I was camping at an event. I had recently finished recharging a large lipo battery (3S 9000mah). The battery went from normal to nuclear in a second or 2.

Thankfully I had it clear of flammables and in a lipo bag. Even so, it started 3 grass fires in the time it took to get it out of the marquee and wet enough to extinguish it. The event volunteers were there within 40 seconds, with fire extinguishers. Thankfully we already had it under control by then.

Lesson learnt, always use a fire resistant container to charge in e.g. an ammo can or a cooking pot. Also assume it can turn into a fireball with absolutely no warning, and plan accordingly.

First off, good on you from the rescue!

As a parent, I get both sides. It’s absolutely horrifying, but so easy to lose focus. You can start chatting, and not realise you’re not tracking the child. You can also both assume the other has eyes on them.

It’s better to assume problems like this as systematic, rather than personal failures. If a small child has access to the water, they should be explicitly monitored. If you can’t (as a group) do that, then they shouldn’t have easy access to the water. You can also train children in water safety from a young age. Babies can be taught self rescue from around when they can crawl.

It’s so easy to lose focus. It requires constant concentration, at a time when your life has been turned upside down, and you are often suffering from sleep deprivation. A (apparently) calm ‘normal’ situation and your brain can relax back and switch off from parenting mode.

I think superfoil is the generic name (or possibly another brand).

I used suction cups, with thumb screw threads to attach them. Just poke a hole and push it through on each corner. It also holds it slightly clear of the glass. Suction cups also mean you can apply it either inside the glass, or outside (better, but harder).

Sometimes you want to keep ALL the energy out. The films also act to trap thermal energy in too.

I’ve personally used superfoil, it keeps all the light energy out. 42°C outside, in a double glazed UK home, and I still didn’t need the Aircon until mid afternoon.

Some relatives of mine were in that very boat, in Spain. It required some admin, and annoying coordination of appointments (they weren’t there all the time), but wasn’t THAT difficult.

It’s been obvious for years now that British living in Europe would need to deal with the loss of EU access. Most EU countries made it as easy as they could to comply.

I would hope that the host country would still show some flexibility. However, I can also see a retired Ex-pat ranting at the official, and so burning any goodwill that would have got them any rule bending to dig them out of the hole they made.

Could you use a long rifle as a stick for a protest sign?

From what I gathered. It’s mostly a bunch of decrees coming down from central government. “Cost savings” from people who don’t have day to day interactions with the police ok the street.

E.g. buying a dedicated forensics vehicle, in one hit was not allowed. They cost too much. However, contracting for 1, on a case by case basis is fine. Despite the average cost being 1-2x the cost of a new one per year (they apparently last at least 10 years).

Wage pressure also makes them choose between more officers or paying the existing ones better. When there is a hard limit of the number of officers needed, the officers get screwed.

Between burnout, and underpay, they lose the more intelligent ones quite quickly.

A few years back, I did some work for a UK police force, as a (sub)contractor. One of the other guys actually asked the Chief constable why they were using us, not doing it in-house. It turned out they tried. Every time they trained up officers to do it, they quickly jumped ship to the private sector.

Plus side, excessive machoism is discouraged too, so the police tend to be a lot more polite than American police. Effectiveness is another story.

If you want to get extremely pedantic, “Queens English” was defined as the reference. The rich toffs of the British empire got annoyed at their servants having various accents, and either being hard to understand, or mishearing them.

In this case however, it was meant as a local accent, so none noticeable.

90% of people would be fine with it too, maybe more. Unfortunately, it would be VERY easy to catch someone in a very bad state, and make it even worse. Without the context of what sort of person they are, and what they are currently in for, it’s FAR more likely to run into someone who wouldn’t see the funny side.

Don’t get me wrong, it could be hilarious. E.g. the guy who did the same at a nursing home, where he also lived. The heart attack induced was just an unfortunate outcome that put it in the news.

Likely if he had done it to people he knew, and by extension that this particular prank wouldn’t excessively affect them negatively.

Pranking your friends in public, poor taste, but possibly acceptable. Pranking random members of the public, at what could be the worst time of their life…

I had a friend who worked at a wine shop. He was also 1/4 french, though with no accent at all.

Some other friends went in to see him at work. They found it hilarious that he had this excessive french accent. It turned out he did it as a joke 6 months before, and got a good reaction from customers. His subconscious apparently ran with this, without his notice. The more he racked it up, the better the customers respected his opinions on wine. He was, however, completely unaware he was doing it!

As a counter example, I remember listening to a radio interview with a woman who accidentally joined a boxing gym, and decided to roll with it. Even after 3 years training, it apparently took new men about 6 weeks to blast past her in strength.

And jumping back to my earlier comment. Societies tend to amplify differences. Men are stronger, so are expected to do jobs requiring strength. This, in turn leads to stronger men, reinforcing the stereotype.

In short, there’s not much baseline difference between men and women. There are however differences. Societies and cultures often amplify them, particularly when it improves division of labour. In an agrarian society they might not be able to afford the split, so the situation you read about plays out. Men can’t afford to powerhouse, while women need to pick up significant physical labour.

It’s also an unfortunate fact that testosterone makes it a LOT easier to put on muscle mass. A good chunk of men don’t take advantage of it, but the biology still holds. It’s also worth noting that men are on average taller than women. Our volume of muscle is often bigger to start with.

My wife does quite a bit more strength based exercise than I do. The force multiplier on my exercise however means I can easily out power her, when it comes to brute strength.

It’s worth noting however that a lot of the initial strength gain of exercise isn’t muscle increase, but better control. Both men and women can increase this, fairly evenly. The difference tells most once that caps out.

The 2 often feed off each other too. E.g. men are slightly stronger than women, on average. Men are then expected to take on the strong protector role, while women are expected to act weak and subservient. This amplifies the original slight difference massively, reinforcing the social stereotype.

Women seem to have a preference for cooperation, with their ranking within the group mattering most. Men seem to err towards intergroup competition, where your teams ranking matters most. These necessitate different types of social skills, which feeds the stereotype, which feeds the original difference.

Fair, fair.

I will settle for a company who’s demonstrated long term strategy is mostly in line with my interests. It’s not perfect, but I’ll take “morale because it’s profitable” over “enshitifcation for a quick profit”

It’s a terrifying abuse of human brain’s defense wiring.

At a tribal level/time when we are not under stress, we often disagree and bicker. However, when the tribe is threatened, those disagreements take a back seat to survival. If the stress is constant, our brain structure begins to change. Empathy is reduced, to better allow for defence/warfare.

The modern right is designed to hijack these mechanisms. The constant flow of fear puts the brain into a warfare state. Tribe becomes everything, with internal issues being put on a back burner till the threat is over. However, the threat is never over. It shifts and changes, but is never gone. Eventually, out-tribe empathy becomes harder and harder, while internal disagreement becomes almost impossible. In a tribe preparing for war, this is life-saving. For a political party, it’s an unthinking, pliant mob to control.

Breaking out requires breaking that internal cycle. Recognising you are being manipulated, and internally countering the effects. Most people just can’t do that. Deprogramming the damage is a job of generations, and that’s assuming it’s no longer being reinforced.

The ever classic “paperclip maximiser” problem.

An AI is given the goal of maximising paperclip production in a factory. It’s given no other guard rails. Some shenanigans later, it finishes wiping out humanity, in order to divert more resources to paperclip production. (Apparently humans don’t want the iron in their blood used to make paperclips)

It sounds like they have found a chemical pathway to counter some of the disruptions that ultimately cause autism. Particularly things like sensory processing. Autism is likely a cluster condition, with multiple causes leading to similar symptoms. This only focuses on 1 sub path.

As an aspie myself, I am cautiously optimistic. I wouldn’t use it myself. Too much of who I am is built on my alternative brain wiring. However, if it can turn some low functioning autistics into high functioning, I would call that a MASSIVE win.

It is only a mouse model however. It’s interesting and promising, but VERY far from a usable treatment.