mech987987

Globalization generally crushes small languages. I consider it a blessing and a curse- the more people speak a common language, the more they can communicate and collaborate together; unfortunately they tend to forget their traditional languages as a consequence. It strikes me as inevitable.

Even if two different aircraft have the same space constraints for the hook (which is a pretty big if), they have different mass and deceleration characteristics (i.e. minimum and maximum approach velocity) during landing- changing the force exerted on the hook. Designing a lighter hook for the lower loaded aircraft is VERY desirable for high tech fighter jets- every ounce saved is better range, better agility, etc.

As far as the little lip at the very tip of the hook- it looks to me like the initial design was trying to minimize any risk of digging into the flight deck and causing damage- this is just a guess though.

More mass inside the wheel increases unsprung weight and worsens some ride/suspension characteristics of a vehicle-

that being said the tradeoff might not be too bad in this case.

As far as I can tell marijuana ticks all those marks but junkies still go for harder drugs anyway.

I would suggest the following explanation:

You could break people up into political and wealth-based quadrants: 1. Conservative and rich 2. Conservative and poor 3. Liberal and rich 4. Liberal and poor

Consider the typical expressed beliefs of quadrants 1 and 2. Both advocate that individualism and an internal locus of control can help you succeed in life. The difference is whether they have "succeeded in life" (by socioeconomic measures/ whatever).

Consider the same for quadrants 3 and 4. They would typically be more likely to advocate for the idea that success is based on luck. Again, the difference between 3 and 4 is whether they have not "succeeded."

Of all the quadrants, quadrant number 3 (liberal and rich) has a unique cognitive dissonance between their lived reality and their stated moral position. They tend to believe that rich people have achieved their wealth largely through luck, and now have power and autonomy that others lack. They state that the rich should help the poor, and they are rich, so they continually must justify their own wealth. This type of cognitive dissonance does not exist in the same way for the other 3 quadrants. That's why TFA is inevitably critical of the left for its luxury beliefs moreso than the right.

Among the people that care about cultural appropriation, there are so many different interpretations of which acts are offensive that it is a minefield of uncertainty. A lot of it feels to me like a vocal minority trying to railroad the discussion.

If you want it to last longer than 20 minutes it would weight about 250 pounds.

Chainsaws are at the very corner of tools that have to be both portable, handheld, and very powerful. This means that their energy source should very dense. Lithium does not come close for the big saws.

Urban tree climbing arborists (that need a small saw to chop limbs while up in a tree) now sometimes use battery powered saws that run off of an "umbilical"- a cable off of the saw runs to a separate (backpack or other container) battery. These saws are among the smaller chainsaws (maybe a 12" bar, sized for chopping limbs). The other extreme is a saw for bucking and felling medium and large trees, which uses a MUCH more powerful motor and a 30" bar or bigger.

If supply and demand don't set the number of surgeons, then who does?

Currently, the American Medical Association limits the number of new doctors being trained in medical school. The AMA judges this to be enough to attend to the population. The long working hours, high wages, and continuing shortage of doctors is direct evidence that their judgement is questionable.

To give a visceral example- There's an episode of Clarkson's Farm where the customers that parked in the grass at his farm shop need to get their cars pulled out of the mud by a tractor.

Hasn't the midwest host large herds of grazing buffalo for millenia? I think the last I read about this stuff, most cattle farmers want their grass to still be the old school deep-rooted stuff, if other grasses take over it is a symptom of overgrazing.

I think that the article is a countervailing idea against the idea of the "paradox of tolerance."

If you accept the paradox of tolerance, then the truly intolerant are the ones you should not tolerate. Taken to its extreme, you can apply the paradox of tolerance to shun anybody that does not conform to ideological purity.

There is a balance to be found between the two extremes.

I disagree regarding how much overlap there is between low voltage skill sets and high voltage skill sets. Even though the consequences are different, understanding when the circuit is energized and not is important, understanding the path of current flow is important, and lots of other concepts intuitively overlap.

For most household wiring tasks, turning off the circuit at the breaker box is the main safety provision. Using a wire nut properly is a bit tricky but not the worst thing in the world, and I don't trust a rushed contractor to tighten a wire nut any better than myself.

Another mechanism promoted by the same trend the article mentions- corn ethanol yields increasing.

I figure that there is no binary distinction between what is ancient and what is modern enough to matter.

Would you agree that older wrongs are only different from newer wrongs as a matter of degree, rather than a matter of kind?

If you had really given them the benefit of the doubt, you would not have implicitly shamed them for using the language they chose to use. Or explicitly shamed me for defending their choice of language.

You are assuming the intent of the poster. Your "civil rights" example does not capture the same (ambiguous) spirit that the poster's use of "woke" captures.

1. Did they use scare quotes to make it seem like "woke" is a nonsense concept? 2. Did they use quotes to identify that they are aware that they are perhaps using the term ackwardly, having little experience using it in discussion? 3. Are they putting it in quotes because they happen to already be mostly on your side regarding the word's offensiveness, and wanted to have a shorthand way to express that conviction without getting bogged down in the details? 4. Are they putting it in quotes as shorthand for all the ambiguity of points #1-3 and a myriad of other possible positions?

Your line of reasoning is a moral argument against using this word except in very limited circumstances where the speaker's moral stance is made clear with lots of stated qualifications- with no intent to offend, and with no possible indicated bias against any group that could be slighted by use of the term. This is a hostile norm of expectations that it makes conversations more difficult and less productive.

As far as I can perceive it, the majority of people haven't arrived at the conclusion that woke is a slur. When you are on the front lines of the linguistic fight, you're either gonna have to convince people that the word is hurtful, or at least convince them that if they use the word, bad things will happen to them. I'm not really convinced of either of these right now, and I hope that the majority of people are the same. After all, wokeness is a political stance, and it's pretty rare for descriptors of political stances to get a reputation as such a vile slur that we no longer use the word. After all, Nazi and Communist get thrown around as insults all the time, along with their non-insulting literal denotations.

There was a period of time where self-described woke people identified themselves as woke, and now there's a period of time where people that don't like woke people mock them as woke, and other people just use it as a descriptor, and it all overlaps, and also all sorts of people have a good idea of the corpus of what woke means. At the very least, it's a useful word to refer to the concept it is meant to capture.

I think there's a cultural thing where once a group's use of the word is "outed" to the public the in-group doesn't like it anymore. That's how it makes me feel seeing you react like this- you're going out of your way to be on the bleeding edge of in-group linguistic fashion.

Demand for cheerios is elastic- people can substitute by buying oatmeal. Demand for salmon fillets is elastic- people can substitute by buying tuna, beef, beans, tofu, etc.... for just about any given food item there are substitutes to provide similar high quality nutrition.

You are simplifying too much by saying demand for food is inelastic. It's true that people consume roughly the same amount of calories every day. However, Grocery stores are a low-margin business. Your grocery store is in constant negotiations with suppliers that vary from local produce farmers to General Mills to Anhauser-Busch. Some suppliers may be making high margins.

The idea that increased consolidation has caused this inflation has to compete with other ideas- such as:

The productive output of all sorts of businesses decreased during the pandemic at a time when the money supply increased. There were more dollars chasing fewer goods. As the pandemic eased off, the productive output was able to climb back to capacity, but money supply increases (and lagging effects of reduced inventory of goods) remained in effect.

In a time where there is less production, the production that remains is more valued. Margins would tend to increase in this environment.

How do you prove that the consolidation effect is more relevant than the macroeconomic picture?

You two are talking past eachother. You did not address his argument.

He might be able to use the defense of "they did the unlicensed securities operations against every piece of advice I gave them". If he tried to stop it but was unable that could be a legitimate defense.

$100/MWh is pretty cheap. Around here the retail rate I pay on my power bill is something like 12 cents per kWh which is $120/MWh.

But on your broad point I agree. I couldn't see it being economical for anything other than emergencies or other situations where power is waaaaayyy more expensive than retail rates.

I think the simple answer is that there is a disconnect between what caramelizing onions means for serious applications (i.e. french onion soup) and not-so-serious applications (your average philly cheesesteak or omelette). Just cook 'em down a bit on higher heat if your application is not so serious.

Is there really anything substantive in arguing over the terminology?

I'm fairly certain you understand the intention behind his statement. Markets ebb and flow in accordance with forces of supply and demand, and the government pumping liquidity into a market falls naturally into the same metaphorical linguistic space as "cash flows". Money is as liquid as water.

If the motive behind the argument is suspicion that characterizing capitalism as natural is painting it in too positive of a light, then I'd figure that capitalism is as Hobbesian as the jungle.

They are referring to a cylindrical hole or any non-tapered hole (i.e. "square" in the sense that the walls are perpendicular to the bottom).

I've also heard that a "keyed" hole works well- a hole that flares outward toward the bottom traps the solid chunk of asphalt inside.

for point #6, the fact that getting kids around town using public transportation is slow, expensive, and difficult makes me wonder if the anti-car people even have families in mind when they advocate for their alternative solutions.

The downtown areas that are likely to be workable with no parking in the mid-sized cities I've lived in are already essentially "child-free zones". I think that childless people tend to self-select into the trendy downtown lifestyle, and are more inclined to imagine the world as a playground for young adults.

Where did you read that the carbon cycle is coming to an end?

When a company liquidates, bondholders are paid out before stockholders. This is to prevent moral hazard from companies going deep into debt and running off with the cash by liquidating the company.

It will successfully punish facebook (the payout will happen). It just won't reward individual consumers very much.

>At sampling location A (highlighted in image above), which simulates conditions at the intersection of SW 5th Avenue and SW Yamhill Street, a key location in the 2 June protests, the IDLH value was continuously exceeded for a period of six minutes and twenty seconds. The maximum airborne concentration recorded at sampling location A was 443.9 mg/m³.

>At sampling location H (highlighted in image above), just one block north of sampling location A, at the intersection of SW 5th Avenue and SW Morrison Street, our simulation recorded the highest airborne concentration value across the sampled locations: 4,568 mg/m³, more than 2,000 times the IDLH threshold.

Just from knowing how gases/ aerosols disperse- the airborne concentration is extremely dependent on proximity to the particular tear gas munition that is emitting the tear gas. Any individual tear gas munition that is emitting gas at a particular moment is certain to exceed the IDLH threshold in its immediate vicinity. This article leaves out the level of detail that would be needed to know for sure whether they placed a sampling location within 6 inches of a live tear gas grenade, but the weirdly absent details following their scary citation of 2,000 times the limit sure makes me think they did.