There’s a line of clocks where each hour is a different bird and the chime at each hour is what that bird sounds like. It has a light sensor to control its volume so at night it’s very quiet, never gonna give wake you up. Completely analog, for better and for worse.

https://www.audubon.org/marketplace/singing-bird-clock

It’s not adjustable so I’m not sure it’s a perfect fit, but it’s lovely. They’ve been around for ages, I had one since I was a kid, I’m surprised they’re still available.

Edit: it does tick like most analog clocks, which could be a deal breaker with ADHD. I know it’s sometimes a bother for me.

I assume Windows is inexplicably a typo of QI?

I totally agree. I believe they make some effort to get their facts right, but it’s not their highest priority by any stretch. I also suspect they might sometimes leave crucial details on the cutting room floor.

In this instance I get the impression that Sandi actually meant the arms are still swung but just kept straight, like a Minecraft run. But then Bill interpreted it as the arms kept straight and motionless, like that one Seinfeld episode, and Sandi didn’t correct him.

once you’re up to a steady speed it doesn’t make so much difference.

[Citation needed]. You’re still fighting gravity so being lighter makes each step easier. There is also less air drag (but I don’t know how much difference this makes).

I have seen claims that this isn’t actually true, swinging our arms to counterbalance the legs is less efficient than just keeping them in place.

Where did I see this claim? Why, it was in this peer-reviewed scientific paper: https://youtu.be/-QW25fJ34nA , where by “peer-reviewed” I mean filmed with a live studio audience, and by “scientific paper” I mean segment of a TV panel show.

So uhhh yeah I’m not buying it but I can’t be bothered to check their sources.

Relevant sketch: https://youtu.be/X-7CaIA4ilE

I guess it could be the case, you’re right. Hard to tell from this angle.

A cabinet of drawers is really easy to relocate. Even if you rent with furniture included, you’re generally allowed to move furniture around to your liking as long as you don’t damage anything.

(Unless I’ve been living in a bubble, which tbh is possible but sounds insane to me)

But to be fair to me, I did say that if there’s no other choice then so be it.

Yup. That’s a lot IMO.

Such a good picture. The gap under the door must be huge though for a phone to pass through.

If at all possible, don’t put drawers and doors in places were they can block each other like this. If space is limited and there was no other choice, so be it, but otherwise it’s the owner’s fault.

Man these kitties are adorable!

Where’s the original post?

That’s interesting. I’ll have to read up on that. You’re right, I am thinking about boolean algebra.

In the mean time though, I’ll note that Boolean algebra on Wikipedia also refers to this operation, so I’m not alone:

Material conditional

The first operation, x → y, or Cxy, is called material implication. If x is true, then the result of expression x → y is taken to be that of y (e.g. if x is true and y is false, then x → y is also false). But if x is false, then the value of y can be ignored; however, the operation must return some Boolean value and there are only two choices. So by definition, x → y is true when x is false (relevance logic rejects this definition, by viewing an implication with a false premise as something other than either true or false).

It also uses the second interpretation that I mentioned in my earlier comment (4 above this one), with true being default, rather than the one we’ve been discussing.

The comment you replied to is my response to this. It’s the only boolean operation that works this way. All the others are straightforward.

Yeah, that kinda works but I don’t like it. See my reply to the other comment.

Yup, that’s my interpretation too. It just doesn’t sit well with all the other operators.

All the others are phrased as direct questions about the values of A and B:

• A AND B = “Are A and B both true?”
• A OR B = “Are either A or B true, or both?”
• A NAND B = “Is (A AND B) not true?”
• A IMPLIES B = “Is it possible, hypothetically speaking, for it to be the case that A implies B, given the current actual values of A and B?”

You see the issue?

Edit: looking online, some people see it as: “If A is true, take the value of B.” A implies that you should take the value of B. But if A is false, you shouldn’t take the value of B, instead you should use the default value which is inexplicably defined to be true for this operation.

This is slightly more satisfying but I still don’t like it. The implication (ha) that true is the default value for a boolean doesn’t sit right with me. I don’t even feel comfortable with a boolean having a default value, let alone it being true instead of false which would be more natural.

Edit 2: fixed a brain fart for A NAND B

I never got why “implies” is called that. How does the phrase “A implies B” relate to the output’s truth table?

I have my own “head canon” to remember it but I’ll share it later, want to hear someone else’s first.

It appears that your habit for pedantic comments is as strong as ever!

I desperately want to know if this is:

1. A toy factory actually finding a creative use for excess stock of the doll head
2. A creative parent fixing their child’s toy
3. Just a joke for a meme

(Comedy answer)

Seems like you have a tendency to get terrible jobs. Try the George Costanza method: whatever your instincts tell you to do, do the opposite! You’ll be working at the New York Yankees in no time.

Nebula mirror: https://nebula.tv/videos/tomnicholas-why-youtubers-hold-microphones-now

I wanted to link to this video myself but you beat me to it