Works just as well anywhere, really.

Obscurity by itself does provide risk reduction.

Think about leaving your bike unlocked in times square, vs. the top of a 7 000 meter mountain in the himalayas.

Which unlocked (unsecure) bike is more likely to be stolen, and ergo has a lower risk attached?

----

Obscurity does not help you when the thief has already found your bike, nor is obscurity very helpful for keeping your bike safe if you happen to live in times square.

But if you live at the top of a himalayan peak, you can be fairly certain you're not going to have your bike stolen.

the security controls for a bike on a high mountain are not obscurity, they're the lack of oxygen (that kills), the cold (that kills), the height (that kills), and the literal sheer difficulty of getting there.

you could put the bike right on the side of the mountain without any obfuscation and it won't get got because ain't no one gonna die for a bike.

its like how we know where dead people are on Everest but we can't get them down; they serve as landmarks.

I love their vibe coded "anti-abuse" systems :D

If they're gonna vibe-code all these arbitrary rules, they should at least release the source code so we can figure out how to work around them!

they said how they stopped writing code themselves a few months ago. it really shows.

That's just a mean comment

I read somewhere that the carbon plate is more to stabilize the shoe, that with only the foam the shoe would be very unstable.

Yes, that's correct. There's a mistaken belief that it's the major source of performance improvements. It plays a role, but the bigger gains come from the stack height (limb lengthening effect) and the energy return of the foam. But that leads to very unstable shoes. The carbon gives rigidity to balance this out.

10% improvement on a 5 hour marathon time is more absolute seconds than on a 2.1hr marathon time.

What also happens is these gatekeepers end up being those requested to review papers. When a paper comes up for review that challenges the status quo these gatekeepers nit-pick the paper and recommend it not be published. This happened to my wife on numerous occasions. She has a few unpublished papers because of this. What she found in her research has since become the common accepted knowledge in her field after a few funerals.

There's a lot of this going on in science. Once the common accepted truth is "X" papers that are counter to X or show that X is not true, end up not getting published and then funding dries up.

This aestethic is useful though for SaaS apps and the like that know themselves to be generic.

I am not sure if you're entirely familiar with how science works?

The study has a fairly large effect size, there's plenty of other research into body chronology that shows similar effects and differences between people. The methods in the study look solid, as does the analysis. There's also nothing weird with how the interpreted the results.

Now, should you go out and alter health guidelines for an entire country based off of one study? Hell no. But that also does not mean that you dismiss the study.

Research funding does NOT work in such a way, that scientist A comes up with an interesting idea and immediately gets funding to recruit 200 000 participants from 20 countries.

134 is a pathetically small sample size

In excercise science many of the studies are based on 20-30 college aged male athletes. 134 is a bigger sample than many.