But you can be a software dev even if you do not work in software dev. Plenty of those individuals in open source, for example.

writing software for a hobby is different from hundreds of thousand that do it 40+ hours per week, go into planning into retros into milestone review meetings etc.

I am painting in my free time as a hobby. I do not think I am an authority or should be taken seriously when taking about impact of AI on artists.

Consider your biases about the word "hobby". It's easy to average way more than 40 hours per week on a hobby, and to spend those hours with as much deadly seriousness as the hours at work. Especially if you don't work full-time or don't work at all.

I, too, appreciate the clarification in the term "write-only code".

Still, isn't the forecast for one hour from now more useful than literally now? You can see that through the window (and feel it on your face by opening the window).

About the only thing about the weather I can tell from my window is whether it is currently raining or not.

The temperature inside is not at all indicative of the temperature outside, the sun being out doesn't mean it is warm, and I don't really have any useful indicators of wind, unless the windows are rattling, but that doesn't let me know if there's a stiff breeze.

I could walk over and open up my balcony door and experience it all personally, but checking my phone or watch is faster and more accurate, and also gives me the forecast at the same time.

Others have mentioned why. But I also want to add that feeling the temperature over the window might not tell an accurate picture of how cold/hot it could feel over time. I've had instances where I dressed for how cold it felt, only to find myself freezing because I didn't feel the breeze during that short moment I sticked my head out.

Raining outside my window and likely rain right now are different, also wind speed. Opening a window isn't very accurate for wind at all, and I feel like you're acknowledging there that knowing that part can be useful, why not just have it written down?

Not really - it might not be raining where I am but rain is in the area and it will cross where I walk.

I don't see that TFA claimed any cost savings. That is not the reason people go for e-paper.

Easy now, I wasn't saying they did make that claim. I simply provided a comparatively low-cost alternative for the very expensive display for those for those for whom the display would otherwise be cost-prohibitive.

Best Buy sells 24" touchscreen displays for $339 right now. So you can spend $3000 on a display that sips current or spend 10% of that and you get $2700 to pay towards the higher electric costs.

I call that an interesting trade-off. YMMV

TIL a built-in

   (zone &optional PGM)

   Inferred type: (function (&optional t) t)

   Zone out, completely.

That's not so dissimilar to my experience in 2025 with whatever USB drives I can scrounge up around the house!

The issue isn't really Android, it's the touchscreen and the way the UX is a regression from many analog single-purpose devices.

If you gonna have a single-purpose device - make it analog (or close to analog)!

Don't give it a perceptible boot-time and all the other flaws that come with general-purpose computing. Don't make the user have to "wake up the device", let alone have to visually confirm that it is woken-up, before they can switch to the next song.

I loved the buttons on the Galaxy Spica https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i5700_galaxy_spica-pictures...

Now that I think about it, going no-buttons might have been a driver towards larger screens. Having at least a few buttons seemed to make it much less necessary.

There is plenty more for a cardiologist to do even if they solve the most pressing current problems. Hard to run out of puzzles in biology.

I don't think it is. Something can either be correlated and causal or correlated and non-causal. It makes sense to talk about which.

> You realize this sentence is an oxymoron?

No it isn't.

Think of heart disease as slow, long-term damage to the cardiovascular system, and cholesterol is what the body uses as a bandaid.

If you have a lot of LDL cholesterol available, your body will use a lot of it, and you'll have stiffer arteries. If you don't have much available, it takes longer for the bandaids to build up.

This is one of the reasons statins reduce the number of heart attacks, but don't always seem to reduce all-cause mortality.

The band aid analogy doesn’t make sense when we consider the MR studies showing the lower your genetically determined LDL-c, the lower your risk of CVD. If everything was randomised except the number of band aids, why would having fewer band aids result in lower CVD risk?

> This is one of the reasons statins reduce the number of heart attacks, but don't always seem to reduce all-cause mortality.

That’s one potential explanation, but I don’t think it’s the most likely one. We tend to see non significant ACM in smaller, less powered trials, or those with lower LDL-c lowering. ACM is simply a less sensitive endpoint - if you have a treatment that reduces CVD incidence, then the “CVD incidence” endpoint will give you significant results with fewer CVD event differences between study arms compared to ACM since your power to detect differences is diluted by other fatal events that aren’t affected by statins (cancer, motor accidents etc).