theelous3

To ask a question probing at the title... who _is_ it for?

Who's doing such well known repetitive tasks that they also need estimation for?

Circular black hole imo.

What is someone with vip status? I could be an anti-social weak willed loser respected by nobody, but if I have good health insurance in the US I'm going to get preferential treatment over someone with worse health insurance regardless of whatever other social status goings on there are. Is having good health insurance social status? Or is it just having good health insurance?

I'm not from the US so the hospital example doesn't really apply to me, it's far more egalitarian here, but even in the US I think the above counterexample shows some cracks in the notion.

Furthermore, I don't think a lack of advantages are the same as repercussions. Repercussions are active negatives, where lack of advantages are inactive positives. This is specifically what I was asking about, and why I don't feel like these examples are getting at "repercussions".

I don't think you're really addressing the question with the hospital example nor the others. I could be the senior engineer of Amazing Inc., as well as a jacked high level MMA fighter and gracious altruist - beloved by all known to me - but if someone who knows the hospital admins walks in they are of course going to get some preferential treatment. This sort of "I know a guy" status that gives you a leg up on other people _regardless_ of their status doesn't really capture the essence here, I think.

I had an absolutely massive post written but I think it might be easier to ask, what do you think a low status person is?

What repercussions do you imagine for someone you wouldn't think is high status?

> Left to your own devices, with no task demanding your immediate concentration, you tend to spend a good deal of time thinking about other people—your judgments of them; their evaluations of you.

This might be true for the author but is very presumptuous imo.

I spend approximately no time per day judging others or interrogating my social status. I of course think about other people, but there are many ways to think about others. There are many ways to think about yourself.

I guess it's not surprising the author of a piece on status has a highly status alined thought process, but it's not by a longshot the default mode for everyone.

> But if you say you want to be promoted because you want respect, that’s often regarded as an appropriate desire.

I would think the same in each case. If someone doesn't think they have respect because of their job title, or they think they have it for the inverse, I feel bad for them. If I meet you on a monday and you're an x, and tuesday you're an x+1, in my eyes you're the same person. Similarly if I meet people for the first time. I honestly don't think I'm being particularly contrarian on this. I know idiot ceos, intelligent homeless people, and some kind of everyone in between. This whole take strikes me as naive to the nature of people.

Even the author of some other quoted book has weird priors I completely disagree with:

> for many of us this price is simply too high; we’d rather be low on the totem pole than be perceived as arrogant and domineering

If you're arrogant and domineering _you are low on the totem pole_. It's really interesting to see that this author is putting someone "high" on the totem pole because of some singular status markers like job title / situational power regardless of their behaviour. It says a lot.

It's not that I don't think status is real. I just don't believe it can be gained by maxmimising any one or even some multiple of typical status markers.

Idk. I just find this surreal.

That would fall outside the bounds of words on a screen, written indiscriminately.

Yes? That is exactly the commenters concern. Fill a bowl to the brim with water, throw a ball in. It spills over the edges of the bowl by "just displacing" the water.

It wouldn't because it wouldn't be stealthy.

Even worse than letting an enemy know where you are now, is letting them know where you will be in the future.

ah famous last words, in the flesh

Used an Irish card about 12 hrs ago, no problem.

> Database Systems (relational algebra, SQL)

Comp sci students don't typically deal with a lot of real data, and the requirements around data that shape how it's structured in the real world. They definitely do not deal much with scaling dbs, or concurrent access, or anything you might find in the typical distributed systems that make up IRL.

> Concurrent Programming

Same for the same reasons above. They usually just have to do some simple things with simple systems on a local level.

> Network Programming

Same again.

Considering lead's modulus of elasticity is essentially zero, yes :) You can drill, tap, and generally rely on this material to stay in the shape it was printed at in maaaaaany more situations than lead.

Of course the petg in there is a limiting factor, but even plain petg is an order of magnitude better than lead at retaining its shape under a wide range of loads. You can print gears for lathes in petg! And they last years! (If you're wondering why you might do this - it's a good idea to have a cheap point of failure on devices that have enough power to rip themselves to shreads.)

Not to mention this is only v1 of the material. We could see exotic plastics that are far more heat resistant like PEEK get a secondary filler for niche radioactive usecases.

Lead is a nightmare to machine. It's gummy. You'd think aluminum was easy because it's softer than steels, but that comes with it's own challenges. Lead is worse so. You're right that this isn't so bad on a lathe as opposed to a mill or (lol) a grinder, but you're not going to see a need for a lot of solid round shielding.

A little bit of lead in steel will increase machinability, but only a teeny amount. Similar to adding a small bit of phosphorus.

It's also hard to hit dimensions in lead, and if you do hit them, the second the temperature changes you'll lose them. Additionally, whatever you make can't see any stress, or the part is donezo.

Idk if you've ever handled lead - but considering you can bend thick sheets of it by hand and melt it on your stove, I'm sure you can imagine the kind of issues you might have integrating expensively machined chunks of it in to hot high pressure environments with moving parts.

Even though lead is cheap and this filament is expensive, actually getting the lead to shape by machining or working it is also a costly process. 3d printing has a sort of cost ceiling. Once a part is designed, all of the real work is done. For fabrication and machining - once the part is designed the work has only begun.

What might look like a small and simple combination of geometric shapes can cost thousands to machine.

I'd rather spend 500 on filament and a day's engineering labor on a part than the same day's engineering, 100$ of lead, and 1k or more on manufacturing. Not to mention the lead times on machined parts can be wild.

The article explains the beneficial properties of tungsten with rad shielding. Tungsten sheilds better than lead. Lead is easier to form to simple shapes (flats, straight forward wraps). It is essentially impossible to form it in to complex shapes. Tungsten has a high temperature resistance, and low deformation under load. Broadly speaking it can be relied upon to stay in the shape it's machined to. But getting in to that shape is very expensive and difficult - an understatement.

I can't explain everything in every comment. You can research the materials if you want to understand the discussion in more context.

Tbh I have no idea how you came away thinking I said lead is hard. "also difficult". "this" is the material that is the center point of the discussion. Context, yo.

so machine a die, machine your part, build random fixtures, cast lead on to your part...

or just print it?

It's a bit of a no brainer.

Even if you just want a shielding layer, the convenience of this will win out on low volume parts.

I didn't say it was hard. I said machining tungsten is hard. Machining lead is also difficult and weird and the end result can be barely usable for anything, especially in hot environments or with any load. It's just not good.

If you need complex parts, this could be an excellent choice.

Idk what the confusion here is. Maybe you are unfamiliar with machining?

Sure, if you want to shield a wall or container or something you will just slap lead on it, but this could be used for complex shielding of sensitive components in nuclear machinery and devices. Machining hard materials is extremely expensive and difficult (exotic material cutters or edm, with slow high precision grinding).

What specifically gives you that impression? They describe their experience talking to alignment people, characterise it with the 90% rule, and describe their preference for tackling the 90% issue as in line with apathetic or ideologically opposed to remedy conservatives. They then say they are not surprised outsiders might label them conservative - _just as they have_.

They are describing their own view _and_ attributing their reasoning to others.

But the argument isn't valid.

If i believed in socially progressive lib values, but thought a non-explicitly progressive issue was a major immanent threat... you'd consider me conservative for the structure of my priorities?

Not following the logic at all here.

I'm not depressed:)

Software dev. If computer steal my computer job, I have plenty of other physical skills.

Specialisation is for insects.

> for the benefit of the device, not for your own benefit.

I'm sure someone else has already brought this up, but I feel remit to point out that the benefit to not damaging very expensive items is that the items were not expensive to themselves, but to the owner. There is a risk and cost analysis, in which adding a case is almost always worth it unless you are an edge case user like yourself.

What benefits the device benefits the owner, with 1:1 parity in the metric.

Fair. Thanks.

You could read the article? Players each have a score. What they do with that is up to them.

You know what takes literally infinite more courage? Being able to walk it back when absolutely spot on explanations are given by outside sources after you spend years on the conspiracy circut making your experience the central point of your entire identity.

There is no explanation that could ever get this guy to admit he was wrong. He's trapped.

Being unable to middle mouse click knives to open new tabs is a usability dealbreaker for me. Wrap the image with links, not binding awkward events.

It'll also reduce your load a bit, as I won't have to continuously reload the grid page of 50 knives just to look at one.

Some other suggestions:

* If I search handle material "micarta" I get a whole bunch of distinct incarnations, like "micarta, ash wood burl" and "bone, micarta, wood". Tokensise each term in the material type and return them as groups. "micarta" should have both of those, as should "wood", and ofc "bone" would distinguish them.

* For brand search, populate the list alphabetically or something. It's nice to have a list to scroll to explore. I have no idea what options are available other than a few brands I already know. If the goal is to find and explore the 60k knives there, I need some help.

* Sanity check the knife stats. There are going to be zero knives with a blade thickness of 1", nevermind 5". An example of one that shows up here is this knife: https://www.knifegeek.io/blades/boker-121589 which I presume you scraped from here: https://www.boker.de/en/vollintegral-2.0-jaeger-gold-121589#... but you should maybe have a secondary scrape for stats that are impossibly beyond params. Here seems to have the correct blade thickness: https://www.knifecenter.com/item/BO121589/boker-jager-gold-v...

* From the knive page, present tags to re-broaden the search. Using that same knife example, the navigations is currently: `Blades -> Boker Jager Gold Vollintegral ...` which is useless. It's a knife in the category of knives on a knives website. I'd like to be able to navigate back by type / brand etc.

It helps the exploration. I might find something I think has nice features and want to explore that set more.

* An obvious one I'm sure you have planned, but there are much more crucial and interesting features than the ones listed for filters. I care far far more about the general style of knife than I do blade thickness or handle material.

Fixed vs folding vs others is ofc vital.

Within the category of folding, the type of lock, if any.

Blade shape, a no brainer.

Nice to have overarching categories too. Rescue vs dive vs bushcraft would help immensely.

I'm curious on what basis are you calling yourself an empath. I've never heard someone say this seriously and I'm trying not to be too judgemental.

What about it is misleading?

There is no way this is a good faith question. As someone delivering their opinion on the internet - surely you can explain why someone would like to deliver their opinion on the internet.

The person is not walking in to business meetings arguing the ethics of incest. Clearly they understand this given their declaration of a throwaway.

I think it's also probably safe to say they're not delivering these opinions as non-sequiturs. If there is some news article posted for discussion about incest, and I showed up to say "I don't like incest", I doubt I'd find anyone telling me about references to

> 1840, The Corsair, “The Letter Bag of the Great Western,” pg. 775, col. 1

But look what seems to happen at the inverse?

Make of the opinion what you will, but bashing the engagement is a bit rich.

OP is just giving the outsiders perspective to the hivemind. It's worth hearing now and then imo.