This is one of those rare cash-grabby schemes I don't mind. I find it pretty fun to go watch some old favorites in a communal environment on the big screen!
A 10% in strength drop after stopping creatine intake seems like quite a bit. Creatine certainly helps out in resistance training (if you're a responder), but generally by way of maaaybe being able to add another rep to a set at a given weight or maaaybe being able to add 2-3% more weight to a given set. This has cumulative effects, of course, but I wouldn't expect such a steep decline.
I'd like to emphasise that my ~10% figure is very vibes-based and I don't have hard numbers to back it up (I don't track my progression in great detail - and even if I did, I am sample size 1). My max rep counts for bodyweight exercises definitely went down, and I reduced the weight I was lifting to hit the same rep counts as before.
>One review paper from 2017 concluded that creatine can give athletes a 10-20% performance boost in brief bouts of high-intensity exercise, such as sprinting past a defender or lifting heavy weights.
TFA is non a scientific journal, but summarizing/editorializing results from scientific journals. They don't cite their sources for that particular claim, but it appears to be from this^1 journal, which itself is an overview of other research. The "10-20%" number comes from this^2 2003 review of existing research on creatine that states 70% of the existing research at that time showed statistically significant results and give some example numbers of performance gains with regards to resistance training in the 5-15% range. However, I believe that's just an example from one study out of the many reviewed and I don't have access to more than the abstract. Not that I'd have the scientific/statistical knowledge to properly interpret the meta-analysis, anyway, but ..point being that "10-20%" number from the article can be misleading (surprise, surprise).
It does that to me, on occasion. It's usually due to taking too high a dose at once and/or taking it in combination with caffeine. Now, it's not a guarantee that those conditions mean I'll get some gastrointestinal discomfort, but they certainly increase the likelihood.
I think you've missed the point of the quote. It's not an analogy to prose, per se, but merely stating that you don't need to just "get to the point" and, instead, can enjoy a work throughout. A symphony isn't inherently good, it was just the metaphor of choice Alan Watts chose to convey that we should be able to enjoy living our lives without constantly thinking of constant improvement.
That said, I do also think you can apply it to the enjoyment of prose in that you don't need to read it, tapping your fingers, waiting for some climax and then a minor denouement, expressing frustration if "the point" seems to be taking to long to get to. Certainly there is a lot of bad writing that can be overly verbose/messy/in need of editing/etc. and, depending on the nature of the writing, attempting to write "artful" prose can be a misstep. But, often, I find that you can find great pieces of prose in an essay/article/novel/etc. that are well-composed, sometimes profound, and a general joy to read. Though, judging by many of the comments in this thread, many don't care to read that way.
I'm not pulling my phone out every time I have to unlock my computer at work. If IT wants my work account to be secure they should change their policies.
As an actually unseasoned Python developer, would you be so kind as to explain why the problems you see are problems and their alternatives? Particularly the first two you note.
The call to logging.basicConfig happens at import time, which could cause issues in certain scenarios. For a one-off script, it's probably fine, but for a production app, you'd probably want to set up logging during app startup from whatever your main entry point is.
The Python standard library has a configparser module, which should be used instead of custom code. It's safer and easier than manual parsing. The standard library also has a tomllib module, which would be an even better option IMO.
Logging configuration is done at import time for "utils" module.
Imagine code like this:
main.py:
import logging
logging.basicConfig(...)
logging.info("foo") # uses above config
if __name__ == "__main__":
import utils # your config is overridden with the one in utils
logging.info("bar") # uses utils configuration
...
Or two "commands", one importing utils and another not: they would non-obviously use different logging configuration.
It gets even crazier: you could import utils to set the configuration, override it, but a second import would not re-set it, as module imports are cached.
Basically, don't do it and no unexpected, confusing behaviour anywhere.
As a non Python developer, what would be the use-case(s) for importing a module inside of the main function instead of importing it at the top of main.py with the others?
Since the entire evaluation and running is dynamic, you don't need to import (and thus evaluate) a module in certain branches.
Eg. that `if __name__` trick is used to allow a module to be both a runnable script and importable module.
Top it off with plenty of common libraries being dog-slow to import because they are doing some of the anti-pattern stuff too, and you end up executing a lot of code when you just want to import a single module.
Eg. I've seen large Python projects that take 75s just importing all the modules because they are listing imports at the top, and many are executing code during import — imagine wanting to run a simple unit test, and your test runner takes 75s just to get to the point where it can run that 0.01s test for your "quick" TDD iteration.
You can also look at Instagram's approach to solving this over at their engineering blog.
