I only hate Lemmy.ml or whatever its instance is cuz they banned me “for no reason”.
I think it was related to vaccuums, they wanted to clean up the place and thats hard to do when guys are jizzing in vaccuum s i guess…?
Edit: also, for all i know vacuums are manufactured in Malaysia (ML?) and the communist government “forced” their bloody hands on it. Still doesn’t make for a free and purely rational discussion forum.
I was banned citing rule 1 (no bigotry, racism, etc) for posting a meme about how modern cars are too big, too expensive, and send all your data to China.
Apparently because my meme implied China Bad.
I left because the moderation and administration are inconsistent. The rules were left too vague and one of the admins keeps removing random stuff according to different rules or new definitions of the rules. They are left so insanely vague so they can basically do what they want. Kinda icky to me. If I’m doing something wrong I wanna stop it. I was abused as a kid by a mother who loved to make up new stuff and new rules and judge me by them. Blame me for not following them when they only existed in her head.
Said admin acts the same way and I have absolutely no interest in engaging with that. I barely escaped hell before. I’m not going back.
Reminds me of Tildes honestly. Had some great discussions but the condescending loser assholes and the ruthless moderation by @deimos was insanely non-evenhanded ultimately and lost them a contributor who actually brought thoughtful if idiosyncratic views on things that always created abundant engagement. Ah, its just as well. I need fewer distractions and at least with Lemmy, theres lots of space (instance-permitting) to be me. Same reason why I like Lobste.rs: smart folks but way to harsh+judgemental and inflexible, like a computer program lol
True story: The morning before going in for foot surgery, my mom was in a silly mood and wrote “wrong foot” on the other non-surgery-scheduled foot with a marker before putting on her socks.
After the surgery everything was fine, and later when checking up on her the surgeon told her everyone in the operating room got a good laugh out of that “wrong foot” message.
Mom was glad her joke worked out, but later started wondering why they were looking at the wrong foot in the first place and now wonders if her private joke to amuse herself actually saved her from having the wrong foot operated upon.
The patient has to get exposed and positioned, then padded (so there are no pressure injuries, no errant cables or equipment pushing on skin, etc). Also under anesthesia (depending on the type but I’ll assume general/completely asleep) you aren’t moving and your body may get moved or shifted into an unnatural position.
It’s also nice to have controls as mentioned by another reply, but pulse oximetry is great, and can be slapped on any non sterilized area to assess oxygenation.
Probably so they could keep an eye on the toenails on the non-operating foot.
There’s a reason they tell you not to wear nail polish before surgery. The nailbeds are one of the best ways to detect cyanosis caused by low oxygen levels in blood.
I’d imagine a “control foot” is probably preferential, and it’s easier to keep an eye on the other foot during surgery than it is to keep an eye on their fingernails.
Formerly, I was on the Major Incident Response team for a national insurance company. IT Security has always been in their own ivory tower in every company I’ve worked for. But this company IT Security department was about the worst case I’ve ever seen up until that time and since.
They refused to file changes, or discuss any type of change control with the rest of IT. I get that Change Management is a bitch for the most of IT, but if you want to avoid major outages, file a fucking Change record and follow the approval process. The security directors would get some hair brained idea in a meeting in the morning and assign one of their barely competent techs to implement it that afternoon. They’d bring down what ever system they were fucking with. Then my team had to spend hours, usually after business hours, figuring out why a system, which had not seen a change control in two weeks, suddenly stopped working. Would security send someone to the MI meeting? Of course not. What would happen is, we would call the IT Security response team and ask if anything changed on their end. Suddenly 20 minutes later everything was back up and running. With the MI team not doing anything. We would try to talk to security and ask what they changed. They answered “nothing” every god damn time.
They got their asses handed to them when they brought down a billing system which brought in over $10 Billion (yes with a “B”) a year and people could not pay their bills. That outage went straight to the CIO and even the CEO sat in on that call. All of the sudden there was a hard change freeze for a month and security was required to file changes in the common IT record system, which was ServiceNow at the time.
We went from 150 major outages (defined as having financial, or reputation impact to the company) in a single month to 4 or 5.
Fuck IT Security. It’s a very important part of of every IT Department, but it is almost always filled with the most narcissistic incompetent asshats of the entire industry.
At my current company all changes have to happen via GitHub PR and commit because we use GitOps (ex: ArgoCD with Kubernetes). Any changes you do manually are immediately overwritten when ArgoCD notices the config drift.
This makes development more annoying sometimes but I’m so damn glad when I can immediately look at GitHub for an audit trail and source of truth.
It wasn’t InfoSec in this case but I had an annoying tech lead that would merge to main without telling people, so anytime something broke I had his GitHub activity bookmarked and could rule that out first.
Hm can’t say. I’m using bitbucket and it does block admins, though they all have the ability to go into settings and remove the approval requirement. No one does though because then the bad devs would be able to get changes in without reviews.
The past several years I have been working more as a process engineer than a technical one. I’ve worked in Problem Management, Change Management, and currently in Incident for a major defense contractor (yes, you’ve heard of it). So I’ve been on both sides. Documenting an incident is a PITA. File a Change record to restart a server that is in an otherwise healthy cluster? You’re kidding, right? What the hell is a “Problem” record and why do I need to mess with it?
All things I’ve heard and even thought over the years. What it comes down to, the difference between a Mom and Pop operation, that has limited scalability and a full Enterprise Environment that can support a multi-billion dollar business… Is documentation. That’s what those numb nuts in that Insurance Company were too stupid to understand.
Lack of a Change Control process has nothing to do with IT Security except within the domain of Availability. Part of Security is ensuring IT systems are available and working.
You simply experienced working at an organization with poor enforcement of Change Control policies. That was a mistake of oversight, because with competent oversight anyone causing outages by making unapproved changes that cause an outage would be reprimanded and instructed to follow policy properly.
yeah kanye for me too. used to be my favorite artist, paid out the ass for tickets on multiple tours, knew all the words to his first like, six albums. haven’t listened to him in like a year and a half after the Alex Jones interview and Adidas stories came out. it’s not even virtue signaling, it’s just too much work to not think about all the horrible shit he’s done and said. i count myself extremely lucky that i never got a tattoo
Exactly, it’s laborious separating them. Even shit he’s just produced like Hov or Pusha T. My favorite songs come on shuffle in the car, vibin, 30 sec in… “oh shit… right… hmm… ugh… argghhh” next track
It was his video on IQ tests that set off alarm bells for me.
IQ tests are not some method of determining intelligence they are very much linked to relative education/socioeconomic standing. His complete lack of criticism and neutral/positive support of IQ tests make me think he likes the result of his score…
“Oh and by the way, this is a sponsored video 🤷” and then spends half an hour sucking a company’s dick for money
That and the shampoo ad killed my interest in the channel, and ever since then I’m extremely wary of everyone. Kurzgesagt is also up there, for producing propaganda for a billionaire’s charity.
Whoa, I thought I was alone in disliking Kurzgesagt. What made me unsubscribe was a video that was very clearly sponsored by the game Cyberpunk but didn’t mention that anywhere
Their videos about the climate for the last few years essentially boil down to “shit sucks, everything is bad, a lot of people are going to die. But wait, here’s an interesting new technology that could save the planet! All we have to do is trust capitalism to make this technology happen, and we’ll be saved!”
I’m of the opinion that we should be brutally fucking honest about the climate, and that copium like this only makes people complacent. If we stopped pumping out greenhouse gases right now, we wouldn’t avoid 3° of warming. Hundreds of millions of people are going to die as a direct result of anthropogenic climate change, and there is nothing we can do about that. If we get complacent, that number will be in the multiple billions. Cute cartoon birds turning into skeletons does not reflect the horror of climate change.
The Kurzgesagt climate videos explicitly encourage political action to combat climate change. I think they even encourage it as the most important thing an individual can do. They don’t push ‘let capitalism solve everything’ , they push ‘vote in green candidates + regulation’.
I saw one of those videos taking them down for receiving Bill Gates money and frankly I think it’s a pretty empty hitpiece.
Don’t get me wrong, the Gate’s foundation does push this ‘never question the market’ ideology, and any organisation that relies on their funding deserves to be scrutinized to hell and back. But Kurzgesagt does not push this ideology.
’ The problem with Kurzgesagt’ never found any factual issues with their content, AND the broad message of their videos is ’ lobby the government for regulation + here’s the technology’ . If Gate’s Foundation money has caused them to compromise their values, it’s not done a good job of it.
Funding is not the same as editorial control, and the amount recieved from the gates foundation is not even a large portion of their income, so it’s not like they have much leverage.
Gate’s Foundation and similar spend money literally everywhere, so I worry about people writing good orgs off so quickly.
TL;DW: they assume technology will magically “fix” the climate crisis and no big changes to society or the economy are necessary. thus perpetuating and worsening the climate crisis by pretty much telling people “it’s gonna be fiiiiine”…when it really won’t be “fine”.
edit: note, that most of their content is fine, just the climate “solutions” and stuff are…so optimistic as to be misleading. their physics and futurology stuff is fine. also way oversimplified in many cases, but fine.
Guys, all we have to do is trust the technology that Bill Gates stands to profit from! Never mind the fact that Bill Gates funds my videos, just trust him, guys! The future might look bleak, but you don’t have to take any action! Ol’ Billy already is! Just trust him!!
Yeah, it’s really egregious. I don’t really like their videos because they all feel kind of biased like that… and just a lot of editorializing. To be clear, I’m not above technology getting us out of a jam, but I really don’t think we should expect it… We should really plan with what we know is possible.
Yeah, the new SAT video was great and i still can’t for the life of me figure how those people managed to think about the problem and realize the options were wrong, really goes to show how intelligent people are always doing things with a very alert mind, even if the problem is very easy
I stopped watching after the “speed of electricity in a wire” video. When I realised a video about something I knew about was bollocks, it made me question every other video that taught me about something I didn’t know.
Even if that had been a one off, how would I know? The trust is gone.
There are a lot of videos that made me question the validity of his “science”. While I didn’t want to spend time dissecting a specific video but with the videos piling up I decided it would be easier to just not watch him. I don’t watch videos to question whether it’s bullshit or not, so I ended up watching videos where I don’t have to ask that question.
Op said it’s bollock, not because it’s confusing, so i’m curious what went wrong as well. I think Electroboom challenge him as well, but not sure the context and how it went.
I’ll purposely seek out videos covering topics I’m (more) familiar with, from unfamiliar content creators that I might be interested in watching more of. It helps me gauge their accuracy, confidence, and ability to simplify without losing the underlying reasoning.
Thinking that tailgating the vehicle directly in front of them will make thousands of other vehicles in front of that vehicle magically go faster. And many other reckless car-brain stunts.
Is this the root pathology behind traffic? Like, I never understood traffic, is there someone at the front refusing to go fast enough or is it the result of some distributed error like this that everyone mis-optimizes for that in aggregate results in traffic?
Based on a game* I think that the root issue is that there are multiple bottlenecks, unavoidable for the drivers, like turning or entering/leaving lanes, forcing them to slow down to avoid crashing. Not a biggie if there are only a few cars, as they’ll be distant enough from each other to allow one to slow down a bit without the following needing to do the same; but once the road is close to the carrying capacity, that has a chain effect:
A slows down because it’ll turn
B is too close to A, so it slows down to avoid crashing with A
C is too close to B, so it slows down to avoid crashing with B
[…]
There are solutions for that, such as building some structure to handle those bottlenecks, but they’re often spacious and space is precious in a city. Or alternatively you reduce the amount of cars by discouraging people from using them willy-nilly, with a good mass transport system and making cities not so shitty for pedestrians.
*The game in question is OpenTTD. This is easy to test with trains: create some big transport route with multiple trains per rail, then keep adding trains to that route, while watching the time that they take to go from the start to the end. The time will stay roughly constant up to a certain point (the carrying capacity), then each train makes all the others move slower.
Laughs in good public transit(rail based is based, but buses are good too), where it can achieve 10~100x the capacity in the same footprint
With rail, as long as you have a good timetable and a robust signaling system, 27tpdph with multiple service patterns is achievable, and >33tpdph if you run just one service pattern, all while having a top speed of 120km/h and an average speed of >50km/h
Railway in general (excluding Line-of-sight based light rail and trams) can move stupendous amounts of people at full speed really quickly due to signaling and mass transit inherently being more efficient in general
Most of the time and places a city doesn't need that capacity. Since your rail cannot get the garbage from my house, or my new bed to the house, we need roads as well. Thus for most a bus running in mixed traffic (remember most roads do not have heavy traffic!) is good enough and a lot cheaper. Where you need capacity a train is really good, but you don't need it.
That said I support trains in a lot more places because trains can run fully automated and thus in the real world can achieve the high frequency people need to choose transit even when a car isn't a problem to own (they can afford it and there is no traffic). This is however just a stop gap since self driving buses don't exist (yet?). In most "first world" countries cost of labor is high and automated trains are thus useful in places where a bus could do the job.
Teaching people how to drive safe and smart. Way too many people focus on the car in front of them instead of the traffic ahead. If you watch for brake lights as far up as you can see and let off the gas when appropriate, not only will you be less likely to be in or cause a wreck, you will also save wear and tear on your brakes and use less gas (even more pronounced with regenerative braking).
In addition to the above. When you are driving a route you know well, get the fuck over from which ever side is more likely to be used to turn off. For most highways this means moving left before you near an onramp. Plan ahead and get over before you need to do so you don’t have to speed up or slow down to let people in.
That won't help much. By the time anyone notices the roads are slowing down there are six times as many cars on it as it can safely handle. Driving skills will help on backroads, but that isn't where most people are driving. No amount of training can make heavy traffic safe.
It will most definitely help. All it really will take is a certain percentage of people driving smart to make a difference.
As for safety. Heavy heavy traffic at a crawl is much safer than lighter traffic moving at or usually way above the speed limit. Yes, the chances of a rear-end collision are higher but no one is going to flip their car at 10mph. It’s the lighter traffic with idiots weaving in and out that makes it even more dangerous and more likely that someone dies when said idiot makes someone swerve out of the way or misjudges and hits something or someone they didn’t see coming.
I drive more miles in a couple of days than most people drive all month. I’ve probably racked up 500k+ miles in the past 25 years of driving. I’ve been almost run off the road more times than I can count and it wasn’t when traffic was at a crawl at the pinch points where traffic merges on to the highway.
Driving safely and smart is essential for other reasons, it does prevent additional bottlenecks (you mentioned one, wreckages), and it reduces the impact of the unavoidable bottlenecks (because the cars won’t waste so much time re-accelerating after them). But if my reasoning is correct, most of the time there isn’t much that drivers can do against traffic besides “don’t use the car”.
Traffic is a numbers game. I've often observed that in free flowing traffic where I live (a tiny city with only about 700k people in the entire metro) that if you take two cars that are a safe following distance apart there will be 5 cars in between. If we put in 6 times as many lanes (already a 3-4 lane freeway each way, so we are talk 20 lanes for my tiny city!) traffic wouldn't go any faster, but they would space out to most maintaining a safe following distance. (if you put in 7 times as many lanes they would get farther apart yet, but still not go faster)
There is research showing that adding lanes only helps for maybe six months. Then people realize that the route is better and change the routes they take, which leads to more congestion again. Fewer lanes can actually decrease congestion.
That research is useless! Sure they measured it, so it isn't wrong. However it is useless. What it is really saying is your city was so bad that people were not taking advantage of living in the city because they couldn't conveniently get places. Those people could have lived in rural Montana for all the good a city did. Cities are about all the things you can do by living in it, so if people change because of new roads then you are a city were not meeting their ideals.
Also note that they measured one lane. I already asserted that by the time a city is thinking about adding one more lane they already need to add 6 times as many lanes (not 6 more lanes, 6 times!) IF your city needs 6 times more lanes than it has, no wonder people are choosing alternates, and once a lane exists they will start using it.
It would, but worse. Both are a case of more cars than there is space. Heavy congestion would just need a lot more lanes to fix - maybe 10x as many. (don't ask me to pay for that or where those lanes go)
Or in short, support better transit for your city. For that cost of miles of 15 lane highways you can put in a lot of transit.
No, PRIVATE transit. I don't support the government building roads - that is meddling in the natural state of things and makes private industry unable to compete. If you must have socialist roads than you must have socialist transit as well, but I reject that.
It may be helpful to think of it as a stream or a river, and not a collection of individual drivers. We can only control ourselves, not the stream. People working so hard to put themselves and others at risk are maybe shaving a minute or so off of their commute. Just not worth the risk.
Or constantly inching forward at a red light as if you moving the extra 5 feet will make any significant difference in the time it takes for you to get where you’re going.
That actually has purpose, sometimes. Some lights are triggered by a sensor in the road. If I feel like the light has been red longer than it should be I’ll inch up in case my car didn’t trigger the sensor. Same happens in reverse, cars will be stopped too far back to trigger it so everyone sits until either they move up or the programmed cycle kicks in.
The above said. You aren’t wrong. Plenty of people do that where there aren’t sensors, they also stick their nose way too far out, especially in the left turn lane.
At highway speeds, tailgating 10 ft behind a 53 ft tractor-trailer will net you about a 39% boost in fuel economy. And further your fuel usage will drop by 100% after the trailer flattens your hood from a sudden stop maneuver!
I just drop a mph every couple seconds until they fuck off. Don’t break check, as that’s super dangerous for you and everyone around you; don’t change lanes to accommodate them (unless you’re the source of the bottleneck and camping in the fast lane, in which case GTFO), since transitions are when accidents tend to happen; but you can absolutely slowly annoy a tailgater until they leave your bubble.
I get tailgated all the time despite being in the right lane . Sometimes I can see that person hang up their phone, finally look and move over. (This was on a rural highway, I was doing 20 under the limit and over 15 minutes 3 other cars passed without issues, which accounts for a 5 cars going my direction in that time)
LOL, I also do the passive-aggressive slowdown thing. 99% of the time it works. But then there’s that rare psycho that refuses to get off your ass just to…uh…prove a point…by slowing themselves down? There was a post on schmeddit several years ago where a guy came to a complete stop in the middle of nowehere with the tailgator just sitting 1" from his bumper.
My favorite are the red light racers who have to pass me while I’m going the speed limit and zoom to the next stop light… Just so they can wait at a red light longer than I do.
Sadly it works out for them overall. It only takes a few times of getting to the next light as it turns yellow and they are way ahead while you are sitting there at a red light. Sure sometimes you get to see them when it doesn't work out, but when it works out they are long gone.
This isn’t my experience. Traffic lights are extremely easy to time. Assuming you can see the other lights, watch them. There are a few lights in my city that have a right turn light while the other is red, when the turn light goes yellow that means the red will be green soon. I regularly blow past people sitting at the red while I coasted towards the red and gunned it as it turned green.
They also won’t be going anywhere when they get t-boned by someone else doing the exact same thing or straight running a red. It’s not worth the risk.
Oh and this isn’t a race. The goal is to get to your destination safe and sound without hurting yourself or anyone else. The sooner more people realize that, the safer all of us will be.
I was referring to the city engineers timing all the lights in a city. As a driver paying attention can help, but when you have several square miles of road network, with roads unequally spaced, different speed limits and all the other weird stuff they do in a real city it is not easy. It gets worse if you go from city to a metropolitan area.
I have concluded we will never convince people of that enough to change behavior (they will answer the question correctly when asked, but drive the same) thus i'm supporting transit as much as possible.
Again not my experience. I grew up in Tampa and have lived/worked in other big cities like Charlotte. On the big main roads through town, the lights are usually timed so if you hit one green your golden (outside of extenuating circumstances) if you hit a red you’re screwed. They are also usually timed so if you hit a green and do the speed limit you should be fine and have all greens. It’s the idiots speeding or crawling that mess that up for themselves or others.
In addition to the above you have big cities like NYC, Vegas, etc that have a central traffic control and will change the timing to account for traffic. In my current city we don’t have that but a lot of the lights will go into red/yellow flashing mode where the main drag can cruise through but the cross street should be stopping but is free to go without waiting for the full cycle.
I’m not sure where you have lived or worked but in most places I’ve lived there have been only a couple of main thoroughfares and the rest all neighborhood roads that take twice as long even with traffic. Where I am now most of the time you are using the interstate to get across town east/west or for north/south you have like 3 options depending on where you are going. Some places you literally can’t get to without getting on the interstate or going some long ass way around.
I feel like you are more encouraged to interact here. Like you’re helping the fediverse grow. The other thing for me is that people seem to be much more civil then in other places. So yeah I feel the same.
Exactly this. I never bothered to do much interacting on Reddit. Either comments were trolled or downvoted “just for shits and giggles” or they were buried in no time under all the snarky oh-so hilarious comments that instantly killed all real discussion.
From what I see, Lemmy is just at the edge of “not enough content”. So many communities have one or two committed posters. So I comment as much as I can and post when I see something interesting.
For me it’s the gonewild subs… Once you start getting regular content there and they expand out to gonewildcurvy or bdsmgw or 30sgonewild etc you’ll really see lemmy take off.
They’ve had some issues with that though. lemmynsfw was heavily defederated from others over concerns about CSAM being federated, and after that lemmynsfw had much more mild porn.
Personally, I think that as long as porn is still freely available via old reddit without logging in, then it won’t take off much. Also, we’re in the post-Only Fans age, so it’s unlikely lemmy will ever get that “pure” gonewild feel that reddit had, as almost every user that posts their own porn is now doing it for money.
That’s the thing I find so surprising. There are so few NSFW posters. Porn pushed a lot of technical and economic innovation online. If Lemmy can’t get traction on adult content, we’re in bad shape.
They have a device which progressively shines a light on a piece of paper while moving across the page and converts the brightness of the reflected light into an audio signal. Once it reaches the edge the paper is incremented and the process repeats. Each of these segments of sound are sent via a standard telephone connection to a similar device on the other end which uses the sounds to reproduce the image on the original paper on a new sheet of paper. This can be used to send forms, letters, black and white pictures, and even chain letters. It also forms the basic underpinning of a significant fraction of formal communications with landlords, employers, medical systems, government offices, and so on.
I think he’s saying that, for as futuristic as Japan may seem, they also still rely on outdated methods for certain things, just like every other country.
Ironically, I just noticed this morning that the pizzaria on the corner (here, in the US) can take orders via fax (as well as in person, via phone, and on the Web).
I don’t know about today, but back around 2000, stuff on the Japanese market was quite a bit ahead of the US in small, portable, personal electronic devices, like palmtop computers and such. I remember being pretty impressed with it. But then I also remembered being surprised a few years later when I learned that personal computer ownership was significantly lower than in the US. I think that part of it is that people in Japan spend a fair bit of time on mass transit, so you wanted to have small, portable devices tailored to that, and that same demand doesn’t really exist in the US.
Then everyone jumped on smartphones at some point after that, and I think things homogenized a bit.
Yeah, PC games are a nothing market in Japan as virtually no one owns a gaming PC; they’re much more likely to own a console (Sony and Nintendo are domestic companies) or a mobile device.
I think it’s because the country did not significantly recover from the 90s financial crisis, and their society is so conservative that they literally could not try anything modern again afterwards
They literally went “industrial society and it’s consequences have been a disaster for Japanese society”
The impact of the financial crisis reverberates to this day, and that drives a huge proportion of the issues, but the crisis in my opinion was inevitable. From my perspective, the Post-War Economic Miracle, as it’s called, catapulted Japan through all the stages of economic development into an almost accelerated version of the same problems that are afflicting the U.S. and other Western countries.
The dream of infinite growth in the Japanese context fell flat for the same reasons it is falling apart in other developed countries. A rise in standard of living and wages led to offshoring and outsourcing of production, the hollowing out of the middle class, a work culture at odds with family life, and so on. The country’s land and businesses were valued in the late 1980s as though it could remain competitive internationally with a mostly domestic supply chain, even as the production costs of its goods continued to rise along with the needs of its population, which in a globalized economy turned out to be a pipe dream.
We see the same thing in the U.S., where every president promises to restore the American manufacturing base, then comes up against the reality that U.S.-produced products made by U.S. workers paid U.S. wages cannot be competitive with something built in Southeast Asia and shipped overseas for less than $100 per ton. But the conservatism of Japanese society certainly plays a role, in that the country is highly resistant to change, and also due to a rigidity that stifles innovation, making it hard to start new businesses outside the keiretsu/conglomerate structure. The U.S. has somewhat mitigated its manufacturing decline through the creation of new service sector and especially tech businesses that operate internationally, which path is less available to Japan due to the rigidity of its business structure.
But the part I disagree with is the idea that Japan has rejected industrial society. Japan is still extremely proud of its culture and the impact it’s had globally. They love that people in western countries eat ramen and sushi, play Nintendo games or watch anime, and they have a deep reverence for their globally successful businesses and particularly the auto industry. They have no desire to reject or withdraw from industrial society, they just haven’t been able to figure out amidst external economic barriers, and internal cultural and financial barriers, how to move forward.
We see the same thing in the U.S., where every president promises to restore the American manufacturing base, then comes up against the reality that U.S.-produced products made by U.S. workers paid U.S. wages cannot be competitive with something built in Southeast Asia and shipped overseas for less than $100 per ton.
That is the lie they tell us. Meanwhile we do everything we can to make we don’t have an industrial base.
We zone factories far away from everything instead of allowing them to be in normal commuting range
We tax the land they are on the same way we tax commercial property. Which you might think is fair but we don’t do that to farmers. Especially considering how easy retail gets it, with governments willing to give plenty of free roads and police protection to them
We treat inventory as taxable which punishes factories that want a buffer and rewards the quick turnover of fast fashion places. Ever wonder why they never have your size and you have to go to the website to get it?
Thanks to our shit medical system any workplace injury is going to be devastating which means that the insurance as a whole will be very high.
Factory investments take longer to pay off which doesnt mean much when we all think quarterly. A tax on rapid stock trading could probably fix that but that isn’t going to happen.
There are other factors as well. We don’t hire women to do factory work which limits the labor pool. There is still a lot of discrimination against Latinos and African Americans. Which again lowers the labor pool and kinda leaves us with…well the kind of people who feel only comfortable only working with white Christian men.
Aristotle was obviously a great teacher and philosopher but he ended up being wrong about a lot. Like he thought the “elements” were earth, wind, fire, and water and that all objects want to be in their “natural” place. So, if you drop a rock, it tries to return to the earth. Fire goes up because it’s trying to get to where it “wants” to live.
He thought eels didn’t procreate because no one had ever seen it happening. (They go out to sea to fuck.) He was into bees and correctly noticed that there were workers and drones and that young bees grow out of the honeycomb. But he just assumed the Queen was a King and that worker bees were out collecting tiny baby bees from flowers. (He thought the air just blew pollen around and the honey naturally appeared.)
He had a lot of ideas that were just ideas but he was so influential and his writings were preserved and translated. It took a shocking number of years for people to question if Aristotle was full of shit.
Dude developed testable hypotheses thousands of years ago, not exactly like but very close to what we call the scientific method today. Full of shit? What an ignorant thing to say.
My boy Aristotle thought men had more teeth than women, and whatever testable hypothesis he created to prove that fact didn’t include, you know, counting the teeth of men and women.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the guy, and will agree that “classical elements” is probably the dumbest thing to accuse him of being wrong about. Hell, I have considered getting a Bekker number tattoo, but he was definitely full of some shit. It’s okay to acknowledge he was right about some things and wrong about others. That’s the whole point of this thread.
Like he thought the “elements” were earth, wind, fire, and water and that all objects want to be in their “natural” place. So, if you drop a rock, it tries to return to the earth. Fire goes up because it’s trying to get to where it “wants” to live.
That’s basically correct, though, as long as you’re intepreting “elements” to mean something more in linenwith “states of matter”, rather than actual fundamental periodic style elements.
“Element” is a fairly general word, we just generally use it colloquially to refer specifically to the chemical elements. If you interpret his usage in the same way we use “states of matter”, it’s not horrendously far off. Earth, water, air, and fire roughly correspond to solid, liquid, gas, and (extremely rudimentary, very low ionization) plasma (or perhaps a more general energetic concept). In any case, an object “wanting” to get to its “natural” place also isn’t terribly far off from a statement of consistent physical laws. Solids do “want” to accumulate with other solids by gravity, energetic gases do “want” to rise above less energetic ones through buoyancy.
The worst part of it was that for a ton of stuff he had contemporaries that were right about much much more, but were dismissed in favor of his confidently incorrect BS.
For example the Epicureans, who thought matter was made of tiny indivisible parts, that light too was made of indivisible parts moving really fast, that each parent contributed to a “doubled seed” which determined the traits of the child and could bring back features of skipped generations, that the animals which we see today were just the ones that were best able to survive to reproduce, and that all of existence arose only from the random interactions of these indivisible parts of matter and not from any intelligent design.
And because Aristotle’s stupid ideas influenced the lineage of modern thought, most people learn about him but very few learn about the other group that effectively preempted modern thought millennia earlier.
But he just assumed the Queen was a King
Actually, he acknowledged “some say” the Queen was female, but then argued it couldn’t be because the gods don’t give women weapons and it had a stinger. And the identification of the leader of the hive as male was actually used for centuries to justify patriarchal monarchy as being “by God’s design” because after all, look at the bee hive (somehow when we realized it was actually a female that logic went up in smoke).
So there were other people that did know what was correct, but Aristotle screwed up the development of thinking around it by rationalizing an opposite answer with an appeal to misogyny.
Wild that he was only two degrees of separation from a teacher famed for praising the knowledge of self-ignorance and not falling into false positives and negatives.
What I’m getting from this is that people were the same back then as they are now. Aristotle was basically a hack who said just the right bigoted things for the ruling class to latch onto to justify the status quo. Like an ancient political commentator, or popular “scientist” who says anything for attention.
But the Epicureans also denied that virtue is primary in achieving eudaimonia and from a Stoic POV, that’s just a cardinal sin. Due to the Stoics is also the idea of animals being self-aware as well as cosmopolitanism and the absolutely unheard of notion that women have the same mental faculties as men and thus should also enjoy education.
But really, all the “Figuring out how to be like Sokrates” schools of philosophy were highly productive.
I used to watch iilluminaughtii several years ago, probably because I've been grabbing popcorn and enjoying watching someone dunking on multi-level marketing since, uh, 90s at least. Then I watched some video that was about some topic that I was kind of in middle of a deep dive, too (I can't remember which exactly. Elan School, probably?). And the video was bland as hell. And then I was like "yeah, most of these other videos are kind of forgettable shallow pap too".
...and this year we found out about the whole landlordy corporate town fancier backstabby financial abuser helicopter-CEO situation. And the content mill situation. And the plagiarism thing. Can't forget the plagiarism thing. ...I was like, "oh this all just makes sense now."
Illuminaughtii was getting pushed into my feed so hard right before everything went down that I’ve started to cast side-eye on anyone that the algorithm starts to push hard.
On the plus side, I found Cruel World Happy Mind because of all the awful stuff Illuminaughtii did to her.
her podcast (which is just the audio of her videos) keeps getting pushed to my Spotify feed. I don’t even use Spotify for podcasts nor I even listened to her at all on said platform. She must be spending a pretty penny in that algorithm push
Please note that in aerodynamics, “lift” is any aerodynamic force that acts perpendicular to the relative wind on an object, so it’s lift whether it pushes a plane up, down, left, right, or pushes a sailing boat across the wind.
Also the keel of the boat that keeps it sailing in a straight line is technically providing lift in the water, although that “lift” is sideways. Also it isn’t aerodynamic lift, but hydrodynamic. The general field is called fluid dynamics, which covers both gasses and liquids.
You’ve got some good answers, but the problem with the air bouncing idea is that it ignores the air on top of the wing, or to the leeward side of the sail. The sail is pushed on by the windward air, and pulled on by the leeward air. (Edit: technically not pulled on, but you can model it that way if you take atmospheric pressure as 0 and anything lower than that as negative; it will give you correct results)
A better way to think about it is flow turning - as the wind moves past the sail, its flow is turned and the momentum change causes an equal and opposite change in momentum of the boat: www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/…/right2.html
So ideally the leading edge of the sail should be parallel to the oncoming wind, and the trailing edge will be by definition parallel to the outgoing wind. The difference in velocity between these two winds multiplied by the mass of air passing over them over time will give you the force acting on the sail.
If the leading edge isn’t parallel, the air’s transition from free flow into contact with the sail will not be smooth, and will cause losses that reduce the efficiency of the sail.
In practice, the way to achieve this parallel flow is to let out the sail until you see “luffing”, which is just the leading edge flapping a bit in the wind. Then you tighten it until the luffing disappears, at which point the sail should be correctly trimmed. As you carry on you can occasionally repeat this process to check that you’ve still got the right angle, as minor shifts in wind or boat direction can change the ideal angle of attack.
This is also called “setting” the sail. So when a ship “sets sail” it’s referring to the fact a skipper would order the crew to “set sails”, which would start them moving. Now the term also means to commence a voyage.
In some bigger boats you have strings called “telltales” on the surface of the sail. If you see them flapping you know the air flow is turbulent, and you can trim the sail until the telltales on both sides of the sail are blown into a smooth line along the sail. If you tighten the sail too much, the leeward telltales will flap. If you let it out it too much, the windward telltales will flap.
A flat surface is much less efficient as it will cause a lot more turbulence on the leeward side. A lot of work has been done to make sails form the most efficient shape, and they are always deliberately curved. The shape will change depending on the tightness of the sheet (the rope that sets the sail) and on its manufacture, but ultimately your sail shape was basically set when it was made. Different sail shapes will be optimised for different types of tack and different tasks, but I don’t know enough about that to explain more. Mainly I know that spinnakers are made for running downwind and the other sails usually have to make do for the rest of the situations, but this article tells you a lot more: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sail_components
I only just found that article, so if it disagrees with anything I’ve said here I’d defer to it.
Very high performance sails and setups can do some cool things, like racing catamarans with their very sleek hulls and optimised sails allow you to sail in a close haul within 30-something degrees of the wind, whereas most normal sailboats can’t get much closer than 45 degrees.
Edit: This seems like a decent resource for first time sailors, and gives some more in depth explanation of how to set your sails correctly: www.cruisingworld.com/learn-to-sail-101/
This is also where I learned what telltales are called. I’ve never sailed bigger boats much tbh.
Okay, I think that’s most of what I can info-dump on the basis of your question. You landed on an intersection of two of my special interests lol :)
It’s completely my ignorance that i didn’t think of a sail as an aerofoil, in my lightbulb moment my brain thought, “fabric catch wind” in a very neanderthal voice.
I really appreciate everyone’s comments however i think with yours the nail is sufficiently hit on its head.
I always liked Calhoun’s solution. Obliterate the Maru. It’s either a trap or it’s not. If it is, you don’t want to leave it there for someone else to fall for. If it’s not, you don’t want to leave it there to cause a diplomatic incident, and fiery plasma death is probably better than whatever the Klingons / Romulans would do to the crew.
Of course, I don’t recommended launching a full spread of photon torpedoes at your gf.
While you can create spiracles that repel polar substances like water, you cannot protect them against surfactant like soap. No more showers unless you want to drown.
You can waterboard them with it. If you want to effectively kill them, I'd recommend using the tried and true neurotoxin option sold at your local grocery store. You can be your own Saddam Hussein without having to hide in the most random places after committing your war crimes.
Not necessarily. I’m far from sold on the idea, but lungs are able to take in enough oxygen to hyperventilate easily, clothes would reduce the maximum air intake to some extent, but from l full capacity would be max you need to breathe to max out your muscles - everything past that would be excess capacity
If we’re going for redundancy and throughput, clothes probably would be more useful as a filter than being a limiter (and filtration is why I’m not on board with this design)
My top company that I will never give another dollar to is Adobe, as they forced me into a 1 year “contract” with a $200 cancellation fee after forgetting to cancel their one month discounted trial in time.
Other companies for myself include Dell, HP, and Canadian Tire.
the adobe cancellation fee is the most evil and greedy shit i’ve ever witnessed in software. they SCALE it so you pay the exact amount you would have paid if you just remained subscribed for the full year, except when you pay that money through a cancellation you immediately lose your license to run their software. they literally make you pay the remaining subscription period while taking away your access to the fucking product
Obligatory “fuck Adobe”. My proudest moment last year was cutting our company’s Acrobat licenses by 70% and taking about a million bucks out of their greedy little pockets.
Am I crazy? I cannot find that open source for PDFgear. Yes it’s free, but they need to have some income if they can offer an AI integration. What’s the catch?
Nitro is shaping up to be a good alternative for enterprise needs. Not sure about the rest. They seem to have a strangle hold on the creative suite in the enterprise.
I think the final straw was trying to buy tire rims. Went online and it says it was in stock and my local store, went to it and they said it was out of stock despite the website saying it was. Sent me to the next store over 20 minutes away saying they had some, went there and they told me that they didn’t have any either despite the internal system saying they did.
Wasted an hour and a bunch of gas trying to get those rims. Not a huge deal but if a company can’t tell what they have and when they have it and prefer to waste my time I don’t care to give them my business.
Plus they only stock like 3 items per store for every flyer deal, hoping you’ll buy shit just because you’re there already. Same with Walmart which is also on my blacklist.
I used to work at a company that provided tech support for a few Canadian Tires. They don’t hire nearly enough staff. They try to make up for it with high amounts of automation. Frequently people will come and steal from them because there aren’t enough staff to stop that. This causes the inventory system to think there is more stock than there is. Because the reduced staff, they don’t frequently manually check their stock so it can be quite some time before it becomes aparent.
If you complain enough, adobe will let you cancel for free. But they are also on my blacklist, for making me work to cancel a service for free. Absolutely ridiculous.
asklemmy
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.