TIL that this is a valid use of "on the nose" (definition 1). I was genuinely confused, I'm only familar with definition 2 there, "unimaginative; overliteral; lacking nuance; unsophisticated".

You don't need separate disks like people are saying. You can have two separate EFI System Partitions (ESP) on the same disk, the one Windows makes and one that you make for just Linux so Windows isn't ever messing with it.

I've run Windows 10 & Linux on the same disk through many Windows updates without issue.

And actually, if you're never going to update Windows, then there would be　no reason you can't have them use the same ESP.

That's irrelevant. I'm talking about what the researchers wrote, how that relates to their own prior research, and how Arstechnica reported on it. I am not making and have not made any claims about whether or not developers are actually more productive.

Wow, they are at best cherry picking the article they cite on productivity with AI, if not outright trying to lie. They say

Last year, an METR study found that open source coders using AI tools were 19 percent less productive than those who didn’t use them, even as those AI-using coders said they felt 20 percent more productive. But in a February update on a follow-up study, those same researchers said that “we believe it is likely that developers are more sped up from AI tools now—in early 2026—compared to our estimates from early 2025,” citing early raw results and conversations with study participants.

But if you, y'know, actually read this February update, you would see that the researchers are lamenting the fact that they cannot draw conclusions effectively because of the proliferation of AI use. To wit, they say:

Altogether, these issues make it challenging to interpret our central estimate, and we believe it is likely a bad proxy for the real productivity impact of AI tools on these developers.

In fact here is the full passage Arstechnica cherry-picked from (emphasis mine):

Based on conversations with study participants, we believe it is likely that developers are more sped up from AI tools now — in early 2026 — compared to our estimates from early 2025. However, because of the selection effects in our experiment, our data is only very weak evidence for the size of this increase.

Based on conversations, which is to say, not on their data. This after the study a year prior which suggested developers are not reliable reporters of their own productivity.

I am just going off the abstract, but they do not claim and I see no reason to believe that the parameter they constructed has a straightforward relationship with wall-clock time. It's just a number where you can construct equations that make this number "look like" time. There is no claim that this number is related to "true" time.

Put another way, I see no reason that an interval over this parameter should correspond to any interval of "real" time.

Yes, that seems like a rough analogy at least

So they are not actually measuring time. If you look at the actual article (which I linked in another comment), what they did is experimentally assign a number to the different states of their system just based on that state, but in such a way that these numbers naturally order the states. Then they did the math to predict how their system behaves using this number as if it were time, and those predictions match what they experimentally observed.

The point is that in this experiment the "time" is an emergent property of the system, and not something presumed. So this a stepping stone towards determining if the real time that we all experience is a similar emergent phenomenon, or at least helps other physicists investigate this possibility.

The "mini-universe" stuff is pop-sci BS.

So here is the actual article and not the pop-sci woo: https://journals.aps.org/prresearch/abstract/10.1103/1h9j-df4k

What's interesting to me from the abstract is the fact that they experimentally construct an ordered parameter, derive an effective Schroedinger equation that uses this parameter as if it were time, and then show that this equation actually does properly describe the experimentally observed evolution of the system.

Lol, it's interesting how much they apparently changed from the manga. I remember when the Clear Card anime was about to come out there was an extra chapter you were supposed read leading up to it... and then I found out that the manga ends in a completely different way from the last movie, and I also just found something about Sakura and Saoran's relationship offputting. I'm glad they twisted things in Clear Card so that it's actually the anime's continuity and the manga's continuity is "fake" 😂

I haven't read the manga, that's why I was confused. I don't think that relationship is really presented strongly in the anime.

Ohhh I forgot about that. I don't think it's really a big thing in the anime, definitely no engagement.

I think Kaho is one of Eriol's underlings, I don't remember anything romantic. It's been a couple of years since I last rewatched it though.

"Problematic age gap romances" like what?