It was designed to intentionally slow down

This myth is one of my pet peeves. The rate of typing was not the cause of jamming.

The proximity of sequential typebars was the problem. Two adjacent typebars pressed simultaneously would jam at the very beginning of their stroke. To type adjacent keys, the first key would have to retract completely before the second key could start to be pressed. Otherwise, they struck eachother in flight.

Put 3 or 4 bars between sequential letters, and their “flight” paths only intersect at the very end of their strokes: you can start pressing the second key before the first has even hit the paper, because it will bounce out of the way before the second one gets close. QWERTY enabled good typists to have three or four typebars “in flight” simultaneously, greatly increasing their rate of typing.

QWERTY wasn’t designed to slow down typists. It enabled them to type much faster.

Your conclusions are correct, of course: It’s not great for modern devices where keystrokes don’t interfere with eachother. It’s just the oft-repeated “intentionally slow down typists” claim that drives me nuts.

It’s even dumber than expecting you can have a child from anal sex.

I’m not nearly as sure of this today as I was before the election.

Posted, commented, or voted on by members of your instance, without counting what the rest of the fediverse is doing with it.

They are on reddthat.com. “Local” would show them posts from reddthat.com communities; it would not show them posts from lemmy.world communities.

Suppose a post on a lemmy.world community is downvoted by the fediverse in general. However, that same post is highly popular among reddthat.com users, for whatever reason.

This user would like that post to appear high in reddthat.com/all, even though it would not appear high on lemmy.world/all.

The idea is kinda interesting. “all” is not the right category for it, but the idea of instance-peer curation has merit.

14/f/under your floorboards

Translation: Either “FBI” or “40/m/under your floorboards”

steam cools back to water

That one. The most common methods of condensing that steam rely on large bodies of water acting as heat sinks. Water in those large reservoirs is lost to evaporation, which is exacerbated by the additional heat.

The water in that reservoir must be reserved for the nuclear plant; a drought that drains the reservoir will knock the plant offline.

Air-cooled condensers are possible, but at significantly reduced efficiency, especially in already hot environments.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Did you know you can just buy shoe polish? You don’t have to find a boot to lick it off.

Galaxy S Relay

5 line keyboard!

It’s never a war crime the first time.

I still don’t know what Google+ was trying to be.

even overcoming the parasitic portion of extra energy needed during the compression cycle and the exhaust cycle against the turbocharger impeller?

Let’s assume the contrary. Let’s assume it can’t. Let’s assume the turbocharger is a net drag on the engine, and any gains are only from enabling the engine to burn more fuel. If this is all true, then the turbocharger should not be able to function without the reciprocating engine. Without the “push” from the pistons during the exhaust stroke, the turbo shouldn’t be able to turn.

If we can show that the turbo can not only spin without the piston engine, but that additional energy can be harvested, we will have disproven this assumption.

So, let’s get rid of the pistons. Plumb the intake manifold directly to the exhaust manifold. We have one combined intake/exhaust manifold. We stick a couple spark plugs into that manifold and turn it into a combustion chamber.

Now we have air passing through a compressor turbine, into a combustion chamber and then through an exhaust turbine. Sound familiar?

Engineers discovered that some turbos were capable of producing more power than the engines they were attached to. They discovered that the reciprocating engine was a drag on the turbo. The only reason to keep the reciprocating engine was because material science hadn’t caught up. We didn’t have turbos capable of directly handling the heat of combustion.

That discovery gave us the jet engine.

The exhaust gases get pushed

The “pushing” (exhaust stroke) isn’t particularly relevant.

When the valves close at the beginning of the compression stroke, the pressure in the cylinder is atmospheric: zero psig. The valves don’t open until the piston has risen (compression) and fallen (power) again. Without combustion, the pressure at the time the exhaust valves open is again at atmospheric. The gasses were compressed, and re-expanded, but only reach atmospheric. These gasses need to be pushed out.

With combustion, the pressure at the bottom of the stroke is substantially higher than atmospheric: the combustion event has radically increased the pressure of those gasses. At the end of the power stroke, just before the exhaust valves open, the pressure inside the cylinder is still extremely high. When the exhaust valves open, the overwhelming majority of the energy released to the exhaust stream is from the increased pressure. The “push” from the rising piston is relatively tiny.

It is the expansion of those gasses - not the “pushing” of those gasses - that drives the turbo.

I think it might be beneficial to think about the next evolution in aircraft propulsion. The turbocharger operates by expanding gasses through a power turbine, and using that energy to drive a compressor turbine. Remove the cylinders and pistons from the path, carefully tune those turbines, and you have a turbojet.

If the pistons are “pushing” the turbocharger, the turbojet would be impossible. It is the expansion of the gasses, not the displacement of the pistons, that drives the turbocharger.

It would be nice if I could use (my name)@(mydomain) and just point (mydomain) at whichever public instance, without having to spool up my own instance.

If they find Lemmy “too hard to understand”, do we really want them here?

Sure, but no need for combs, hair product, trips to the barber… I shave my face in the shower, and just keep going.

I’m more interested in the technology itself, rather than its current application.

I feel like I am watching a toddler taking her first steps; wondering what she will eventually accomplish in her lifetime. But the loudest voices aren’t cheering her on: they’re sitting in their recliners, smugly claiming she’s useless. She can’t even participate in a marathon, let alone compete with actual athletes!

Basically, the best AIs currently have college-level mastery of language, and the reasoning skills of children. They are already far more capable and productive than anti-vaxxers, or our current president.

It found 51% of all AI answers to questions about the news were judged to have significant issues of some form.

How good are the human answers? I mean, I expect that an AI’s error rate is currently higher than an “expert” in their field.

But I’d guess the AI is quite a bit better than, say, the average Republican.

New Mexico? You mean “South America”, right?

(Everything south of the Rio Grande is now “Mexico”. Except for the Panama America canal.)

Check out Rai stones.

Although the ownership of a particular stone might change, the stone itself is rarely moved due to its weight and risk of damage. Thus the physical location of a stone was often not significant: ownership was established by shared agreement and could be transferred even without physical access to the stone. Each large stone had an oral history that included the names of previous owners.

In one instance, a large rai being transported by canoe and outrigger was accidentally dropped and sank to the sea floor. Although it was never seen again, everyone agreed that the rai must still be there, so it continued to be transacted as any other stone.