In Spain you go to your healthcare doctor and ask, and they will usually grant you the blood test, but it depends on them. I never had any issues though.
Yep, expect for this weird COVID-19 year, were it's advised to no overload the health system, usually you would only need to see your GP and tell him/her "it's been a while since last check up" or "I'm feeling weird/tired/not sleeping well" and usually they would begin by a basic blood test.
> Assume that the coder meant == 0 what is he trying to enforce. If these 2 bits (_WCLONE and _WALL) are set and your are root then the call is invalid. The bit combination is harmless (setting WALL implies WCLONE [...]), and why would you forbid it for root only.
> ...code change in the CVS copy that did not have a pointer to a record of approval. Investigation showed that the change had never been approved and, stranger yet, that this change did not appear in the primary BitKeeper repository at all...
I'll attach this here for people who read the article too quickly and think it may, somehow, have been a bug. This code was a very deliberate attack.
I would put parentheses here, I never like mixing logical operators with other types (or even different types of logical operators). While it's of course entirely redundant here, it also makes the code easier to read IMO.
I think the parent's point is more convincing: why make this check only for root in the first place?
Sure, my point was that even with the proper == comparison I'd still write the (now redundant) parens because I find it more readable that way.
Actually in languages like Rust with type inference that make it cheap and non-verbose to declare intermediate values I tend to avoid complicated conditions altogether, I could rewrite the provided expression like:
let invalid_options = (options == (__WCLONE|__WALL));
let is_root = (current->uid == 0);
if invalid_options && is_root {
// ...
}
One might argue that it's overkill but I find that it's more "self-documenting"
that way. I find that the more experienced I get, the most verbose my code
becomes. Maybe it's early onset dementia, or maybe it's realizing that it's
easier to write the code than to read it.
Of course you can do that in C as well but you have to declare the boolean
variables, and in general it's frowned upon to intermingle code and variable
declarations so you'd have to add them at the beginning of the function so it
adds boilerplate etc...
Plenty of mutations are already produced by faulty copying. This is how viruses mutate. An early organism would have very error-prone RNA copying. How would the cosmic rays, producing a tiny effect on top of this, be relevant at all? The author fails to explain this. The secret to chirality might simply be chance: once the machinery is running it can only understand its own chirality.
I believe the original paper’s authors are suggesting that the effect of cosmic rays on mutations might be enantioselective (meaning they effect molecules differently based on their chirality).
They do address this. Faulty copying is not biased (except towards mutations which help decrease it). DNA chirality is. Over the course of hundreds of millions of years, that tiny bias adds up to a significantly more successful organism.
In May 1998, a caesium-137 source managed to pass through the monitoring equipment in an Acerinox scrap metal reprocessing plant in Los Barrios, Spain. When melted, the caesium-137 caused the release of a radioactive cloud. The Acerinox chimney detectors failed to detect it, but it was eventually detected in France, Italy, Switzerland, Germany and Austria. The radioactive levels measured were up to 1000 times higher than normal.
That does not seem a good paper. The only references on biology are quite generic books. Also the stated hypotheses are quite unfounded. As far as I know, there is barely any evidence of biology using quantum phenomena directly, except perhaps regarding photosynthesis and enzymatic activity:
I'm no expert in the matter, but I guess the problem is somewhat solved as the magnet then interacts with the field lines and these with the other magnet. It depends on how real you believe these invisible magnetic lines are. The magnetic field turned out to be a very real entity, as when it is perturbed these perturbations travel at the speed of light, and the second magnet feels them with a slight delay. The perturbations also manifest themselves as EM radiation/light.
There is no denying that wearing masks slows the spread. But how much do fabric masks with no filter, which allow most droplets through, slow the spread? I would appreciate any in reference to studies/indications on which fabrics might be appropriate.
> Both masks significantly reduced the number of microorganisms expelled by volunteers, although the surgical mask was 3 times more effective in blocking transmission than the homemade mask.
Stopping droplets entirely isn't as critical as slowing them down. That's why the homemade masks still require the six foot social distancing.
