While not ejaculation, we do get probed (less literally now) over potential prostate issues, groin hernias, and erections. But only for routine visits, since these issues while significant, have little bearing on diagnosing and treating other health conditions.

Women draw the short straw since imaging and drugs all have to take a potential pregnancy into consideration so it’s a key piece of data for all sorts of medical events. Particularly risky when a fetus is hardest to be aware of early on.

Ah, you are right, wasn’t thinking. Never seen one myself, though totality was something to behold, but once even a smidge of sunlight was directly visible, seemed pretty boring to me, I would guess an annular would be similarly be pretty boring, sure an unusual shape but roughly similar to just normal sunlight…

So assuming 10 lbs of force, as measured 1 meter away from the hinge, you have about 44.5 Nm of torque. Assuming each door opening was about 90 degrees, then you have about 70 Joules per door operating event.

Each door opening would have a physical theoretical max of 0.02 watt-hours.

Assuming you spent 8 hours opening a door every 10 seconds constantly, then you have 58 watt-hours of energy at the end of the day if you had 100% efficient generators. One typical solar panel would hit that in under 15 minutes in real-world energy collection, not theoretical.

So yes, the law says there is some unavoidable, unusable waste heat, the question is how much of that heat is really unusable?

For example, you have lava at around 1,000 degrees. You certainly can harvest energy from that, hit some water with it and spin a turbine.

For the most part, once we get under 100C we run out of ideas on how to realistically harvest energy out of it, but there’s still a pretty good delta between that an ambient. The claim of this article is he has an approach to harvest energy at an even lower temperature delta.

If it got to harvesting all of the temperature delta of a system, then we can say “not at all possible based on current understanding of physics”, but if the process leaves some waste heat unharvested, then it’s not yet violating that law. The law just says it gets less and less likely as the amount of heat in question diminishes.

Well then you need to handle backfeeding all sorts of circuits, which is generally a pain to the extent it works. But it also would barely do anything.

It is scalding hot, but I think the key takeaway is that it’s not hot enough to boil into steam, which is our current go-to for harvesting energy from heat.

So after you do your steam turbine and you are left with not-quite boiling water, by today’s standards it is useless for further harvesting for electricity. If this article is as-advertised (a big if), then we can harvest more, adding efficiency to any process that boils water to turn a turbine.

Hypothetically, any energy harvested from a zero-emission strategy might at least displace combusting some hydrocarbons.

Dunno, she might be very much ready to “give a fuck”

And safe to look at, while in totality…

Outside of totality, meh, sun looks about the same except the shape…

That part was intended as a joke, hence the ‘but seriously’

If the code actually works and is vaguely important, I think you are right.

If anyone ever has to fix it because it’s also broken on top of being a mess, well they aren’t quite so safe. Maybe if you are always available to fix it same day, but if you ever go on vacation and it hits the fan while you are unreachable…

I can’t speak to this situation, but broadly speaking I am familiar with general messed up stuff like this as well as perhaps adjusting some fine details to make the scenario relatable to an audience unfamiliar with the specifics of the real situation and/or obfuscating the details so that the person doesn’t out themselves to someone else familiar with the specifics enough to recognize.

The broad strokes seem plausible and any oddities in details I consider to be less important and/or understandable if it was tweaked for an internet audience.

Of course, I don’t think they really are generally acquainted with the records, not just about hysterectomies.

They will look if something specific comes up, but generally it’s a reference that isn’t proactively consulted, because they have a lot of patients and their record only occasionally matters.

I think it’s not about minimizing someone as just a vessel for a fetus, it’s about the reality that menstruation and pregnancy just have huge medical implications in general, in lab results, diagnostic approaches, and in treatment options. With such a wide variety of possible impacts, it may be easy to forget to check ‘just in time’ in very decision that might matter.

Suppose would someone rather get asked that awkwardly once for a whole visit, or potentially get asked repeatedly as they prepare to perform particular tests, interpret results, or think about prescribing medication.

It’s not fair that such a huge biological thing is incurred by one sex and not the other, but it is just a possibility they have to deal with.

To refrain from asking to avoid that awkwardness increases risk of missing that situation and malpractice for failing to take that pretty basic biological reality into account.

For example, give a pregnant woman Tylenol and boom, autistic baby.

But seriously, as far as I know, your comment is accurate, a lot of treatment options change when a fetus might be in the situation.

If a doctor decided to neglect that possibility and harms a fetus no one was aware of, might get hit with malpractice.

Also I know lab results might depend on either the possibility of pregnancy, or just timing of the period itself.

There’s an eclipse today… you really sholud stop staring at it like that

Well, this is every day, it’s just that the eclipse is the scenario where people are stupid enough to stare at it anyway.

Think the issue is, practically speaking, we don’t have a good track record of modeling precisely where the camera feed goes to decide if it is stored or not. Mobile OSes do present a more sophisticated permission structure that gets closer, but things are still too flexible to really comfortably assure that nothing that was a party to the feed didn’t somehow store it.

Assuming the system ecosystem is locked down, one could conceivably indicate only for retained camera data. App has camera permission but no internet and no storage premission, ok.

Of course, realistically speaking they kind of tried that with camera modules having their indicators OS controlled, and the practical reality is that malicious use could independently operate the camera from the LED and so the lesson learned was to keep it simple and have the LED control inexorably linked to camera activation at the module level without any sophisticated OS control possible.

It existed before that use case was prominent. Basically it was for whatever trivial for people but hard for machines task you could have people do over the Internet.

The type of problem in my experience is the biggest source of different results

Ask for something that is consistent with very well trodden territory, and it has a good shot. However if you go off the beaten path, and it really can’t credibly generate code, it generates anyway, making up function names, file paths, rest urls and attributes, and whatever else that would sound good and consistent with the prompt, but no connection to real stuff.

It’s usually not that that it does the wrong thing because it “misunderstood”, it is usually that it producea very appropriate looking code consistent with the request that does not have a link to reality, and there’s no recognition of when it invented non existent thing.

If it’s a fairly milquetoast web UI manipulating a SQL backend, it tends to chew through that more reasonably (though in various results that I’ve tried it screwed up a fundamental security principle, like once I saw it suggest a weird custom certificate validation and disable default validation while transmitting sensitive data before trying to meaningfully execute the custom valiidation.