Oh oops.. It was actually 49/50 according to this video, but it seems to be the case that this year+ old video had outdated information in it at the time, and the one person that had been counted as a false positive was later diagnosed (8 months later.. seriously old news!) as having Parkinson's, making her tested accuracy 100%.

Yeah.. I haven't looked at the recent stuff, but the "very likely a real thing" wasn't really an issue before. I remember that she could identify correctly something like 48 out of 50 times. I'm glad for you that you believe its real because it's in a specific journal, but the stuff I saw long ago presented the evidence (and methodology) and it was from a very reputable source. OK, hell, this is so old, it had trickled down to youtube well over a year ago.. It seems that the BBC thing was even a bit old at the time..
https://youtu.be/ft1jWR-4In0?t...

I've noticed that YouTube's algorithm has had a sudden change in what it thinks I want to see. It's old stuff that's been around for a while on youtube, but I think it's move up because it doesn't have any of my normal new content to show.

Mind you, I really don't mind seeing Robin Williams on Johnny Carson/Tonight Show... or Andy Kaufman, but definitely not what it would have dug up for me a few weeks ago.

Yeah.. I was gonna say.. I don't care so much about the bandwidth, but anything to shut CNN up when I just want to read news.

I've generally tried to stick to other sites because of this behavior, but sometimes I still end up following a link that goes there..

Ya know, I could swear I'd heard about it even before that.. But I have a poor sense of time, so maybe it's only that old.. It really does seem like *forever* ago that I read about this first.

Then you fail, because they're testing to see if you can work to simplify the question not complicate it. Let the "customer" complicate it later if the need is there, but start with the simple solution.... and start with the easiest part of the solution and work toward the harder parts next.

Your kids must not harass you for their favorite candy as well. It's usually well above the $2500 mark when we go to the theater.

And he is somehow trying to say that the site about how language evolves proves that language can't evolve and it's dangerous. Sounds like my 7 year old trying to justify something. People still use "meat" to refer to parts of fruit etc.. ...and the first thing on Google when you search is from Merriam-Webster:

1
a: FOOD
especially : solid food as distinguished from drink
b: the edible part of something as distinguished from its covering (such as a husk or shell) ..or the petri dish I'd add..

Or I suppose you could do "Soylent Beef" and "Soylent Pork".. I kinda like the animal names though.. Never understood why we have an extra name for animals that we use mostly only when we mean eat them..

I like "Soylent Cow" or "Soylent Pig" for whatever they cultured.. Leaves some flexibility for varieties also..

It's a slow news day I guess..

Here's the thing... In reality, there are actually many factors. We tend to all think that all LI batteries are the same, but there are actually a lot of different battery chemistry options that have different advantages and disadvantages.. One of the main options is a reduced initial capacity of the battery but with a better long-term capacity to the battery. This is independent of your charging habits. All types get increases in longevity by sticking to the 80/20 rule (assuming the manufacturer didn't already factor that into their charging system for you).

With phones, almost all manufacturer's actually charge to 100%, and they use a battery chemistry that gives up long-term battery health for short term gains in capacity. They do this because the devices are small, and people and tech sites alike judge them on exactly how many milliamp-hours their batteries have, how much runtime you get from them, and exactly how thick the devices are down to the 1/10th of a millimeter. Only the numbers for when the device is new seem to matter to anyone, so they're forced to compete by trading off the long term health of the battery.

It doesn't help things much that they certainly don't mind if your phone is worn out in two years.... especially if you don't seem to either.. If anyone ever let it affect their buying decision things *might* be a little different, but generally people don't.

Tesla has done a good job of managing the imminent demise of their batteries by choosing a better chemistry that has a reduced capacity, and also having you help by letting you default to charging to 80% for daily stuff, and you let it know in advance when you're planning a longer trip. They could have had cars that sold with longer range batteries at the same cost, if they didn't care about what the battery life was like for people a couple of years down the road. Instead, most Tesla owners find that years later, they're still not having to think about replacing the battery in their car. When they first came out, *lots* of people were saying that you'd need to factor in having to replace the entire battery pack every couple of years, and that was going to make them not worth owning.

The other thing that isn't talked about here, but that matters quite a bit, is the temperature of the battery. Tesla's manage their battery temps very carefully for extended life. Unfortunately, phones can't really do that quite as easily.

Whether your phone/laptop's battery seems to degrade quickly or not, you can always increase it's lifespan by sticking to 80% max and 20% min... It's up to you whether or not that's a worthwhile endeavor.

...oh, hi Mom... uh.. uh hu.... yeah.. have you tried turning it on and off again?

Not in a few years at least.. What is there to think about it?

If it were a real problem, someone would be using it in the last 10 years to steal some of the now $140 billion of Bitcoin's market cap.

You sound like someone that read something once about a theoretical hole in Bitcoin's security (one pointed out, and refuted, by it's creator in the original white paper before it was even a working protocol) that just needed to throw their two cents in... even though they're not even worth a couple of Satoshi's..