For example BMI is correlated with average expected life span, where a BMI in the “healthy” range is correlated with longer average lifespans, and both under or overweight BMIs are correlated with shorter average lifespans.

Actually, there’s a curve where all cause mortality is lowest at BMIs that are slightly overweight, between 25-30 kg/m^2 :

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11051237/

So the traditional “overweight” range appears to be slightly healthier overall than the “healthy” range. Perhaps because some healthy people have higher lean tissue mass (muscle, bone density, etc.).

Is this therapy talk for commanding a brigade of soldiers to resist an enemy advance during the First Battle of Bull Run?

Not reliving the stupid things I said to my crush on the phone? Absolutely not me in high school.

It’s not photoshop it’s slop.

Which part? The entire image, with the exception of the patient, is just the AI image Trump posted last week. The patient’s face is just the photograph of that Israeli settler from the cover of some magazine.

Combining two images with Photoshop is a pretty normal way to use Photoshop. Complaining that a particular source image is AI ignores the actual reason why it was posted, and why there was an editorial reason to want to post an otherwise faithful copy of the original, modified in a specific way.

It’s just a regular Photoshop blend of a newsworthy photograph over a particularly newsworthy AI generated image. There’s no net increase in AI here in this post.

Social media users are prone to using terms in nonsensical ways.

Very mindful, very demure.

C’mon, the puppetry and the practical effects looked fantastic. Even the special effects, grounded in real in-camera tricks, were visually stunning.

“pfft if they’re that interested in Saturn’s rings, let’s just show them something even older: sharks.”

What if it’s a really tall man with short legs and an extra long torso though?

I wonder if two opposing rings would be connected by some sort of circular maglev track where the mechanism would just preserve overall angular velocity but spin the two halves in opposite directions. The spin could be entirely powered by electric motors, and energy could be conserved if it needs to slow down or speed up. That might be a lot of mass, but it might not cost any fuel to get it spinning.

increased fuel consumption of spinning down and then spinning back up

wastes a tremendous amount of fuel to spin down/up again

I think a flywheel mechanical energy storage system could both serve as a way to store energy and as a way to manipulate the rotation while preserving rotational energy. To slow down the rotation, transfer the rotational energy to a flywheel, and then transfer it back when you need to go back to speed. That adds some mechanical complexity but it creates a more efficient way to control rotation. Plus with electric motors and solar panels, that should be possible to manage without using any propellant fuel.

And the “I guess” guy.

Maybe other intelligent life forms don’t make the same assumptions that we do that lead to the statement that there are two “apples,” and maybe mathematics isn’t universal.

That just shows that “Apple” isn’t necessarily universal, and doesn’t actually disprove the universality of the concept of “two.”

There are a ton of different physical ways to represent the Fibonacci sequence, for example, and I would imagine the first contact looks for ways to find the mutually understood medium by both sides: raised symbols, pulses of radiation, pulses of vibrations, physical pebbles arranged in a line, physical pebbles manipulated over a timeline, etc.

Once we establish a common medium, we’d explore mutual understanding of prime numbers, approximations of pi/e/phi, and things like that.

You can swallow things while dangling upside down. The esophagus is strong enough to work against gravity.

But liquids are a little bit more difficult, because they tend to flow in unexpected places in the mouth/sinuses/nose before trying to swallow.

The children yearn for the Voight-Kampff test.

30 minutes each time

Jim, would you like a sex metaphor or a nature metaphor?

this would not work

You assume the goal is to actually try to date or fuck. It’s not. The goal is to intimidate and degrade, to make someone else uncomfortable. So viewed through that lens, it works.

Does it make the bread taste like shit?

I would argue that toasting your bread to the point where there’s significant acrylamide on it is making bread taste like shit to begin with.

Just don’t burn your bread and you’ll be fine.