that's obviously a terrible measure, as we decided it wasn't worth going back to

Because it's not by mass in orbit, and that's all that matters

That's all the "comment" we need

Yep, indeed.

Universal healthcare is also a significant reason why the US loses out to every other rich country in the world in objective metrics of healthcare.

(e.g., cost, longevity, infant mortality, maternal mortality, etc.)

This isn't about surface area, though. Event horizon is not the surface area of a black hole

nothing about that would be sudden though. You wouldn't know if you were 1" inside or 1" outside the event horizon, for example.

Make it the Apache Software Development Foundation and it'd be the easy-to-type ASDF.

(Oh, but wait, MIT already has an ASDF, the Autonomous Systems Development Facility.)

I'm honestly confused. Wouldn't a higher mass black hole have a bigger event horizon?

Can someone give a slightly more indepth description of what interesting fact was shown here?

What do you mean "open-source"? If CUDA were open-source, you could run it on AMD GPUs or any other reasonable hardware. Instead, Nvidia provides libraries that only run on their own hardware.

That's in part because a lot of products sold via third-party sellers on Amazon are fulfilled by Walmart or Target by retail arbitrageurs.

Here comes a data-point of one, which makes this simply an anecdote...

When I work out hard (resistance training to beyond failure) I find that consuming protein at around 1.6-1.8g per kilo of body weight significantly improves my recovery time -- perhaps because of the effect on muscle-protein synthesis which seems to be optimal at this level.

Working out hard with lower levels of protein intake adds at least a day to my recovery so it's easy to see why, given the fixation on strength and fitness that abounds right now, many people are consuming more protein than they might actually need if their goal is simply to remain healthy.

One consideration for many is that when you bias towards a high-protein low fat/carb diet it becomes easier to lose weight or prevent weight gain. Protein is generally more satiating than carbs and leaves you feeling fuller for longer, reducing hunger pangs. A diet higher in protein is also less likely to produce insulin resistance (type 2 diabetes) than one higher in carbs. However, protein is usually also far more expensive (per calorie) than protein which can be a factor in many people's decision-making.

Increasing protein intake (as a percentage of total calories) is also important as you age because it plays a role in reducing the effects of sarcopenia, a condition that affects most over-50s and predisposes people to becoming frail and increasing their likelihood of death from many causes.

why does this matter?

At least around where I live, if a cable provider wants to offer service in a given town, they negotiate a deal with that town where the town gets a little bit of money per cable customer. That money funds things like community-access TV stations, staff and gear, studios at high schools, and so on, so you can watch the local sportsball team, or whatever boring town government meeting, and so on and so forth.

Those community-based things have taken a huge funding hit due to cord-cutting, so they (and towns) have been curious about whether something similar might be worked out for high-speed broadband on a per-customer basis. The local community-access station here has also started looking for sponsorships from local businesses and such, to make up the gap in funding.

Came here for a UDP reference, leaving happy.