I remember a survey of explanatory variables for obesity. The variable that explained more was the size of corn subsidies.

The hypothesis was: if you produce it, it will be consumed (Say's Law). Lower prices mean larger quantities demanded. (I know, it sounds like a confounding variable, you need a cross-sectional regression)

For work casual (and formal!), I was thrilled to discover tailored shirts. Not bespoke, but actually getting fitted in a store like Jos. Bank that handles the alterations.

The value proposition is comfort and they last a decade.

I have a G4 Cube running OS X 10.4 (Tiger) and "Ten-Four Fox" happily. But when it is on the Wifi, every ten seconds it logs an unknown (Bonjour) ping which fills up the log overnight.

Isn't it a thing for DAW developers to strive for a real-world-looking interface? What I hate is knob re-creations!

don't knobs also serve a practical purpose since otherwise you'd have a ton of horizontal sliders, which would quickly crowd the interface?

This didn't look real. It looks like what we'd consider a TUI today

Interesting thing though, in some pretty extensive testing I've found that two versions of the same plugin[1] get very different opinions on sound quality depending on whether or not I use the skeupmorphic interface or a "flat" one drawn with normal toolkit graphics (I don't have a screenshot but think in terms of Ableton's vector graphics knobs).

Almost everyone seems to think the one with "real-looking" knobs and front panel "sounds better", "sounds more like the real synth", "has better filters" and so on than the flat design one, even though the DSP code and control ranges are identical between the two.

If you don't want to use knobs, what would you use instead?

[1] https://gjcp.net/plugins/peacock/

Forth user here.

Don't use AI, it writes Forth like it writes C. It has got better at following Standard, in Gforth style, but it is awful at the spirit of Forth: factoring programs into a vocabulary of tiny, reusable pieces.

I posted a Forth programming challenge. I was very disappointed to get two AI answers and one human. I think the humans sussed out the solution and described an algorithm to Opus, but, the AI strategy produced one large page-filling word.

A top-level word filling one page, doing everything there except some subroutines mimicking C Standard Library.

In Forth, that chunk ought to be many smaller words. Heck, even in C (at least it fit in a page.)

Perhaps you just haven't used the correct AI yet? Perhaps none of us have in that Forth doesn't have much of a large dataset to train from?

Can you link to the programming challenge? It would be interesting to see if recursive language models that use double-blind latent space might work better.

> Perhaps none of us have in that Forth doesn't have much of a large dataset to train from?

Well, being terse as heck is the point of Forth so of course the dataset isn't large /j.

More seriously, I think the bigger issue is that Forth isn't exactly uniform. It is so moldable that everyone has their own style

What was the challenge?

There are anecdotes about trash incinerators requiring less kerosene to finish the burn, because of the plastic content.

Turning the issue on its head, if 4-9% is unsold, then the whole supply chain's success at predicting consumer preferences is 90-95%. Wow!

When I think of unsold, I see that some sizes run out, leaving odd sizes as surplus.

That assumes that they need to predict demand 1:1 which is not true.

They are more than welcome to have an over supply ready, they just need to use it productively is they can't sell it.

Not 4-9% unsold. 4-9% of unsold is destroyed without being worn.

Don't forget the wrist guard.

The Roman word for the projectile was bulla.

I don't think averages work that way