I'm sorry Japan, but this is not how cats work. Cat "flight or fight" response is to run and climb a tree. They prefer to be up high, not down low in some cabinet. Feels safer for naps.
> Imagine trying to run a burndown of your sprint when zero of the Radars are closed, because they have to be verified in production before being closed, meaning you cannot verify until after the release.
I think most teams use verify as a "closed" state to hide all that messiness. But sure, zero bugs is a project management fiction and produces perverse outcomes.
If you make the assumption that "AA" is some form of antialiasing, it's not too bad: first scholar[1] hit expands the acronym to Temporal Reprojection Anti-Aliasing
Yeah, should've tried with "antialiasing". Still, astonishingly obscure given that it's not even a new thing anymore and apparently implemented in UE4 and others.
Of ≈17 million Chinese students who graduated junior high school after grade 9 in 2024, ≈10 million were admitted to a high school, ≈4 million to a vocational school and the remaining ≈3 million disappear from education statistics, presumably directly entering the workforce. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/202506/t20250611_...
So at least in theory there's still lots of room to increase high school enrollment, though I doubt this would lead to noticeably more geniuses. The testing system is pretty good at sorting the best students into good schools, I think.
Unfortunately it's hard to take China's population / enrollment demographics at face value. There's many incentives in the system to overstate growth, and cross checks between different reports that _should_ be correlated suggest they're quite overstated.
It's bad enough they passed some legislation a few years ago[1], but the damage has in many senses already been done. And it's unclear how effective the changes will be. So it's entirely possible those 3 million missing high schoolers never existed.
The figures for students graduating primary school (18.57 million) and entering junior high school (18.49 million) match up quite well, though. Do you think primary schools and junior high schools manage to coordinate massive student number inflation to the tune of 3 million non-existent students, but then at the transition to senior high schools that suddenly breaks down? If anything, I'd expect it to break down when those non-existent students are supposed to take the Zhongkao exam in order to graduate, not at the senior high school admissions stage.
Some statistics reported in China are unreliable because the person doing the reporting also has their performance evaluated by the numbers they report and there are few external checks on validity, but I don't think that's the case for student numbers in particular.
Also, it seems like you're the same 'jldugger who cited Chinese population statistics upthread, but when somebody else does it, they're suddenly unreliable???
> If anything, I'd expect it to break down when those non-existent students are supposed to take the Zhongkao exam in order to graduate, not at the senior high school admissions stage.
Reasonable. If I were more conspiratorial, I might suggest that it's precisely because people are watching college exam numbers that 9th grade -> high school is where the break is. Or could just be the result of compounding growth from two competing officials making different exaggerated claims decades ago.
But really, the high school enrollment gap is not super germane to my main point: we may have seen peak China population, stemming largely from a smaller incoming cohort. The sidebar about offsetting that decline with increased enrollment percentages is interesting, I'm just default skeptical.
> cited Chinese population statistics upthread, but when somebody else does it, they're suddenly unreliable???
My cite appears to use UN data, not the PRC's official stats (at least not directly). But I'm pretty sure the official stats are also showing the same trend, just at a slower rate of decline. I mean, it's the entire reason for loosening the one-child policy to two, then to three.
At this point i’ve witnessed over 30years of “stats about China aren’t real” type posts while they continue to demonstrate impressive economic and social results that i’m far more inclined to believe the potentially flawed Chinese data than posts that basically claim all data out of China is fake.
Isolated demands for rigor, really. China does have a lot of incentives to publish misleading statistics. Also, so does everyone else. In most places we bake skepticism of official lines from government and industry alike into our epistemic weights and move on, but when China does it we're supposed to treat it as a big deal. Propaganda at its finest
> the data showed that on summit night, the average body temperature difference between the twin in modern down and the twin in complicated layers of silk, wool, and gabardine was a staggering 1.8°C.
> “In a hundred years, you’ve gained—arguably—one degree of efficiency per 50 years,” Ross reveals.
Depending on where the baseline is, 1.8 degrees could be huge! But more importantly, heat dissapation is a non-linear function. The warmer you are relative to your environment, the more energy is lost. While Shackleton's kit forms a lower baseline, it probably makes sense to imagine how some imaginary perfect vacuum insulated sleeping bag would perform.
If they're actually measuring body temperature (using that swallowed pill they mention?) then 1.8C is a huge difference.
This whole article does feel like they started with a conclusion and they were going to report that conclusion regardless of what they measured or experienced. Content that claims to debunk things is hot right now.
Also the body will increase metabolic rate in the cold to maintain body temperate which is an externality they aren’t measuring. The user of the worse clothing is very likely burning more calories and still not as warm. This would mean increased fatigue and greater food weight on expeditions.
I disagree. People also may care about the cognitive load of thermal management. As the article notes:
> the gear of the past is capable, but it has a narrower operating window. If you stop moving in Mallory’s kit at 8,000 meters, you will freeze quickly. Modern gear buys you a safety margin if you become static.
In modern terms, this means that stopping to take a photo — whether Ansel or selfie — would carry a material risk of harm in the classic gear that is addressed by modern gear. The example of a selfie is perhaps too easily dismissed unconsidered, but the cognitive load is real for casual hikers, and is a benefit to modern gear that deserves the mention it gets. If I had to choose between a cap that has perfect heat management and a cap that weighs 10g less but requires me to constantly take it off and put it on every five minutes to allow evaporation, I would choose the heavier and lower annoyance cap. Each person’s preferences and skills apply; if one seeks to minmax weight/thermal then that’s a negligible price to pay to improve — but only some truly do strive for the limit of lowest mass without regards to complexity.
There was an enviro-scifi book from the eighties that noted that a few people will pursue ‘one piece of apparel serves all functions’ skinsuit to the exclusion of all other concerns (such as natural fabrics or apparel design), at which point we would plausibly expect to see at one extreme the folks who make a discount-ultralight vented bodysuit out of FedEx envelopes. I am taking for granted that someone has tried this, because of course someone has tried this! And that starts to verge on why, in a different enviro-scifi book of that same relative era, the stillsuit existed: the lightest way to have convenient purified water in an absurd climates. Even the stillsuit as we see it described prioritizes convenience, the sip tube, over a more efficient system that doesn’t expend calories on pumping water up. That’s purely because human beings have a cognitive annoyance limit; and we do variably prioritize convenience when assessing the weight-complexity tradeoff.
I go mushroom picking in the Oregon forest every year.
The only real dangerous moment I ever had was getting soaking wet, and when the storm cleared, I stopped like a fool to eat lunch in a sunny for breezing opening. I finished lunch, and realized I was shockingly cold. Like, dangerously cold. I did jumping jacks as long as I could and then started walking uphill even though that wasn't where I wanted to go really. Weird moment.
I didn’t wear my rain gear hiking uphill in a quarter inch per 4 hours downpour and started feeling sleepy by degrees until I caught myself looking for a place to lie down for a nap. At that point I realized I’d better turn around posthaste.
I used to lead hiking trips and being wet (and/or exposed to rain a bit above freezing is generally more dangerous than being mostly dry in colder temperatures
It must just be that the way the stillsuit functions is because of the limits of Herbert as a engineer and designer had been reached and he did not think or realize that there was a more efficient system than the sip tube possible.
Dunno. I'm content analyzing the analogy as if authorial limitations did not apply; it helps fend off the entropic forces of IDIC given the necessity of using flawed examples to communicate at all.
Add body weight and the old gear sums to about three percent heavier than the modern gear. I'd say total weight matters more than gear weight alone, doesn't it?
I've done a lot of long hikes (200+km in the sahara, 6000+m mountains in kazakstan), and 2kg extra means a lot, like the difference between carrying extra fuel/food versus just clothing.
Anyway, you can try it yourself, wear a 2kg wax cotton jacket versus a 500gm technical jacket and see how you feel after a day's hiking.
No. Weight x distance from center of mass is the real metric of burden.
Carrying your lunch on a 10-foot pole, keeping it off the ground at all times, versus slipping it into a fanny pack - or eating it and carrying it in your very center of mass.
I noticed while ultralight hiking (full kit without food, fuel, and water under 9 lbs, for multi-day excursions) that how close your backpack was to your back mattered. Unfortunately, if it was tight to your back it overheated you, so a standoff of an inch or so was essential. I considered dividing it front and back, so each was about half as "thick" (far from my body), but there isn't a lot you can carry in front of you without seriously impeding movement.
Yeah, it shows the old gear is about two kilograms heavier than the new gear, which is huge.
Considering that someone carrying 2 extra kilos will also be generating more body heat etc, the focus on heat over the rest of the article is in question.
To clarify slightly: it shows the old gear is significantly heavier in three areas: head, hands, and ‘accessories’. I think that suggests where investment in technical fabric has been most successful at improving the burden of mass in surviving extreme cold.
Tech fabrics were a prerequisite to the widespread use of down in adventure clothing. Earlier fabrics were either too heavy, like leather, and would collapse the down and negate its insulating properties, or would get wet like cotton/linen and saturate the down.
Something like https://desknest.com seems much more likely to work.
reply