Although the immediate processing of food might occur in major digestive organs, the effect of increased or decreased nutrient availability will be felt throughout the body. One primary effect of starvation is the breaking down of cells (autophagy) in order to reuse their components for more necessary bodily functions - like the atrophying of muscles.

Naturally, your germ line cells are one of your core bodily functions, so the nutrients will necessarily need to make their way there.

One recent paper[1] hypothesized that the byproducts of this cellular breakdown can cause cells to bundle up DNA that encodes some genes, rendering them less accessible and therefore less active. This can even be passed trans-generationally (presumably by altering the tight storage of specific genes in the germ line cells).

Broadly this mechanism is called epigenetics, where specific histone protein modifications cause regions of DNA to coil up tightly, making it far less likely to be expressed, or unwind and become far more active. It’s a very neat mechanism by which many characteristics can become generational despite not having a clear genetic component.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10244352/

If you’re just looking to get started with 3d modeling, it’s hard to beat Blender. At the cost of free, it’s by far the most affordable way to dip your toes in some modeling tools.

For many workflows it’s world class. If you plan to do more organic forms or don’t need technical precision, then it’s very competitive or preferable to paid software.

You might find it lacking if you plan to do parametric or technical CAD-style modeling. Even then, I think Blender can be a low cost way to learn what you want in your software before investing in more specialized software. You’ll learn enough of the modeling basics to more fluently navigate what other software provides.

Oh! Awesome experiment! Yes, they’re shorter because of perspective (foreshortening). With a mirror surface it’s better to think of a duplicate of the object flipped across the mirror plane, then you can apply the same tricks to draw in perspective, which may make it look shorter.

In your example here, since we’re viewing from the side the perspective is not going to factor in as much, so we land at “roughly the same size”

If it helps, think of the water first like a perfect mirror. If it’s a perfectly flat mirror then it would look like there’s another duck upside down below this duck. If you want to be extra precise, it’s mirrored across the plane where the duck meets the water.

But water isn’t usually perfectly flat mirror, and here you have little nods to there being ripples or waves. The choppier the wave, the less it reflects, so you’ll often see people break up the mirrored reflection at the choppiest parts of the wave. Similarly, waves aren’t flat, depending on the part of the wave/ripple you’re at, you’d be reflecting higher or lower as though the mirror is tilted to the angle of the surface.

The last tricky part is that most surfaces are more reflective at a glancing angle than head on, so often reflections are stronger further in the distance and closer up you’ll just be looking down into the water. On a more technical note, you can look up the index of refraction to learn more about this phenomenon.

To tie it all together, this is why those long shots of sunsets have a sun reflection that is really long (much longer than the size of the sun in the distance) - because it’s at a distance it’s a strong reflection and because all the waves are reflecting at different angles you’re getting all the glancing reflections of the sun on the top of each wave. It typically being dark at sunset also means the bright sun reflection blooms to make it look brighter and larger than just the tip of the wave.

Conversely, in water sports like wakeboarding, you might not see much of a reflection at all because all the water is choppy and non-reflective.

Looking down into a pond, you might not see a reflection either because the angle is too steep to reflect.

In short, yes, in this case the reflection should probably be roughly the same size.

Permissive licenses permit a broader range of use compared to “copyleft” licenses.

“copyleft” here just being a cute way of being the opposite of copyright - instead of disallowing others from what they can do with “copyrighted” code, “copyleft” requires that they (upon request) share modifications to your code.

Permissive takes away this requirement to share your modifications. “copyleft” is considered more free and open source (FOSS), permissive is more business friendly.

Which part sounds off to you? This looks like a very reasonable paper hoping to distill traditional medicine into viable research paths, and does it using a pretty interesting model of compounds and effects.

If all you see is jibber jabber, maybe you should just default to trusting the experts on this one? Like, it’s not in an obscure journal - it’s a highly regarded peer reviewed journal. The authors aren’t random, they’re researchers at some of the best universities in the world (Nanjing University ranks #7 on the Nature Index).

The abstract is about as plain-speaking as it gets in the world of cutting edge research. You can probably look up the handful of domain-specific terminology and have a good grasp at what the research is about.

I’d bet that they symlinked /ubuntu to the server’s home root - probably for continuity with some previous file structure. It sure looks silly, but I’m sure the reasons for doing it were pretty reasonable.

For those that look at this and still think the solution might just be more money, first recognize that Google donates only to keep Firefox as a viable competitor to avoid anti-trust legislation.

If we raised half a million dollars, we haven’t saved anyone any money except Google - they’d simply donate only 100k next year so Firefox remains competitive, but not successful.

I don’t disagree with the sentiment of the post, but we also have to realize that we’d only be improving things after the first ~600k.

I don’t know anything about being an electrician - commercial or otherwise, so I’m curious to hear your side.

When all those people go to working remote, it’s not like they’re no longer in need of electricity. Presumably their home demand is higher and we might even see people adding new office spaces to adapt their home. Maybe the public grid needs to change to support it? Won’t this mean that there will just be a different type of demand for electricians?

Are there reasons this would be less attractive to electricians? Pay, job security, or something else?

For anyone who’s curious, this is the state of discussing this feature: https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/discussions/8572

I’m not an authority on the helix ethos, but I’ve contributed a bit and hung around long enough to have a good read on their stance on most topics. The project is still young and managing the growing pains of getting a lot of traction relatively early. I think the devs value keeping the maintenance footprint small to keep the project sustainable.

The philosophy of helix’s design is to be a more convenient kakoune, not necessarily a vim. vim is much more widely known, so that analogy springs up more often, but this idea of using piping out to an external command for most operations comes from kakoune.

For features that would introduce significant maintenance overhead, may jeopardize the performance of a more common workflow or where the design goals are still maturing, the team tends to push such suggestions toward being developed as plugins when that system is added. I get the impression that they see the value of this workflow, but would prefer to see it battle tested as a plugin first.

I’ve been there, but over the years I’ve gotten better at avoiding being in this situation.

If you are implementing something for yourself, and merging it back upstream is just a bonus, then by all means jump straight to implementing.

However, it’s emotionally draining to implement something and arrive at something you’re proud of only to have it ignored. So do that legwork upfront. File a feature request, open a discussion, join their dev chat - whatever it is, make sure what you want to do is valued and will be welcomed into the project before you start on it. They might even nudge you in a direction that you hadn’t considered before you started.

Be a responsible dev and communicate before you do the work.

A few animal-inspired names that I think have a nice ring to them

• Dodopedia (extinct like Mastadons, similar vowel rhythm to “wiki”)
• Hippopedia
• Komodopedia

The community-based project of passion to enhance lemmy is already here… it’s lemmy.

This isn’t reddit. There isn’t a big black box and company around the service that is preventing the community from making it what they want it to be.

Sure there can be flavors, but I’d guess if there’s the type of consensus around the usefulness as there is with RES, then why wait for a separate project to shoehorn features on top of lemmy when the folks behind lemmy seem quite receptive to contributions?