Matching Match The Sample Categories To The Intended: Fill & Download for Free

Well, let’s start with this one:What you’re looking at is commonly referred to as a Boxer's fracture and it’s no joke. This is one of the reasons that many disciplines teach a striking structure that focuses on the knuckles of the index and middle fingers though there are disciplines that teach striking with the knuckles of the middle and ring fingers. Striking with the wrong part of the hand can result in you breaking your own hand. I’ve only ever had one student break their hand this way and he was 8 years old. When he did it he was practicing a board breaking exercise at a level above what you’d generally see 8 year olds working with. Tough kid, had it cast and still came in for his belt test two days later.Injuries to the person doing the punching aside, when we’re talking about breaking bones with punches it’s most often talking about bones of the face. A study in the UK of injuries sustained by assault victims showed fractures in 15% of victims that had been struck by fists and nearly 30% of victims struck by both fists and feet sustained fracture injuries[1].In martial arts circles there’s a good deal of urban legend about striking to cause broken bones but when you look at the trauma data the myths start to fall away rapidly.(Table from the same study referenced above, note, fracture data includes blunt weapon assault in addition to fists & feet or just fists.)Facial fractures are by far the most frequently broken bones that result from being struck by fists. While you could argue that this is a result of a significant preference for striking to the face (head hunting), the anatomy itself also has several vulnerabilities.(Gray's Anatomy to the rescue again.)Nasal bones and the zygomatic process are both high probability targets for common striking technique. Linear striking techniques (jabs) are well suited to damaging the nasal complex where non-linear striking techniques (roundhouse) are well suited to striking the zygomatic complex. That isn’t to say that non-linear techniques can’t break noses or that linear techniques won’t shatter cheek bones but as fighters, different striking paradigms will result in higher prevalence of specific types of fracture.Breaks to the mandible are fairly understandable. Again, non-linear striking is well suited to damaging the angle of the jaw and additionally placing significant stress on the coronoid/condylar process. If you’re getting ready to stand up and shout; «that’s why they call it a “glass jaw!”»… well, yes, but remember that the phenomenon of a ‘glass jaw’ also has a great deal to do with striking the mastoid process. While we might frequently talk about upward angled striking to the chin (uppercut), I’m skeptical that a majority of these fractures seen in assault victims come from fists… taking it on the chin isn’t quite as risky as taking it on the angle of the jaw. That has everything to do with the mechanics of striking (and no, not just with upward force) and the difficulty of delivering sufficient force to damage this particular structure. Not saying it’s impossible, but odds go down.Leaving the head behind, and moving down the body we’ve got a large area that gets rolled up in a broad category:The human body has lots of ribs and I have lost count of how many fighters I’ve worked with over the years that have sustained fractures to one or more ribs (self included, it hurts.) The severity of the fracture can be widely varied and repeated striking increases the likelihood of a break as well as the likelihood of multiple breaks. A multitude of striking techniques lend themselves to inflicting damage on the ribs… arguably there are few punches you could throw that wouldn’t be effective at dealing damage to the ribs (okay, toss out the back-fist) and options grow when you add striking to a downed opponent.What surprised me in reviewing the data was an absence of clavicle breaks. I’ll attribute that to small sample size. Cursory review of recent high profile cases of assault / domestic assault provides numerous examples of clavicle breaks. In general, I’d expect a majority of clavicle breaks from striking to be a result of striking a downed opponent, again because of the mechanics of striking. That said, I’ve known at least one woman with a sufficiently powerful hammer-fist technique to crack an athletic cup so, as with many things I won’t say it’s impossible.Finally, as much discussion as there is about “breaking arms” with striking… put this in the realm of rare exceptions. Again, not impossible, but in general, limb striking isn’t intended to cause fracture, we’re typically far more interested in inflicting soft tissue damage and assaulting joints than breaking bones with striking.The human body is, as always, incredibly resilient and amazingly fragile. While some martial arts pundits are quick to dismiss the notion of breaking bones with striking technique, we need look no farther than our nearest emergency room for the all too painful reality that fists fights, domestic assault and other forms of pummeling can and do result in these kinds of injuries.Strategically, as a matter of striking doctrine, assuming that you will be able to achieve a break with any given striking technique isn’t sound. Acknowledge the potential for it, train to deliver it, but never expect that you can develop a perfect technique that sends people to the ground with shattered jaws or noses. Remember, when reviewing this data, that a non-trivial percentage of these injuries are inflicted where significant disparities of strength and striking power exist. We’re not examining data culled from UFC fights of closely matched opponents, we’re looking at data from people in all manner of situations who have been violently assaulted.Footnotes[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1292500/pdf/jrsocmed00139-0017.pdf

In as technical language as possible?Short of simply throwing up the mathematics, and instead, actually explaining it… there are a lot of factors.A2DP is an engineers “cute” way of saying “AADP”, which stands for Advanced Audio Distribution Profile.A2DP supports a unidirectional mono or stereo audio stream, which is encoded at the transmitter, and decoded at the receiver.This is done using a CODEC (COde/DECode) component, which can be implemented as software, or cast into silicon as hardware.These become very important, because the type of compression used can impact greatly the effective bandwidth.That’s how much data, total, you can push between the devices reliably.Note: The “reliably” part is important.Let’s start with the rate at which you can push audio data from a device to an output device over Bluetooth, AKA “bandwidth”.The Bluetooth technology itself it intrinsically poorly designed for streaming, and the protocol and hardware exacerbate this situation. Bad software engineers are a contributing factor which tends to make the situation there worse.LatencyWhen I send a Bluetooth packet of data from a computer or phone to a bluetooth audio device, the radio protocol requires me to send the data, receive a round-trip acknowledgement of the data, and then send the next chunk of data.This round trip latency is required because there is no out-of-order packet reassembly on the audio device for packets sent to the audio device, because such devices tend to be very minimalist in implementation, and therefore they lack the necessary buffer memory to implement such protocols as TCP sliding window.While in theory one could make the devices more expensive by adding additional processing power and packet reassembly buffers so they could support the other end of that protocol, that’s not the method that was chosen at the time, due to the economics, and as a result, there’s a relatively high latency to allow retransmissions of packets in the case of poor connectivity or radio interference.This high latency translates into a higher bandwidth delay product, which itself translates into a lower bandwidth, overall.So consider that, due to the lack of buffering and out of order packet reassembly into a linear data stream, the result is a substantially reduced overall bandwidth for transmission of audio data.InterferenceThe Bluetooth operational frequency is said to be in the 2.45 GHz range; the actual operational range is 2.402 GHz to 2.480 GHz, because that represents an unlicensed radio spectrum.Wifi operates in a set of channels in the range of 2.412 GHz and 2.462 GHz in the U.S., and up to 2.484 GHz in Japan, or 2.472 GHz in countries other than the U.S.. This is the same unlicensed frequency range, and it means that WiFi and Bluetooth can cause each other RFI (Radio Frequency Interference) problems.Likewise, consumer microwave ovens operate at 2.45 GHz (commercial microwave ovens operate at 915MHz, both because they can be adequately shielded, and because you can pack more energy into a larger cavity).So if you or your neighbors have a microwave oven, it can interfere with WiFi and with Bluetooth.So in addition to not supporting packet integrity through other than retransmission of the full packet, in order, Bluetooth also has the problem of needing to operate in an environment with a high noise floor.This makes it even more lossy, increasing the average number of retransmissions, and from that, decreasing the overall effective bandwidth you can expect.So we are intrinsically talking about a low bandwidth data transfer mechanism; why do we care about dropped packets?Interestingly, this has a lot to do with human evolution.One aspect of human evolution is that the human species spent a lot of its formative years as prey. This acted to cause humans to evolve mechanisms which made them very, very good at edge detection.A lot of the human neural wiring in the auditory cortex and visual cortex is dedicated to edge detection — scene changes as a delta from the previous scene, over time.It how we detect predators: we detect the change.We see this in certain aspects of visual acuity, and we see it in the visual cortex when someone is intoxicated via a depressant, such as alcohol, as HGN (horizontal gaze nystagmus), which is used to cause the delta frames to be stretched so that a human can be somewhat impaired, and still function visually well enough to detect the predators.In fact, one of the impairment tests used in FST (Field Sobriety Testing) by police officers is based on HGN — the “follow my finger” test. They aren’t actually testing whether you can really follow their finger. What they are testing for is HGN, by way of seeing if your eye tracking holds in one position, and then “jumps” horizontally, to each new position, to stretch the frame, in order to compensate for your intoxication.The same thing occurs in people who have perfect pitch, which is also evolutionarily advantageous when it comes to finding a frame delta indicating the presence of a predator.Whether it’s a change in the frequency of a bird chirping, etc., the pitch of something conveys information.What does this have to do with dropped packets?It turns out that as a result, it’s very obvious — extremely irritating, in fact, to people with perfect pitch, and somewhat irritating to others, when the continous nature of the frequency curve has a jump in it.In other words: when it’s discontinuous, due to a dropped packet.The normal way the hardware compensates for a dropped packet is that it maintains the same output prior over what would have been the next note, for which the data is missing.Unsurprisingly, because the hardware is cheap, it doesn’t take the next note in the buffer after that, and compensate by interpolating the intermediate frame.You’re essentially getting frame drop, which is very obvious to pretty much everyone, when playing a video game, but is also obvious to most people, when it happens in audio.It turns out that when video games provide background music, it’s actually to minimize the obviousness of this “tearing” on the audio, when they become compute bound, by covering it up with a continuous audio playback of something which isn’t tearing.So it still happens, when there’s a sudden event in a video game — you just don’t notice it.So it’s more important, for audio data, that you not skip frames, than it is that you provide higher quality in terms of, for example, sample rate, or frequency response range, or sample frequency resolution — the other factors.So we’re pushing data over a semi-unreliable channel; what does this mean for the data that gets pushed?I’m glad you asked.It turns out that we encode the data at the source in multiple sample rates, and then we decide which one we are going to use at the time, periodically, as a result of changing conditions.For most A2DP communications, the conditions are not hugely variable: you end up with the noise floor, and that’s the noise floor, and that dictates the sample rate that gets used, as a negotiation between the device playing back the audio data, and the source of the audio data.But it means more work at the encoding end, and for headset devices, it means that the microphone quality tends to be stuck at the lowest quality level, because it’ll be used for voice communications, whereas the headphone part of the headset wants the highest quality you can jam in — which isn’t much.Mostly, this is because headset devices don’t really have the multi-encoding capability, not because the headset profile doesn’t support it like the A2DP profile supports it.Here’s were it matters: your butt is a pretty poor transmission medium.You are a big bag of water,To be fair, it’s not just your butt, it’s your entire body.Put your device in your back pocket, or even your front pocket, or put your device in your purse, and carry it at normal purse height, and you have a big bag of water between the computer (your cell phone, usually), and the device receiving the A2DP stream.So mostly we get to use the lower frequency encoding, in order to get the bandwidth to push all the data we intend to push.So up front, we negotiate the lower quality source encoding in most use cases.How are things encoded?The encoding depends on the CODEC used; for most A2DP, all devices tend to support the SBC (low complexity SubBand Codec).A device can support MPEG-1 part 3, MPEG-2 part 3 (MP2 and MP3), MPEG-2 Part 7/MPEG-4 Part 3 (AAC and HE-AAC), and ATRAC, or a proprietary CODEC from a manufacturer, such as aptX.While some of these can increase the bandwidth, most of them are actually designed to increase the fidelity — they trade resolution for a lower sampling rate to increase frequency response range and frequency resolution.Which you get depends on what is considered “the best” by the negotiation protocol, and was more or less an arbitrary decision on the part of the audio engineers who picked priorities for the various CODECs from what they considered best to worst, based on average human factors.What that means is that some of their choices aren’t all that great for some people.If you have perfect pitch, and, in combination with this, you like to listen to music composed for microtonal scales, such as Vangelis, or Jarre, or which depend on layered complexities and perfect syncopation — there are some Mannheim Steamroller songs that fall into that category, and there’s Yanni — you won’t be happy with their choices. Your definition of best won’t match theirs.As a practical matter, however, the majority of people will prefer to take yet another bandwidth hit over taking a hit on the other components.So what are we talking?You’re probably using the SBC CODEC, despite other, higher-quality-by-some-measures CODECs being available.What that means is that the envelope looks like this:up to 345 kilobits/secondup to 48 kHz sample rateAnd if you actually get that, you get about 1/3 the audio quality of a standard CD, because of compression artifacts, putting it at around the same quality as your average MP3 recording.But you don’t get that.Instead, because the compression in SBC is lossy, you’re about 74% of that, at around 256 kilobits/second.And there’s a bit of an impedance mismatch on the frequencies there.And that’s bad, because it causes what is in effect 3:4 frame skipping, and if the source audio is a CD, and you are playing it back via A2DP — some people are going to notice it.Because they were evolved to notice edges like that.OK.That’s less than entirely cool.So why in the heck does anyone use SBC at all?!?Mostly it’s because the patent on it — EP-0400755B — expired in 2010, and it can be used royalty free, and even before it expired, it was offered royalty free, with the caveat that it was only offered that way for use in Bluetooth applications.All of the other CODECs cost money.Which makes the product cost more.It’s the same reason a Logitech wireless mouse might cost $19, but a Logitech Bluetooth mouse, with exactly the same hardware, but different software, might cost $29.Most manufacturers use the cheapest option, because most consumers don’t care about that level of audio quality; they are more price sensitive than quality sensitive.What if the device transmitting and the device receiving isn’t using SBC, what if it’s using something else?OK, let’s say both ends support something like MP3, AAC, or ATRAC, and it’s already compressed in one of those formats.The good news is that there’s less compression artefacts, but MP3 is going to put you at about 345 kilobits/second. Which still isn’t great.AAC and ATRAC do a little better, and — assuming a small butt, or that you put the phone in it’s charging cradle, and you don’t have the big watery bag of human between it and the receivers, you can get the theoretical bandwidth of A2DP.Which is about 728 kilobits/second.You probably won’t get that, because you’d have to arrange things just so, but it’s possible.Bad news, Hal.An audio CD runs out at about 1,400 kilobits/second, so now you’re up to about half the sample rate of a CD.And you’ve topped out the theoretical maximum bandwidth, before you start factoring in negotiating lower data rates due to the high noise floor on which Bluetooth itself operates.What about aptX?Well, totally ignoring the Qualcomm tax that Qualcomm tends to attach to any device that uses any of their patents,. you’re still running at a lower bitrate, but they claim it’s slightly higher, and that the envelope on frequency resolution.It’s not a CD, in other words.But it had a theoretical high end, due to better compression — which take a heck of a long time to encode, so that a simple device can more easily decode it — making it maybe capable of doing 24-bit/48kHz audio.This is similar — but incompatible (of course) with the Apple proprietary method used for AirPods and Beats Bluetooth devices based on the Apple W1 chipset.In other words, Apple has already left A2DP, if you are in an entirely Apple ecosystem, and now Qualcomm is trying to get into that same market with their own better/different proprietary CODEC.That’s the general answer.There’s even more going on under the covers, but it’s probably best if I leave out the section on “bad programmers introducing additional channel latency at API boundary crossings through being bad API designers”.You’re probably depressed enough by how physics and math make things bad, and the whole patent thing, without me dragging incompetence into the equation.

It is fitting that this question has been answered by two great history-focused Quorans, Spencer McDaniel and Alice Wang. Read their answers, and then you will be ready to hear from a real academic — because it turns out that history is that academic area in which academic writing is most easily read like popular writing. Take that!Wait. I don’t know whether I just insulted them, or myself.Anyway, if you keep reading long enough, you will find out how an academic journal paper is like Trump bashing modern dishwashers.Of course “why is academic writing so academic” is, like any other useless question, a question academics have recently started working very hard to answer, which is why I will start by delving into a recent paper: Publication type and discipline variation in published academic writing by Jesse Egbert, published in the International Journal of Corpus Linguistics in 2015[1] .To answer this very question, the author looked at two disciplines — biology and history — and collected three sets of texts in each — popular books, university textbooks, and journal articles. He then slapped complicated linguistic categories on every word, sent the lot into a statistical meat grinder, and found five key aspects which distinguished pop books, textbooks, and journal articles.Wait — why am I telling you all this? You can just read the abstract for yourself:This study uses Multi-Dimensional analysis to describe linguistic variation in a corpus of published academic writing across three publication types in two disciplines.… huh. That sentence is indecipherable to anyone who isn’t at least a statistician. It certainly isn’t compelling. But it is a good example of how academic text (the abstract) and non-academic text (my summary) differs, and so you may want to refer to it as I explain these five key aspects.Popular texts gather ideas to evoke a response, while academic texts use specialized terms to convey information quickly. Egbert found that popular texts use common words and adverbs, and string them together in ways that create emphasis and denote relationships. Meanwhile academic texts are all about nouns: technical nouns, concrete nouns, words that modify nouns.Popular texts take time to define and evaluate new concepts. Egbert found many words about definitions, predictions, and evaluations, and interpreted them as authors trying to introduce new ideas to audiences along with an estimation of how good or bad they were.Popular texts show authorial focus. Egbert found lots of verbs about saying, thinking, and arguing for or against things, which relates to the role of the author as someone trying to communicate ideas to an audience together with authorial stances supporting or opposing those ideas.Popular texts construct a narrative. Egbert found many common verb phrases, constructed with a definite sense of time (using past tense, or present progressive tense), and lots of third person pronouns denoting who had done those things / had had those things done to them.History journal articles had more abstract observation and description. Which, \(“,)/? You don’t have to worry about this one.*Now, the following graphic shows what happened when Egbert diagrammed how his six categories of text (two disciplines, three levels) differed on each of these aspects. (“LD1” — for example — stands for the first point above, that popular texts evoke a response while academic texts convey information quickly.)You can see that, along the biology column, different categories of texts have very different purposes. Popular texts (bottom) work very hard to synthesize lots of ideas and evoke a response from the reader; textbooks work very hard to define and evaluate new ideas; and journal articles don’t give a damn about any of that. Meanwhile, as you go along the history column, the communicative features of the texts change very little by comparison — so a journal article on history isn’t very different from a popular piece on history.Which, of course, is a perfect scientific explanation for the phenomenon that it is much, much easier to be an armchair historian than an armchair biologist, eh[2] ?The nature of these differences is apparent once you think a little bit about what expertise in each of these disciplines means:Biology is highly conceptual, requiring textbook authors to define and explain new terms and processes. Biology can also be quite difficult for learners to relate to, as much of it is studied at the microscopic level.History, on the other hand, does not rely as heavily on new concepts but on narrating and sequencing the details of past events. In many cases, these events are highly relevant to the reader, thus not requiring extensive explanation and evaluation.To summarize, textbooks tend to fall somewhere between journal articles and popular academic writing in most areas. However, biology textbooks focus on defining and evaluating new concepts, whereas history textbooks contain more colloquial narrative.And in any academic discipline, the fundamental difference in style comes down to the nature of the intended audience. Popular articles are meant to be, well, popular. Textbooks are for people who want to become experts. Journal articles are for people who are experts. So journal articles are highly condensed information packets written by people who not only know a lot, but also know that their readers also know a lot, and they can skip over a great deal of context and fluff and scene-setting to say what they want to say.As such, people who complain that academic writing is dry and boring are partly (PARTLY. I will get back to this later.) complaining: “Why is this thing that was not written for me communicate nothing to me?” But isn’t that just how communication works? If you had a five-year history of my chats with my wife, you will see the texts get progressively more clipped and boring and not-vomit-inducing. It doesn’t mean we’ve fallen out of love; it means we now say and mean a lot to each other that we don’t need to put into words. Or, consider the typical Trump rally:A few days ago, within the hour that Donald Trump became only the third president ever to be impeached by the US House of Representatives, he was on stage telling the audience about … dishwashers?“Remember the dishwasher? You’d press it. Boom! There’d be like an explosion. Five minutes later, you open it up. The steam pours out. The dishes — Now, you press it 12 times. Women tell me — again — ‘You know, they give you four drops of water.’ And they’re in places where there’s so much water you don’t know what to do with it!”[3]I mean, you’re telling me the authorial and communicative intent of that is more legible than this?This study uses Multi-Dimensional analysis to describe linguistic variation in a corpus of published academic writing across three publication types in two disciplines.But of course, Trump wasn’t talking to you or me — he was talking to a Trump rally audience. And a Trump rally audience knows:Environmental regulations are bad for Americabecause they stop people from doing things they want to dolike washing dishes with as much or as little water as they want.And even though no modern dishwasher ever really only uses four drops of waterand no ancient dishwasher ever finished the dishes in five minutes with an explosion of steamwell, Trump doesn’t actually mean any of the crap he says, because the main point isPresident Trump opposes environmental regulationsbecause he’s the best President everMAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!That’s a phenomenally sophisticated interpretive reading frame. It makes zero sense to me. But it makes perfect sense to a putting-himself-in-a-Trump-rallygoer’s-shoes me. Voters are sophisticated enough to understand that when Trump rants about dishwashers and toilets, he’s actually (kind of, maybe, \|”.|/?) promising deregulatory action and cuts to the EPA, and that is a thematically-complex, entropically-compressed code which puts even the most terse academic writing to shame.So why can’t non-academic readers understand academic journals?I told you that people who complain that academic writing is dry and boring are partly complaining that the thing that wasn’t written for them wasn’t written for them. But they have a point. There are aspects of popular writing — such as defining new concepts and evoking emotional response — which simply aren’t relevant for academic writing, and will never be.But I also contend that academic writing is absolutely hobbled in other ways by these conventions. In particular, academics are bad at constructing the wider narrative into which their work fits and the uniqueness and significance of their work. As a scientist I get it — in theory, anybody can do what I do in the lab. (“In theory”, get it?) If you get the right equations and software and start from the right configurations with the right settings you should get the right answers. Nature doesn’t care if you do the calculation, or if I do. (This view aligns significantly with Popperian philosophies of science).But in practice, different scientists are good at different things. My experience and expertise lets me easily carry out simulations that my students struggle with for weeks (and I, in turn, struggle with things my colleagues can do in their sleep). (Consider this a more Polanyi-esque characterization of how personal and communal effort moves science.) And we know that some scientists know how to convey the effort and novelty of their findings, and that it can make a difference, because recent linguistic studies have showed that female authors of journal articles are far less likely to present their findings positively (such as calling them “novel”, “unique”, or “unprecendented”) than male authors[4] .I’ve helped many colleagues (and received help from them!) especially with thinking through and structuring their presentations, and this matches with my anecdotal experience. The foremost piece of advice I’ve received, and always given, is: “What is the story here? How did your research begin, develop, and end? What is the one thing you did that nobody else before you has done, and nobody after you will have to do?” Every good talk I’ve watched works to establish a basic narrative, and exposits the facts in relation to how they sit in and flesh out the narrative; every bad talk I’ve watched is one that has failed on that front. I suspect academic writing is no different.The amount of scene-setting required will vary by audience, of course. My fellow structural biologists will not need as much information to understand “umbrella-sampling elucidates the role of protein disordered regions as length-asymmetrical entropic polymer springs” as the Quora lot, but there is still a story there, and academic papers might be easier to understand if academics worked to see their work not just as abstract, disembodied facts, but as stories and stories about stories.More like historians, perhaps?*The methodology produces dimensions that are ordered from most to least important — you can see, in Figure 8 of the attached paper, that the last dimension very specifically distinguishes biology journal articles from history journal articles while also distinguishing (all) popular books from (all) textbooks. Since neither popular books nor textbooks fall under “academic writing” as used in this question, I have proceeded to ignore this dimension.Postscript (3 Jan 2020)Scientific papers can look different:[5]Look! A one-page explanation of a complex mathematical result, with just the right amount of detail, and interactive visualizations!Of course, it’s pretty telling that this explanation was not created by the original authors — it was done by someone whose main job is visual communication. You can’t expect scientists to be expert communicators any more than you can (automatically) expect them to be expert lawyers, firefighters, or janitors. What it would take for scientific papers to look like this is scientists employing communicators to create such bespoke communiques — which, in turn, would require money.Money we don’t have, sadly.So, a perfectly acceptable alternative answer to “Why is academic writing so academic?” is because academics aren’t paid enough to hire real writers.Footnotes[1] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7a2a/3137d075b5a5bb253232ddcf634b649a200a.pdf[2] Impostor[3] Trump Melts Down at Rally After Getting Impeached: A Closer Look[4] Gender differences in research reporting[5] Scientific Communication As Sequential Art