I have a ":w! saves" mug ;)

I have to ask: did you literally never use a computer lab at all in the DOS era?

Not "logging into DOS" - logging into your account. I literally said "mimicked the DOS prompt, including common commands", e.g., you're at the DOS prompt. When you want to login, you ran LOGIN.EXE, which "mounted" your network account. I believe it was Novell NetWare-based.

They can't make anything as big as a Cowboy Neal in Europe. Only France is big enough to hold one, but French people aren't going to admit to reading American garbage newsvertainment.

Did you try digging up the slab yet to search for the basement?

Judging by their typical comment quality, they probably shouldn't give up their day job for their day job, either.

There's lots of documents from quality sources about how an e-ink panel works under the hood that you could use to DIY it, but unfortunately for you they're engineering documents. Unlikely to be readable by people who think technology is made of bubble gum and cat urine.

Also it would take years and you'd need a pretty fancy prototyping lab in your garage to pull off a decent build.

The link you provided has the maker of the device agreeing that Valve didn't do anything wrong. Not just legally, but in any way. As they said, "That’s basically the whole story. We made something a lot of people were excited about, then incinerated our shot at bringing it to market. It’s a hard lesson to learn publicly."

They were stupid in public and learned an embarrassing lesson.

You, however, learned nothing and remain an idiot.

It would cost them many millions of dollars to make parts available, because they don't manufacture the devices in-house and don't have possession of the parts. And getting access to that included in manufacturing contracts vastly increases prices.

Customers, however, can often source compatible parts. But listing compatible parts can create liability. So customers should create user groups for that, if there is demand.

They don't have any "wants to go yet," you've just got stupid expectations.

Asking an LLM about studies is just asking, "What is the garbage that gets talked about the most?"

It's like getting medical advice at the local bar, or in line at the supermarket.

Given the quality of the slashvertisements these days the summary is usually quite a bit too much.

Smoking only reduces lifespan by a couple years, on average. But it increases the unpleasant period of poor health later in life by over a decade...

Here, if you read at least the abstract you'd know that they "followed" people for 12 years... after having 7 days of accelerometer data. They wore smart watches for a week, then 12 years later they checked if they were still alive and if not what their cause of death was listed as.

If I had to write 1001 possible causal explanations the only hard part would be checking for repeat answers.

The biggest problem I have with it is claiming that the correlation is with "sitting for more than 30 minutes at a time." Not only is that not the claim, the claim itself is ridiculous: the people know they're wearing this medical device for a week. "Not going for a walk even though you volunteered for a study monitoring your activity level" is a different cohort than "exercises less than 30 minutes per day."

It's not completely implausible to guess that being bent at the waist might restrict fluid movement and be even more unhealthy than lying down.

If you already know everything, especially the obvious stuff... you don't even need to worry about what a studies says.

So on the one hand, your joke was too stupid to be funny, and on the other hand, you overestimated your understanding too much to be able to spare the time on jokes.

It's better than that: Sitting more during a random 7 day period of wearing a smart watch makes you slightly more likely to be dead 12 years later.

You could blame it on all sorts of things. Maybe people who masturbate a lot take the smart watch off out of embarrassment during the study, and then they go blind and get cancer because they can't read warning labels? I mean if we're credible of statistical analysis of observational studies we're gonna get worse results than that, too!

Yeah but we should be able to figure that out without going so far into their weed patch, just from "statistical analysis of an observational study."

There are only two ways to use a statistical analysis of an observational study: For ideas about real studies to perform, or to pad your resume at the publishing churn.

So you're claiming that this does show causation? You better notify the study authors of their huge oversight!

And if you're not claiming that, then you could have just said, "Yes, I agree" instead of showing your insecurity. So that's your fear, that you don't live to being a half-wit?

Do you even comprehend what "correlation is not causation" means? Do you think attempting to account for variables is the same as accounting for them?

This is a statistical analysis of an observational study. They can't account for shit.