It would be the same for pole vaulting. You can enter the competition at a lower height and continue to clear as the height increases. Once you fail at a height you still have the highest height you did clear for the competition which you can still win with. That was probably a horrible explanation - my apologies if so.
"Once the vaulter enters the competition, they can choose to pass heights. If a vaulter achieves a miss on their first attempt at a height, they can pass to the next height, but they will only have two attempts at that height, as they will be out once they achieve three consecutive misses. Similarly, after earning two misses at a height, they could pass to the next height, when they would have only one attempt.
The competitor who clears the highest height is the winner. "
So, it takes some planning, and some athletes start at heights that they know they will clear easy, just to guarantee them 2nd or 3rd place. Then they continue their attempts at higher bars. Once they know they have won they have 3 more attempts to try and break the record.
If you don't have it installed it can easily be queried with curl from the command line like: `curl cheat.sh/sed`. The payload is colorized and gives a lot of examples of usage of the command. You can also query "cht.sh" to use fewer characters. There is actually a lot more advanced usage of the tool/service if you check out the README.
I don't understand - have you never used Google scholar? Type in the relevant terms and there are a million relevant results. I just pasted the top one, which is all about how physical pain and mental pain is basically physiologically identical and specifically mentions Tylenol in relation tto its effect on social pain. Full text shod be on sci-hub.
You understand Google Scholar returns unrelated studies, right? You have to actually read them. "results by searching terms in google scholar" is not a metric of truth.
Did you actually read your posted source? It does not mention Tylenol, nor is it on Sci Hub. I can tell you what is in it, I can not read it for you however.
It is likely Google Scholar selected it because it cites another study which does discuss Tylenol, however that study does not support the claim being made and instead makes a different specific claim.
> all about how physical pain and mental pain is basically physiologically identical
That is not what your linked study says. I would encourage you to read it slowly. The study you linked is making a very specific, very narrow claim regarding the neural circuitry of social pain observed in some conditions.
Yes it does mention it - scholar gives you direct quotes in the subheading, which for this one is: "alter one type of pain (eg, Tylenol reduces
physical pain) can alter the other as well (eg, Tylenol reduces social pain)."
I did a paper on this subject some years ago, so I know the info is legit. I didn't expend a ton of effort because information on human beings in hacker news is almost always shockingly lacking and so if I bother to write a high quality post it almost always gets either ignored or downvoted - because the "experts" here don't have the knowledge base to recognize what is true.
And as for scholar, if you type in the right terms, 99% of the time it gives good results. So in this case obviously "tylenol" is not a good search term because that's a brand name. What you want is the active ingredient, which in this case is Acetaminophen. If you type "Acetaminophen rejection" into scholar what are the results?
I just did and there's a wealth of highly cited studies backing up OP's claim, including the very first result.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be antagonistic. I can see how my comment could have come off that way though. I honestly didn't even read the linked study. I was just providing a possible reason for why a search for "NSAID" may not have yielded any results.
