robryk @robryk@qoto.org

@niconiconi

I realized how large a success of engineering/standardization/design patterns it is that lumped circuit model is usable for typical circuits only after I played with water-based fluidics (where I would consistently make choices that caused my devices to deviate greatly from models with similar assumptions).

@rysiek

To be fair, the situation is somewhat different: in podcasts the podcast publishers are more knowledgeable about the infrastructure they use, and often have enough slack to explicitly deal with various avenues of delivery (e.g. register it in iTunes). Here, the only party that would normally have similar amount of knowledge and maybe slack are instance admins, but (a) they are more hidden participants (b) they are likely to have negative slack due to instanceization of moderation duties.

> The use of the system resembled its name, which had been intended to be spurious.

-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_Defence_Light

@mattblaze @CStamp @lauren

The version Alaskan had is the one that's harder to reconfigure: another version offered by Boeing that's easier to reconfigure is to leave most of the door hardware intact, but install a blank piece of wall inside instead of the interior of the door. (Source: YT video nw4eQGAmXQ0)

@maddiefuzz Are these photos also taken from different distances?

@pitrh it also does the exact opposite: a response to a claim that it's precious answer was wrong is ~always to agree with you

@dlatchx @gsuberland @mcc

That plane had versions with different numbers of seats. IIUC more populated versions need more than standard front, overwing, and back exits, so they have additional exits behind wings. For lower population versions they have multiple options there: an exit, more temporary way to blank it off, and a less temporary way to blank it off. I guess that the reason not to have a nonrequired exit is to simplify maintenance and operations (one pair of slides less).

@kuba

Na które sposoby to jest inne od pryszniców na basenie? (Strzelam, że owe nie powodują wrażenia, że trzeba mopa, i ciekaw jestem które różnice są istotne.)

@freemo

Sure, but if there's an open vent in the tank, and there is noticeable sound coming from the vent, then I'd assume that it's at atmospheric pressure and thus can be punctured without much risk (assuming nonsparking tooling and/or long duration venting upside down so that it's unlikely to flash). I wonder whether the warning is trying to warn me of some remainign risk that I don't see or whether it's (overly) simplified.

@freemo

The thing that caused me to wonder now was a shaving cream can, where I could test the pressure inside by deforming it with my fingers first.

I also saw such a warning on camping gas bottles (some mixture of propane and butane), which did have a way of ensuring they're empty provided: there's a plastic shim you can push into the valve to permanently open it (so that you can vent the bottle after you used up the gas). In such cases I don't really see a reason not to amend it to say "don't puncture unless the shim has been inserted for a few minutes".

@shauna

I thought about this once and my conclusion was that large part of unacceptability of murder (compared to e.g. causing on average one death by increasing pollution) is due to the potential use of death threats (implied or explicit) as an extortion mechanism.

Why do pressurized cans warn against puncturing them "even if empty"?

@psn So it's ~uniformly larger among roads that don't appear to be local, or is it that some roads that you'd expect to be in the local road category are not in it? (IOW would you expect these roads to just be slightly smaller or to be those narrow roads?)

@psn Do you mean that the distribution of size of roads in the middle of nowhere is shifted towards larger, or that it's bimodal, or something else?

@th I wonder whether this involves complications around tooth shape compatibility (so that they don't need to slip against each other and thus don't wear themselves out by friction).

@niconiconi in 1d you still have the problem of whether the clopen status matches

@riley @alda

How do you square this with the benefit of getting in the way of a mistake? After all, checklists, physical markings to annotate the correct surgery site, reidentification of the patient etc. also take time and get in the way, but are considered beneficial.

@badlogic If copying a Skeleton destroys the original, it seems to me that it's not intended to ever be copied, so it would make sense to remove its copy conductor.

That said, this remains a footgun for mutating accesses.

@badlogic @Ronflaix

That would create a complementary footgun, where you are preserving a reference to e.g. an entry in a vector (acquired via e.g. `front()`) across operations that invalidate it and it's not obviously recognizable due to auto.

Tak to wygląda