I don't care if they can write bubble sort off the top of their head. I do care that when they were in class, they had to go through the exercise of implementing bubble sort in their algorithm, realizing that they had an off-by-one error, identifying the problem, and fixing it. School is like working out at the gym, and AI is like bringing a forklift to the squat rack.
People are moving away from Gore-Tex, especially as the new jackets simply work worse than the previous ones that have poisoned our water. It's just simpler materials and mechanical venting (pit zips). Simple, strong, lightweight. And they don't cost $400.
Waxed jackets and especially Barbour are also having a comeback, I see a lot of them around. Not the best jackets for sports, but for a casual stroll in a light rain they work very well and they look much better than Gore-Tex
No. The newer GoreTex jackets work worse than previous ones. Much of it has to do with the DWR. The previous DWR that has now been banned for its inclusion of PFAS (forever chemicals) which did a much, much better job than the newer, non-PFAS DWR. This switch happened in the States last year I believe.
Gore-Tex these days is not made out of Teflon itself (as the fine article talks about) and its replacement is fine. As the article also points out the patent has been expired for some time and replacements have cropped up. The direct replacements are all fine too.
But without a DWR that works really well, you never have the right conditions to allow water vapor to escape from inside the jacket. Again as the article points out Gore-Tex performs well in the lab, which does not transfer to real world conditions.
So you have a problem where GoreTex kind of just acts like a much cheaper material, at a much greater expense. For those situations (most) you may as well just use a simpler, impermeable material (siliconed-coated nylon, for example) and vent it mechanically (open up a zipper).
The exception is actual alpine conditions, where precipitation is falling as something frozen (snow). There's really no need for the DWR to work perfectly to bead up the water on the surface, as it's not actually liquid.
But even then, much of a layer system for conditions is about control how much moisture you trap within your clothing. You climb a mountain, you sweat. What are you gunna do about it? Wearing a waterproof jacket is sometimes not what you wanna do at all, to keep your layers as dry as possible, and only put the jacket on when conditions require it (it's snowing, or it's so cold you need to trap the warmth in, even though that traps perspiration in too).
And if you don't like PFAS and forever chemicals, you're not going to like microplastics, the majority of which are from rubber car and truck tires. Electric cars -- being heavier -- wear out tires faster and are more of a problem in this respect. We don't talk about this much because we can't live in a world without cars.
Thanks for the detailed clarification. As to the DWR, my experience says that the best GoreTex jacket is one without a nylon outer layer, and therefore no need for DWR. The GoreTex Shakedry jackets finally delivered on the promise GoreTex had made for 50 years. And they did it by just giving you a jacket made out of a sheet of GoreTex and nothing else. No nylon outer layer, no need to mess with DWR. As it turns out, none of that was necessary to make a workable jacket, save one thing: Shakedry jackets are not very durable. IOW, you don’t want to wear a pack with it, the pack straps will rub through the material.
But if you’re not carrying a pack, and just going on a bike ride or a run, this is by far the best jacket I’ve ever owned, and I’ll cry real tears when it dies. Hopefully there will be workable alternatives by then.
> Hopefully there will be workable alternatives by then.
I think Columbia’s OutDry Extreme tech is essentially the same thing with the membrane on the outside, which they claim is toughened to withstand abrasion, so maybe holds up better than ShakeDry:
You are correct re: Shakedry. What's interesting to me is that it used the now discontinued ePTFE which manufacturing used PFAS in production, but there is still no alternative PFAS-free Shakedry, despite now having an advantage of not requiring a DWR at all.
I would agree that even with the delicateness of Shakedry, or Shakedry-like product, there would still a use case and market.
> what I believe in many cases is a structural issue
Many cases it is not. I'm not trying to be a contrarian but I don't want to plant hope in some people who suffer from sleep apnea thinking it's something they can just do breathing exercises for.
Maybe? I didn't write "most", I wrote "many". What do you have a problem with syaing "many" instead of "all"
I suffer from obstructive sleep apnea, but I would never, ever tell people that their sleep apnea HAS to be obstructive too.
It's like telling a Type 1 Diabetic that they had a friend with diabetes that "cured" themselves with diet. We're talking about two different problems, and we don't discount the Type 1 Diabetic because there are Type 2 Diabetics.
fwiw I really believe it is, my sleep problems come and go based on entirely physical variables--how flexible I feel, how much time I spent "shrimping", how tight my back and neck are.
Personally I would not be surprised at all if in 50-100 years we look back on this era as one where we massively overprescribed CPAP machines to treat an entirely-fixable condition in most people (alongside all the other medical interventions that will turn out to be bandaid fixes for actually fixable problems). I'm aware this is a bit of an outlandish take. But you can tell how many people's breathing and posture is bad just by existing in the world for ten minutes and looking at them. I think it's really an epidemic.
I don’t think it’s an outlandish take at all. You can possibly also put orthotics and spectacles in the list of interventions as solutions to problems largely induced by unnatural adaptations to an unnatural environment.
yeah... mostly I said it that way because this take upsets some people. The full list (which I think are 80+% fixable by lifestyle) is something like: sleep apnea, obesity, back pain, most things that require physical therapy outside of injuries, probably orthotics and myopia, depression, ADHD, anxiety... probably there are others I'm not thinking of also.
I would like to also include cancers since we cause most of them but that is maybe a different category. Although I have heard of theories that suggest diet can reduce skin cancer (e.g. the mediterranean diet phenomenon) as well as one that suggests exercise can reduce prostate cancer (by strengthening the muscles surrounding veins to prevent testosterone from leaking into the prostate), and of course smoking-related cancers are entirely preventable, so I would not be surprised if there are a lot more that are prevented by health lifestyles.
Generally it doesn't seem to work to just tell people to be healthy, though; to really get any of this work you need society at large to be structured in a healthy way so that it becomes the default instead of an act of willpower. But that seems.. imminently doable, if people want to do it. However it's a huge change, so it takes a movement. For example you pretty much have to make people's lifestyles more walking-oriented, which means rearranging society completely.
Which physical therapies are "interventions as solutions to problems largely induced by unnatural adaptations to an unnatural environment"?
As a math and physics expert, you also claim to be proficient at body movement. Go off king, I'll wait. And AHDH huh? Cancer, uhuh. You're a pyschoholigist and doctor too.
Like: for example, it seems fairly obvious that some societal-level change happened around the 70s or 80s that triggered our modern obesity epidemics. My personal best guess is that it was the rise of processed foods messing up people's gut bacteria, but I have no actual idea. Nonetheless: you can spend as much time and energy (as a society) as you want curing obesity, but if ultimately the cause is in our food quality, then the "right" fix is obviously to fix that. The same claim applies to skin cancer and dietary connections: if the Mediterranean diet or general food quality is responsible for lower incidence of cancers in those places, then ... food quality should be fixed, right? (and sun exposure, of course, is another variable that you can just do things about).
You don't have to be an expert to think that has some validity. It's obvious. I am just quoting the expert theories, anyway.
The point really is: interventions like 'change the quality of food in America' are not things doctors can, like, prescribe to people. But they are things we can aspire to do. They will just take social movements instead of medical treatments to pull off.
Sure, and I wouldn’t tell someone to not see an ENT, and maybe a CPAP, surgery, or this pill are the right solution for you. I’m just throwing out another option to consider with different tradeoffs.
So please correct me, but was Google's AI crawling the web for information without discretion? If so, why wouldn't that totally santorum the AI answers?
It's prohibited under international law to attack a sovereign nation, like the US has done to Iran, so the point of Iran closing the Strait in response to this is very much moot.
Does Janine Turner reflect upon her time playing a strong independent woman who owned her own business in a male dominated field while being friends with an indigenous population? Because Janine Turner is... different.
reply