failure of Apple’s engineering organization.
I get author's point, but this sentence reads weird.
If a team ("dedicated [documentation team]") is responsible for something, surely the individuals in such team are responsible too? Or the author is making a distinction between "engineers" and team members of documentation teams?
