It 'sort of' works - the pots are very brittle and not at all waterproof. Glazing wont work at those temps so I tried a slip-glaze (basically glazing with liquid clay) which at least gave the pots a slightly shiny appearance.

Keep using your 'main' editor for coding for now.

Get a shell/terminal that you can open/close with a hotkey (iTerm2 on Mac or something like yakuake on linux)

Run the editor you want to learn (I recommend emacs) in your hotkey terminal (basically you want an 'always there' emacs that you can just pop open at the press of a shortcut key)

Spend 5 minutes learning the basic commands.

+) Move the cursor around.

+) Open a file.

+) Save a file.

+) Switch between buffers/files

Now while coding in your existing editor, use the hotkey window with the new editor as your 'scratchpad' or diary. Note down ideas, todo items, thoughts about the code your are writing etc. Google commands as you need them and you'll pick things up bit by bit.

You don't see the productivity drop because you're not using the editor for your main task of coding, but you'll be using it 'little and often' which is a great way to pick things up.

I made the full switch when after a year or so at work I found myself pseudo-coding and stubbing out methods in my scratch file in emacs and copying them to my IDE.

YMMV but hope that helps :)

In the case of an altimeter it makes sense to be aggressive with the 'common-sense' component to throw out bad data. But with other things like temperature, you wouldn't want to throw out data that could look wrong, but could actually be caused by some unknown phenomenon (like say, superheated gas pockets on mars) as that's exactly the type of weird stuff you'd be interested in.

I guess the problem is distinguishing [data that differs greatly from what was expected] and [data from a sensor malfunctions]

"the plural of anecdote is data"

nice.

If they push just apologise and say you're not comfortable discussing your salary over the phone.

Does anyone have a link to the online supliment?

Also would it be normal practice for a study like this to make the raw data aviailable? I'd love to take a look. As it's not totally clear how the 3.3% figure was arrived at.

This sentence struck me as a little odd: "For example, I use employment from 1985, reported in survey year 1986, to predict marital dissolution in 1987"

I would have thought unemployment in the actual year of divorce would be more important when looking for a corellation? Not looking at the husband's unemployemnt two years previously?

In cases like this where it sounds like a number was found in a known drug dealer's phone, I can't imagine they would have had much trouble getting a judge to sign a warrant to track the phone?

At this point we have absolutely no information about what the Brexit deal will look like, it's impossible to know what the UK economy will be like post EU. For all we know the eurozone could face a crisis in the next few years and by distancing itself from Brussels the UK could end up better off.

In a month or two when things have settled down we'll see a much more reasoned debate. Once article 50 is invoked and we begin to see what the 'leave' deal will actually look like you may see many people adjusting their position.