Looks terrific! I have a suggestion as you continue to add features and think about scripting. sc-im has lua external functions, but you cannot pass a range of cells, only the value of one cell. This severely limits the usefulness of external lua scripts. If/when you add scripting, hopefully you can overcome this limitation. If so, you'll have at least one more user!
> Most shoes have carbon plates in them now, they act as a spring, storing energy and propelling athletes forwards.
This seems unlikely to be true, although it is repeated in every article I read about carbon plated shoes. The people that study them in a lab environment seem to disagree. See some of the papers here:
Yes, most of the studies show there is a very large individual variation. The original 4% figure and similar studies were an average of something like 1-7% across runners.
Also interestingly, the shoe in this record uses much less carbon than past shoes, both saving weight and allowing even more super foam where much of the energy return comes from. Though there so much variance in shoe design and materials there are only theories on how much comes from the plate vs foam vs stack height vs weight vs other factors.
Yes, that's correct. There's a mistaken belief that it's the major source of performance improvements. It plays a role, but the bigger gains come from the stack height (limb lengthening effect) and the energy return of the foam. But that leads to very unstable shoes. The carbon gives rigidity to balance this out.
Quite possible there's a psychological benefit from super shoes, they certainly feel fast. Though there are enough plausible mechanisms it's unlikely to be the major factor.
There's an almost inhuman amount of mind over matter psychology when it comes to endurance running. Unless you can duplicate reality multiple times and swap out the shoes without anyone knowing to do properly scientific testing, we can't know for sure what did it. (The shoes probably helped.)
> - Late payment shall incur interest at 8% above the BoE base rate and a late fee of 100 GBP as per the UK Late Payment Legislation. Partial payments on invoices shall apply to late fees, interest, and then principal, in that order.
As I understand it, from our lawyer, is that this exact wording is automatically enforceable in UK courts and easiest in the event of a dispute. It’s also generally internationally accepted.
I've always wondered, in cases like this where 8%+2% (for example) can either mean 10% or 8.16%, why doesn't the contract just give a fictional example of how the maths would work out?
Apple used to have a really good security record, it's mind boggling they blew it all up just to force Liquid Glass on users.
For those not in the loop, Apple used to provide security patches for supported older iOS versions. They changed a lot of behavior around the release of Liquid Glass (iOS 26, MacOS Tahoe). Starting with iOS 18.7.3, they only release patch versions for the iPhone XS and XR. They've repeated this, through to 18.7.6 now.
Apple should stop doing security by obscurity in the first place. People have no way finding out whether their phones have been compromised. Lockdown mode is just a cope mechanism for phones likely already compromised and there is no guarantee lockdown mode cannot be bypassed.
Apple hardware is inherently insecure and it is bizarre that Apple keeps burying their head in the sand.
Yes, but you can use anti-virus software on other platforms which can detect many threats.
Also just because others are not great, doesn't excuse Apple from being very much negligent.
I know many people who bought Apple products specifically because of the myth that they are secure. They were in fact mis sold. There is common thinking that no anti virus software = no viruses = secure among non technical crowd.
Even then. I'll take a leaky iOS 18 over pretty much any leaky Android or internet-connected TV or whatever.
iPhones are still the least bad option, for regular people who aren't planning to solder anything, select their boot loader on launch, or recompile a kernel.
You are claiming that based on information you don't have (the future). At least you could call it a prediction rather than state it as an obvious disfact.
Every photographer with expensive equipment that I know has insurance for their equipment. Sometimes it is included with homeowner, sometimes a separate rider, and sometimes part of their commercial insurance. So it would be covered.
However, that wouldn't help OP if they needed the lens for their trip, suddenly need to find another one, and needed to float the cash until insurance pays out.
> Up to a point, there's an easily distinguishable sound and detail difference between cheaper and more expensive gear, given that you don't cheat (i.e. put cheaper gear in expensive enclosure), but that difference indistinguishable well before these "true audiophile" level stuff.
I don't understand how that is cheating. Isn't it a better controlled experiment if the equipment looks the same?
No, I mean "cheating at the market". Some companies sell literal snake oil for 10x the price, then they make the market unreliable for everyone, and nobody believes a company which really uses more expensive components can get better sound.
If you want a good controlled experiment, create a literal black box, without any distinguishing features, or lose the box completely and give them an output (speakers or headphones) only.
Another bad thing is, sound is so subjective and experience changes between brands a lot. For example: headphone "burn in" is considered an hallucination, it mostly is. However I have bought a set of RHA MA750i earphones which changed from "This is not what it says on the box" to "am I sure that these are the RHAs I hated" in a month, because it's sound character changed so immensely. No other headphone I had in my life did that.
So, everything is so muddy, subjective and unreproducible. When a room's organization or floor carpet density can change its frequency response, you can't control anything. Moreover, every human's ear profile is different, so you can't be sure that their ear is hearing that the same (e.g. one of my ears have a notch in its hearing curve around mid frequencies. we don't know why it happened).
While the £25.000 price tag on that preamp is literal snake-oil level and the builder has the audacity to erase the model numbers of the ICs (and OpAmps) he uses, some of the methods he uses are legit and Mark explains them exceptionally well.
Is that even possible? Someone has to pay for it. If I'm rich and I get $40,000 a year from UBI, but my direct or indirect taxes go up by $60,000 in order to fund the program, am I really receiving UBI? At some point UBI has to involve transfers between income or wealth levels. The particulars of how the program is funded determines how progressive or regressive the policy is in net.
The whole point is that paying everyone a fixed $X amount regardless of anything else is extremely easy to manage, so you can drop all the bureaucracy that builds up around welfare. But, yes, in practice it also acts as a progressive income tax of sorts even with an otherwise flat tax rate (which allows for further simplification) because delta between UBI check and taxes is going to gradually decrease as income rises and eventually becomes negative.
That said even with just personal income tax it's viable. I once crunched the numbers on what it'd take to have everyone in US receive the current federal min wage as UBI payment, assuming a flat surface tax (i.e. relying solely on that UBI check to make it progressive), and it was somewhere in the ballpark of 50%.
Of course, you can get there much easier if you go for the sacred cows such as capital gains. Raising that to the same level as regular income alone would bring a lot of tax revenue.
We could also start taxing AI, since it is (or at least positioned by those deploying it) the immediate cause why so many people are going to find themselves out of jobs.
reply