The desire of fastener tension is clamping force or fastener stretch in some cases, not fastener torque. I think what the parent is saying is that a perfectly torqued fastener is only about 30% accurate in terms of clamping force.
I would highly recommend that you check out the documentary ”Pianomania” if you haven’t seen it already. It follows a Steinway piano tuner as he tunes instruments for a few famous pianists doing exactly the kind of thing you mentioned.
Relatedly, the book "Grand Obsession" tells the story of one pianist's truly obsessive search for a piano with a particular sound. I found it fascinating, moving, and a little terrifying.
Connected to the OBD port with an OBD splitter to make it look like there was nothing installed there. They didn’t secure it well though, so I saw it dangling by the brake pedal.
Is that necessarily to “make sure there was nothing installed there”? Or could it be that they needed to keep the OBD port open for normal service purposes?
Yes, for the marketed use case of "put these on the cars in your lot for theft prevention", you obviously want them to be invisible.
But Honda already has telematics in these cars in the infotainment system, and it would be trivial to add anti-theft to the existing system. It all just feels a bit.. fishy.
The author clearly should have gone into the specific use-cases he was talking about. An IDE _is_ nothing more than a text editor with advanced features. There's a huge continuum from a basic text-editor like notepad to a full fledged IDE.
I'd particularly like to see a use-case laid out where something like VSCode + Extensions wasn't actually enough. I've been using IntelliJ nearly every day for the past 4 years and I still don't understand how it is any different from a text editor + extensions. IntelliJ is even architected similarly with so many different "plugins" adding full fledged language support for other langages. Goland, Pycharm, etc, are basically extensions for the intellij text editor.
I think this also ignores that video games are _vastly_ more complicated than the space shuttle - from a "computers" perspective. The did some very impressive things with some novel and primitive computers, but the amount of "state" that is being kept track of and data flowing through those computers is tiny.
My bluetooth headphones connect to my macbook pro when come home from work and my laptop is sitting on the kitchen table. My headphones tell me "two devices connected" when I walk in the door.
Although it seems like bluetooth _should_ be shut off by devices when not in use, I doubt most devices actually do that.
I'd really like to understand this deeper: are you sure your macbook was hibernating, even if it was closed? Are you sure the proximity advertisement came from the laptop? Usually it is the iPhone doing it.
I've seen that in airports and malls, more than 90% of the advertisements around are iPhones (Android doesn't do BtLe advertisement) and Windows computers (from the shops and stores). A small minority are beacons and wearables (iWatch, Fitbit, etc.) In libraries sometimes I can see Macbooks, but they all are non-hibernating.
My headphones are only paired with my macbook and my android phone. I always am walking with the headphones paired with my phone, so that's one of the two devices. The only other device is my macbook pro, that is often sitting on the kitchen table with it's lid closed, and unused for several days, and yet this happens every day. I obviously don't know what exactly is going on, but if they can "connect" then presumably something about the bluetooth is still functioning.
If you left the MacBook connected to the power supply and it is a 2016 model or later then it likely isn't really hibernating, even with the lid closed. By default, most of them remain active when connected to power.
However, you can disable the Bluetooth connection. Go to System Preferences > Bluetooth > Advanced Button and deselect "Allow Bluetooth devices to wake this computer."
I wonder who does the advertisements here. In BtLe the standard is to have the Peripheral (i.e: the headphones) doing proximity advertising and the Central doing the scanning. But, in principle, anything is possible.
Because they are made of human beings and live on planet Earth. A better question is why do we think companies shouldn't care about that? Why isn't it their responsibility?
Why is this a standard being uniquely applied to Facebook? There are ads for x-ray glasses in magazines. The are commercials for security products with many lies running on all the cable news networks.
I tend the think the source of the lie is the thing that should be attacked. Who has the most responsibility here: the advertiser for lying, the network for showing the lie, the ISP for delivering the content with a lie, the laptop for displaying the lie?
With magazines, television etc you are targeting everyone. So if you run an ad that said "Vote for me because I will build a border wall" then you will attract 30% of the population and alienate the other 70%.
With Facebook you can just target that 30% whilst guaranteeing the 70% won't be affected since they won't see the ads. That is the feature that is unique to Facebook that is causing all of the problems.
Let's say you have two groups of people. One group is pro-skub, the other group is anti-skub.
If you run an ad in the newspaper that says 'pro-skub people want to literally kill all anti-skubs', that is broadcasted to everyone. People outside of the target group can independently fact check it and/or apply pressure to the paper itself to remove an obviously fake and inflammatory ad.
Now let's say you run that same ad on Bookface. You target specifically the anti-skub people, and especially those that are already predisposed against those that are pro-skub. Even if your ad is obviously fake, you're contributing to the radicalization of a group which increases divisiveness. This becomes much harder to independently fact check because when you search that ad on Dooble you find results which seem to reinforce that ads message because all of these algorithms are optimizing for engagement.
My right-wing grandma who's a bit nutty reads tabloids. Like that's the only magazines she reads.
Pretty sure a specific 'type' of person reads that crap. It's like Alex Jones' in print. There are probably other similar 'print' publications.
If you hit a specific magazine/publication you can target a specific demographic without hitting 'all of us'....
Edit: I'm playing devil's advocate here. I agree FB needs tempered a bit. I believe though that truth doesn't need to be in ALL ads, but if it's political in nature or could affect society at large then yes it should be controlled.
Why Do standards apply more to Trump than my racist grandma?
Power. The tallest weed gets the shears. If Facebook doesn't like being the tallest weed in the garden it's free to split itself up. Until then harbouring a persecution complex just makes it lose reputation. And until Facebook can operate outside off planet it's still going to have to learn to live with the people on it. And there's been a long history to read up on about the different methods humanity resorts to when it's ticked off enough with those in power and lose hope of them changing course on their own initiative.
In my country responsibility lies with the network because it's the last part of the system that isn't a dumb pipe. To tackle the source of the lie will require dropping the first Ammendment as a prerequisite. Facebook employees having nice happy unchecked good days isn't worth that.
Because a system where companies maximize profits and government punishes unethical behavior according to the rule of law is a cornerstone of liberal society that many highly respected thinkers advocated for since the start of the Age of Enlightenment.
> Because a system where companies maximize profits and government punishes unethical behavior according to the rule of law is a cornerstone of liberal society that many highly respected thinkers advocated for since the start of the Age of Enlightenment.
It's frankly unworkable to outsource morality and ethics to the government, even if you allow extreme surveillance and control. The law is there to catch serious cases where personal ethics and morality have failed. Yeah, that contradicts the DRY principle [1], but life isn't a software system.
Also, IIRC, the idea that the "system" is one were "companies [merely] maximize profits" within legal limits set by the government is a rather recent but false view [2]. The Age of Enlightenment didn't start in the 1970s.
The movie theater one is actually kind of interesting. There is a certain maximum audio power that a room can sustain before loosing fidelity. I think _all_ sound engineers know about this, but a projectionist with a volume knob probably does not.
Next time you're in a place where the audio is too loud for you to hear, try to listen carefully for a few seconds. You might discover that despite being too loud, it actually sounds bad, and reducing the volume would actually _improve_ the audio fidelity.
I think this largely ignores "how" ads are distributed. The website you are looking at did not select _any_ of the ads you see. They chose a network who is delegating that placement to someone else. Depending on which ad network, this could delegated by several different ad networks until an advertiser is finally selected by the final intermediary.
In principle this may not be a very important distinction. However, I often think that I would stop blocking ads _IF_ the website I was looking at had actually vetted the ad I was seeing. I do not want to see so much garbage just for visiting a website. For example: I block all ads from theverge.com, not because their content is bad, but because I find the outbrain ads at the bottom of the page so asinine and tasteless that I'd rather not see any ads.
To continue on with theverge example, If they actually had selected the individual ads they were placing, I'd be totally fine with that. But I am not fine with them delegating that responsibility to another company that clearly is not up to handling the task.
> The website you are looking at did not select _any_ of the ads you see.
That's irrelevant. In general the content creator gets to choose how their content gets monetized. They own the copyright after all.
That ads blocking isn't considered yet a copyright violation in the court of law probably has to do with the upsides, like protecting against malware and privacy.
But blocking ads for commercial reasons, like Brave is doing, only to replace those ads with their own, that's just racketeering and I hope to see them lose in a court of law.
---
> I do not want to see so much garbage just for visiting a website
Then stop vising that website and go to alternative websites that treat you better. Voting with your wallet works.
Also a lot of websites these days offer subscriptions. I bet for example that 99.9% of HN visitors don't pay for subscriptions to their favorite publications.
Which would just go to show how self entitled we feel to getting other people's work for free.
---
Note that I am using browser extensions, like uBlock Origin or Privacy Badger, but I'm only doing so for privacy reasons.
And I'll never trust Brave with my privacy, sorry.
> Note that I am using browser extensions, like uBlock Origin or Privacy Badger, but I'm only doing so for privacy reasons.
is, I think, very relevant to the entire discussion. With the way browsers work, and the way the web works, blocking ads is well "within" the allowed scope of the internet. I, you, we never explicitly consented to browser tracking. It was created when there were no rules. After it had been happening for a very long time, it was added to large TOS & Privacy agreements, and by then, was so ubiquitous that we had no where else to go.
Publishers have power over you to put ads in their pages and track you across the internet. I have a problem with both the quality of those ads and the method in which they are delivered. I still have some power over whether or not I see ads, so I chose to exercise it.
I’m not sure how you can use the internet to distribute your content and claim copyright over how the user consumes the content. You’re distributing code to a user. The user can interact with that code however they see fit via their browser. That is the nature of the internet. Anything else (I’m looking at you Washington Post Subscription Runtime) is trying to have things both ways.
Just because a content owner copyrights the content does not mean they can control the user’s environment once the content has been provided to the user - unless of course you own that too (cough Kindle cough). Thank God we still have options for web browsers.
But it doesn't, not in this case. Very few people want to manage a separate payment stream, and a separate login, for each content provider on the off chance that they might stumble across that provider's content. And those that do don't want to pay a flat rate for access to content that they might never stumble across in a given payment period.
My uncle used to give me a lot of grief for getting my music via bittorrent--but it was never about avoiding having to pay for content, it was about objecting to a monetization model (DRM) that was less convenient than its free alternatives. I started paying for music just as soon as Spotify made it easier to pay than it was to pirate.
Ads are the same way. I don't mind paying for my content, but blocking ads and circumventing paywalls is currently less work than the hassle of managing a fleet of flat rate subscriptions. Brave offers an alternative where you only have to move dollars once (buying BAT and funding your browser's wallet), and the money is thereafter distributed according to which content you spend more time viewing.
It solves a problem that no other "voting with your wallet" way currently does.
I'll confess that I'm not currently using brave that way, but it's only because they don't currently support a unified wallet across browsers. Once I have to manage just a single BAT balance, though, I intend to keep the shields up and the contributions flowing, and set up recurring transfers into the BAT wallet from my bank account.
In return you get shown ads - and they get nothing unless they give in and sign up for another service that may or may not actually pay them something.
I think a lot of this is just some weird expectations. You cannot _use_ a database without knowing sql. ORMs work great, but you have to know sql to use them properly. What if you want to load a relationship with a join? What if you want only to load certain columns?
I would consider part of the profession to be knowing sql. This whole "orms are bad / long live the orm" split attitude is ridiculous. ORMs are fine. Some orms are bad, just like some code is bad, and some frameworks are poorly thought out. I have worked with developers in the past, who I _desparately_ wish were forced to use a good ORM like ActiveRecord, so that they could understand just how far you can get with a solid and good pattern. I've also worked with developers in the past who used an ORM like a 15kg sledgehammer, and had absolutely no idea what was going on.
