I have some better quality kitchen knives I like keeping sharp.

I use a two-sided whetstone 400/2000 grit for basic shaping (400 is akin to those rolling sharpeners, to be used only when you fucked up real bad), a leather strop with green sharpening paste (~6000-8000 grit) glued to a piece of wood, a plain leather strop, and a honing steel.

Green sharpening paste is most of what I ever use, a couple of strokes weekly (more realistically about 20 once a month), and maybe polish it up with the plain leather strop. Keeps the knives wicked sharp, and then I just hone them after each use.

Sometimes I do stupid things and get burrs in my edge (like cleaving frozen bone), that’s where the 2000 grit saves me.

400 I guess is for when the apocalypse comes or your kids decided to practice chef’s knife throwing into scrap metal. It’s nice to know I can remake a whole edge, but rarely used.

Yeah, suck it mars, world record planet right here.

Tl;dr:

Bathtubs started small due to size constraints of rooms, but got smaller because it’s cheaper to manufacture and handle smaller tubs.

#savedyouaclick

We’re learning in real time that the ICC and UN are great tools, until they disagree with you, at which point they can be ignored and even threatened.

Sounds like great news, no?

Just as we had a time before fungus digesting plant matter, we’ve now had a time before fungus digesting plastics.

“Soon” we’ll get bacteria and insects doing the same, and all our plastic buildings will need to be protected just as the wood ones.

Maybe, it also has symbolic value, and might demoralise the civilian populace, whose support is crucial to the continued state support.

It still seems a weak move as infrastructure should be a more effective target, but who knows how many layers of distractions and attacks of opportunity really happen in the field?

Lol, indoctrinated much?

We will still expend energy, thus satisfying the gods of thermodynamics.

My list is quite different than the ones currently in the thread.

The boring ones:

Creating a vaccine or other cloaking to make humans invisible to ticks & mosquitoes. A separate project would be to do the same for parasites.

Enacting strict pollution/carbon limits and mandatory circular economy everywhere in the world.

Researching, trialing and Enacting a sustainable post-capitalist system everywhere in the world.

Developing solar energy until covering global energy demands, including a power network that can transport energy from the sunny side and/or orbit everywhere.

The slightly more ambitious:

Establish self-sustainable colonies living on off-earth resources, most probably also situated off-earth.

Create a Dyson swarm with enough energy output for in-system exploration, mining, colonisation, and terraforming.

Perfect matter replicators.

I have some other ideas as well, but those would be a start.

Yeah, and although greedy, maybe not enough to ruffle feathers over.

No payment for sub-1000 streams/year

Mostly spam, porn, and recipes it seems from the traffic.

Yeah, I’m sure you’re right

Unfortunately I don’t agree.

Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.

Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.

You’re right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.

There’s a relevant physics anomaly called a Helmholtz resonator, or more broadly waveform interference.

🤣

It’s always worthwhile to learn new things!

And programming is a tool, so it’s typically made to be clear how to use it, although of course people will differ on what needs to be clarified the most.

My experience is that there’s way too much discussion in what tool to pick, it doesn’t matter that much and almost all of the common languages will allow you to do all the things. And even though some will be better adapted for certain applications, it’s easy to pick up the new tool when relevant, and you’ll be that much ahead by being well versed in one.

As for how to learn, I find that you kind of need to figure out the basic syntax in each language (loops, conditionals, output, memory management, typology, lists, function calling, maybe classes/libraries if you’re fancy), and then start doing projects.

A nice intro for C# is the C# Player’s Guide by R B Whitaker, using some gamification and storytelling to get you through the basics, and even leave you prepared to tackle your first projects (by practicing design philosophy, how to break down projects, etc).

Otherwise, Python is a lot of fun, it’s made to be very easy to jump into, and then it’s fully featured to do anything you’d like it to. Unfortunately all my resources for it are in my local language, but it has many many users so I’m sure there’s great resources to be found in your own language.

IIRC, a tree absorbs up to 3 tons/year, and takes a bunch of years to get to that stage.

The trees also don’t sequester underground, and will need surface area staying as forest for the rest of time.

As many have echoed: an ounce of prevention saves a pound of cure. Most bang for our buck would be to change our lifestyle and regulations. But as that’s not feasible we’re at the geo engineering and artificial sequestration stage.

Thank you for taking the time to explain, we do indeed seem to be closer to each other’s understanding.

So the frequency of a repeated waveform and the shape of the waveform are not interchangeable. Hence my conclusion is that despite… theoretically the amount of energy may be the same, there is a difference in how the energy is transferred.

This is contrary to what I remember having been taught about biomechanics and hearing, but as memory and understanding is unreliable, I’ll cede that I’d need to look up a reference for better precision.

The crux of my argument hinges on there not being a difference. And my understanding of the physiology is that the hairs will primarily bend with pressure, and exhaust with flexion (repeated bending cycles leads to breaking), within the limits of survivable amplitudes.

If there isn’t a difference, my argument continues in that it’s physically very difficult to create a pulse with a ramp up faster than the 20 kHz the ear is evolved to take, that’s 0,05 ms, not many physical processes go that fast to create a pressure wave and those that do typically get dispersed very quickly, unless as part of a harmonic excitation.

But of course all that is irrelevant if that’s not how the ear reacts.

headphones. Those limits are with respects of quality of sound reproduction.

You may be right, the details of what the measure represents haven’t been presented.

From context where it’s being argued as a legal argument, I have assumed it to be part of the safety design, and not of sound reproduction.

Ear phones/plugs have no business reproducing good quality sound at >100 dBA, and would be sued into oblivion as the hearing damage and tinnitus reports rolled in. Which to be fair, is what the OP is about.

Having a physical limit at 105 dB would then be congruent with the same unused overhead you refer to, as it corresponds to a doubling of potential sound pressure, and is about typical as overcapacity for high fidelity engineering applications.

faulty earbuds that emitted bursts of painful high frequency noise despite playback being of moderate volume.

105 dB would probably be painful, and as a surprise would be jarring, which contributes to the perceived risk of injury. It should also not be loud enough to cause lasting physical injury, and you’d typically have full functionality within two weeks.

An earbud/head phone can be designed failsafe, so that casing, driver, or most commonly membranes will break at too high amplitudes. If nothing else, it will be limited by the amount of energy available, which for wireless or portable headphones is typically very low. I can’t vouch for the specific gear in the OP, but given the rarity of recalled gear due to injury, I’d guess it would be widespread industry practice to design it fail safe.

What I’m saying is that it can still be hardware/physically limited at 105 dB, even though it gave a painful squelch before breaking.

I apologize for my frustration. I’ve been experiencing lately that I try to communicate one thing and the recepient keep projecting it into their own frame of reference and insist I’m talking of something that I’m not. I’m a bit touchy and I’m sorry about that.

I totally get it, it’s a built in flaw of the Lemmy/social media format. Too little supportive language cues, and too little time and/or investment to actually listen.

I appreciate you having the patience to talk this through with me.