What does placebo have to do with anything in my story? Why shouldn't I get the same placebo effect from massages? Why didn't pills work if "placebos do work"? The chiropractor really helped solve my acute problems, and nothing else did.

Note that I'm not saying that it's the miracle solution for everyone, just like you shouldn't tell everyone that chiropractors can never help and only rely on placebo.

I went to 3 different massagers before going to the chiropractor. It felt good but it didn't relieve much pain afterwards. They all said that my back muscles were so stiff that they couldn't help much.

Chiropractor helped my back problems a few times, during very acute pains (as in : walking, seating, climbing stairs and laying down are all extremely painful). It relieved 80% of the pain in a mere seconds. It's *not* placebo. I could hear my back and neck go "clack/clack/clack/clack/clack". It felt great after the initial schock of hearing very loud noises that sounded similar to movie sound effects when bad guys die from a neck-breaking move. Still, this treatment was needed if I wanted to stop this agony. Painkillers didn't help, neither did conventional doctors.

It didn't solve the underlying problems though : mostly that I sit 10 hours a day in front of a computer, and that the only sport I did was skateboarding (with very unsymmetrical movements).

So now, I try to walk regularly to work. The most important for me is to walk for a long time at a slow pace as soon as I notice my back hurts a bit. I feel great afterwards. Core exercises with a good warm up and cool down help too, as well as a hot bath (or sauna, as you mentioned). I still skateboard, but I push with both feet now.

The order is different, which might become more apparent with nested comprehensions and chained Enumerable methods. For brownie points, you could have written (0..9).select(&:odd?).map{|i| i**2}, which brings us back to Ruby's TIMTOADY against Python's zen ("There should be one — and preferably only one — obvious way to do it").

BTW, Python's range(10) has 10 elements (between 0 and 9), so it's equivalent to (0...10) or (0..9)

Javascript easier to scan than Python? You must be trolling.

Ruby lover here. I can code Ruby while I sleep, but I felt a bit left out because there are so many awesome Python projects.
In comparison, there's Rails as awesome Ruby project with a lot of momentum, and .... that's about it.

With Ruby knowledge, it's actually pretty easy to grasp Python. There are a few gotchas and the syntax feels a bit boring compared to Ruby, but it's also easier to read other people's code because it's usually more explicit and a bit less dynamic than Ruby.

I still love Ruby, but it's good to be able to write a few lines of Python and release the power of Numpy/Pandas/Sympy/Matplotlib/NetworkX/... It took me about 2 weeks to learn enough Python to use those libraries, and I still learn new stuff every day.

Some parts of Python's syntax are really nice, e.g. list comprehension :

    >>> [x**2 for x in range(10) if x % 2 == 1]
    [1, 9, 25, 49, 81]

It's completely different than all the Enumerable methods in Ruby, but it's very powerful and quite easy to read after a while.

Is it a new story? I've read somewhere that it's just a re-edition. How much different is it from the Silmarillion's chapter?

I obviously didn't bother to RTFA.

Relevant movie to your post :
https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

98% Tomatometer, so you cannot go wrong. ;)

And my comment was supposed to be a joke :)

"anonymous"? The word you're looking for is "ambiguous". Or did you mean "ambidextrous"?

3D scan of every tree on Earth? Done.
One DB-query with a few `SELECT`, `COUNT` and `SUMS`? Too hard for Google, sorry!

Also, depending on the formats, the lossless encoding of a lossy encoding might require more space than a lossless encoding of the original. The lossless encoding has to perfectly describe all the compression artifacts of the lossy encoding.

The same thing can happen with PNG from a JPG.

Google Loses Top Hardware Executive

If only they had a search engine, they could find this executive again!

"Everything else is insecure" is actually a pretty clever claim. It doesn't tell anything about their security.

Are you just trolling? Meteors, as in "shooting stars", are obviously perfectly visible with the naked eye. It's actually much easier without a telescope because they're bright enough, happen kinda randomly and sweep a large part of the sky.

If you're talking about asteroids, then you're right that you'd need a telescope to see them. You also can see the bright ones with a wide-angle camera and a long time exposure.