In a car with ABS, two sets of tyres with different grip will have a different point at which tyres lock up, with grippier tires locking up later and ABS letting the brakes bite harder before acting.

Now a harder question is whether a tyre with less rolling resistance will be less grippy. All things equal, yes, it will. Tyres grip by deforming and creating friction in the contact patch, and the point of these tyres is to reduce friction.

To make up for this, manufacturers use clever designs (e.g. where tyres can deform more under certain conditions) so that they can retain characteristics similar to tyres with more rolling resistance. Of course, everything in engineering is a compromise, which means that A) these tyres are more expensive because of the additional complexity and B) the design and materials science can only go so far and they have indeed slightly less grip; otherwise all the tyres would be like this.

As an anecdote, Toyota sold the GR86 with Michelin Energy Saver tyres fitted as standard (in Europe at least) for “grip” reasons: they allowed the car to drift at really low speeds (some car journalists commented that it was remarkably easy to take roundabouts sideways at legal speeds).

Well, they’ve already lost £200M on Suicide Squad alone, so here’s to hoping they can continue losing money thanks to their greed.

Oh boy. £120 to just unlock the base characters or “dozens and dozens” of hours of grind for each of them.

We’ll see how this goes, but I see this going the way of Suicide Squad. I wonder when, if ever, Warner Bros. Is going to learn that players are actively pushing back against corporate greed and live service games are already way past the limit of microtransactions that players deem acceptable.

I’ve found the article here, gone in, and immediately forgot that it wasn’t the onion as it didn’t sound like something remotely true. Then I was immediately confused about how they’d made the satire look so real, with even fake-pipe photos. That’s been a confusing 5 minutes…

Yup. Loads of them! https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=hallucinations+llm&btnG=

Hallucination is a technical term. Nothing to do with thinking. The scientific community could have chosen another term to describe the issue but hallucination explains really well what’s happening.

I’m talking about TV ads, magazine covers. General models (not the super-skinny runway models which don’t necessarily follow typical beauty standards) or porn (which follows its own set of trends I’d say, like over exaggerated bodies, breast implants…).

I don’t know if it’s the best difference but I’m talking generally about the difference between people like Jennifer Aniston in 1997 vs Scarlett Johansson in 2020, for example.

You don’t have to go that far - if you look at 90’s female models, or actresses that were considered “hot” at the time, they had a significantly different body type from today. They were a lot skinnier, there was more diet and less gym involved in the female bodies of the 90s and early 2000s.

And because of the logarithmic nature of decibels, 6 dB louder approximately means twice as loud. So these claimants are saying the airpods reached about 700 times higher volume than they can.

No no no WB, you wanted to make it live service, now you deal with it keep adding content for the next 5 years.

Obviously very far from reality, but I wish live service games were required to have a clear, binding plan for how long they’re going to be supported and what’s the exit plan. If they’re a service, they should have an enforceable contract.

That would help buyers not buy a game that is going to be sunset in a year, and/or prevent publishers from releasing cash-grabbing garbage with no evident business plan or idea on why players are going to find the game worthy of giving them money for years.

I bought Tekken 7 to play on the steam deck because of this. I didn’t realise I needed to buy the ultimate edition (or whatever it’s called) and now half the players were hidden behind DLCs, so I feel I paid for half a game. I’m staying away from Tekken for the foreseeable.

Ah, it was just because of the “ban cars” comment with no more context around it. I’m happy with reducing cars, not with expecting cars to get banned altogether or to cease to exist magically.

Well it might be off, as there are other factors, but I wasn’t meaning it as hyperbole - road damage is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight, and a typical bus weighs about 10 times the weight of a compact, so damage would be roughly 10^4 times larger. This is called the “Generalised Fourth Power Law” and there are tons of links about it:

https://camdencyclists.org.uk/2020/06/the-fourth-power-rule-cyclelicious/

(Which btw, you can apply the other way and state that you need an insane amount of bicycles to match the road damage of a single car).

If they took the top end bracket of SUV weights and the bottom end of bus weights, they could have reached vastly different numbers. I used 1800 kg (large sedan or compact SUV) and 18000 kg for a bus (the mercedes Benz citaro starts at roughly 18500 kg), to keep the numbers simple.

Good public transit does not mean less wear and tear on the roads, absolutely not. As I stated in a different comment, a bus that replaces 10-20 cars causes similar road damage as 10000 cars. Which is fine, but for completely different reasons. Public transport is good because it allows more pedestrian-friendly cities, reduces pollution, etc; just road wear and tear is not one of the reasons why it’s good, it’s one of the drawbacks.

Did you know that road damage is proportional to the fourth power of weight? A single city bus does similar road damage to 10000 cars. Since we’re talking about road damage here, shall we ban buses too? Do I need to tell my 78 year mom with limited mobility to suck it up and cycle?

I work in a related field and having fewer cars on the road is a priority of mine, but I swear the “fuck cars” crew are completely deluded from reality.

I don’t think it’s bad, in fact I wonder the same. These are my colleagues because it’s the same path I took - I now work developing self-driving cars (I slowly transitioned from aerospace to manufacturing automation to robotics) and it’s the most rewarding job I’ve ever had, and it feels very much like engineering. I don’t care if I’m not a “manufacturing engineer” anymore; I really like my job and I like my title to reflect somewhat accurately what I do, but that’s the extent I care about it.

No, that’s precisely the opposite of my point. If you drive an Uber, you’re an Uber driver. People are “CEO” or “Judge” despite nobody having a CEO or Judge degree. Your profession is what you do, not what you happened to study in your teens to get there.

I don’t think what you study in your degree is the defining factor. Obviously this is country-specific but I feel you job title isn’t always linked 1:1 to your title.

I studied Industrial Engineering, which in Spain exists as a degree but not as a job position. Position wise, I’ve been a mechanical design engineer, a manufacturing engineer, an automation engineer, robotics engineer, and these days I’m mostly a software engineer. I’m definitely specialised in engineering, regardless of the tools I’m applying to solve the task at hand.

Hmmm. But all the people around me working in software studied multiple years in an Engineering field. In my case, I studied a 5-year industrial engineering and two masters afterwards; I feel very comfortable wearing the “software engineer” or more accurately “robotics engineer” badge.

Alternative take: I’m glad to see them acknowledge how little value there is to their work. Maybe soon we’ll be able to replace the whole of JPMorgan with an AI chatbot then.