If you wear glasses or contacts that are for seeing at a distance, it’s hard for your eyes to focus close-up for very long. Same for if you don’t wear glasses at all, if you are reading a lot. So depending on your situation you may just need to take your glasses off while reading, or pick up some cheap reading glasses at the drugstore–making sure to get the right type for easily focusing on the page, or even get bifocals. Best bet is to get an eye exam and tell the optometrist what you’ve said here, so they can figure out what your best options are.

Yeah, I was over-simplifying to make my statement more dramatic and semi-funny, because so many people hate the clock-switching.

It’s complicated. DST is mostly observed in North America, Europe, and part of Australia, and mostly since pre- or during WWII, BUT yes there are a few countries that started later. There are also some original ones that stopped observing it and then started again later. Also, some of the people still alive from when it started would have been too young to be able to agree to it.

So I’ll amend my statement to “The vast majority of people alive today didn’t agree to DST”. Doesn’t have the same punch.

No one alive today agreed to Daylight Saving Time.

This one may sound a bit silly, but it’s worked for me quite a few times:

“Whatever happened before or might happen later, right now, just for this moment, everything’s fine.”

(of course, if something bad is actually happening at a given moment you’re probably not going to be spending time remembering that little tidbit. It’s for when you’re feeling depressed or anxious).

There’s nothing especially triumphant about this trip as it was already known to be achievable.

It’s been so long since we did this that it’s all new people and newer technology now (although unfathomably, they used Microsoft products on a critical mission!?! but I digress). So before attempting to land on the moon, they still have to do the preliminary missions to test all the systems and work out any bugs–and they found some. So this was important, and a success.

I think actually watching some of the video would help with that. I watched some video of events while they were up there, what they were feeling and how much they obviously cared about each other and what they were doing.

Tonight I watched the splashdown and felt unexpectedly emotional about it, not sure whether it was contemplating the enormity of the achievement, or the display of the good and smart and positive side of humans working together to do something big again instead of the constant drumbeat of destruction, or maybe just that we didn’t have yet another disaster.

The only issues I’ve had with LW so far has been how aggressively it blocks things for privacy. I had to change some of the default settings to let me access some sites even though that reduces the amount of privacy.

What kinds of issues did you have, and what’s better about waterfox? I may need to check it out.

I know you say “that one” , but there are several that are kind of tied, that I use every day.

• Firefox --> but since last year, the Librewolf fork.
• emacs
• Thunderbird
• LibreOffice Calc

Baked potatoes are a delivery mechanism for sour cream, butter, salt and pepper.

“Hangin’ in there” is what I generally use when I’m not fine but I know it’s just a greeting. It conveys that things are less than fine, but not by how much, and that I’m still functioning.

Some other, more flippant ones: “As well as can be expected”, a shrug and a “meh”, “Too early to tell” (if it’s first thing in the morning / just arriving to work), “Sitting up and taking nourishment”, etc.

You can even skip answering at all, and move directly to the response greeting, “Hey, how are you?”

My fear is that the models merge all kind of patient record info together as the statistical model so the ‘summaries’ will write the most likely word to come next in the phrase, so wrong information and incorrect diagnoses will be recorded into a person’s record, or that important information will be omitted.

I predict that people will be harmed or die because of missing or false information patient records. But it will be difficult for the public to find out about it because of privacy issues and the unwillingness of institutions to acknowledge it.

Drugs have to go through multiple stages of testing and trials before they’re allowed to be used on patients. But no one is doing any kind of testing on the effects of this at all, let alone controlled trial rollouts with review, before allowing general use.

I hope you’re right! The magical thinking and child-like trust in this tech by otherwise intelligent people is scary though.

I feel very strongly about this and I would change doctors. But of course it won’t be long before they all do this and we’ll have no alternative. The two biggest problems I see are

1. I saw a news story where a doctor who uses this said it saves her time because before seeing the patient she gets an AI summary of their chart, so she doesn’t have to “go through several tabs” to read the actual information. Oh great, let the statistical probability text generator hallucinate up some shit about what’s in a person’s chart, to save 10 seconds of tab-clicking to read the ACTUAL patient records! If they want a summary there’s no reason a traditional report or summary screen couldn’t be programmed to pull data out of the most important fields and arranging them in the desired format.

2. THEN the doctor uses her damn phone to record your visit, everything you say, and that gets run through the AI which generates a visit summary and puts that into your medical records. So, god only knows what 3rd party private corporate vulture has access to your doctor/patient conversations and what they’ll do with them, and again, what hallucinated shit will get put into your medical records!

So your doctor never reads your chart and never writes your chart! [Readacted] me now! Also what happens after a few iterations of an AI summarizing records that an AI wrote?

S’mr’amr

Thanks, this is the kind of information I’m looking for.

Clearly you haven’t seen many signatures. Mine is a scrawl that no one could identify, and I learned cursive a long, long time ago.

I’m old and have seen very many signatures of cursive writers so I know that most are scrawl-like and only slightly resemble the letters they’re based on. What I haven’t seen is signatures of the non-cursive-knowing signers, which is why I’m asking the question and hoping to get responses from those who never learned cursive.

For people who learned cursive, it’s natural and intuitive to develop a unique, flowing signature that’s hard for someone else either to forge or even guess what it might look like. So my question is trying to understand if those who’ve only ever printed also develop unique signatures like that, or if their signatures look closer to how they would normally print their name.