I spent some time looking at extruded aluminum profiles a few months ago and the cheapest place I found was tnutz.com- I never ended up buying anything though, but their stuff looked good as far as I could tell.
Turns out that when you overheat the economy by printing money and giving it to people for free, people buy so much stuff that most producers are running at capacity and can sell at high margins.
An honest analysis that seeks to understand the best level of regulation for testing of new drugs must consider both the people that will die due to inadequate testing and the people that will die from drugs never being developed (or being developed much later) due to overbearing testing requirements.
The way the lithium brine is extracted from the ground is by pumping water down, allowing the lithium brine to dissolve in the water, and pumping it back to the surface.
Just about any car can brake hard enough to lock up all 4 tires and enter a skid (or activate ABS to avoid this)- the limiting factor to braking distance is friction between the tires and the ground.
Scaling for static friction between rubber and asphalt does not follow the friction equation you are taught in high school physics class. Generally, for a given weight of vehicle, a larger tire surface area is able to produce more maximum braking friction. In other terms, minimizing the surface pressure and maximizing the surface area at the contact patch increases maximum braking friction.
One thing I find troubling about environmentalism is that the tendency to try to make everything more energy efficient/ optimized for the environment risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater in a few ways:
-More expensive energy directly leads to less energy-intensive activity, and a lot of this energy-intensive activity is the sort of activity that helps human flourishing.
-A tendency to regulate activity such that the most energy-optimized activity is the only allowable/ affordable activity.
-Regulating away the ability to do things, especially things that have questionable externalities and the regulators don't see the immediate value of. Is it really a good thing that the Netherlands is destroying the livelihoods of farmers to protect natural areas from Nitrogen emissions? Who quantified the harm associated with the nitrogen emissions? How does this harm food security in the Netherlands? How does this fare in relation to the fact that energy independence and food independence go hand-in-hand, at a time when there is a global fertilizer shortage and a European energy shortage? Seems short-sighted to me.
One risk factor that makes me feel like the world is crazy is how terrible visibility is becoming in newer cars. A and B pillars are getting bigger and bigger, sightlines in the rear view mirror are getting worse too. There is a big problem with the fact that crash tests test for how well you perform in a crash, but not whether you can see what allows you to avoid a crash.
Where does the induction stove measure the temperature? I'm assuming there's a thermometer near the surface of the stove, which I guess is close enough to the food to get good results.
You could still spend 1,000 hours painting a blue dot on a white canvas if you used a tiny paintbrush.
The pareto frontier of possible artworks approaches higher quality with increased labor input. This doesn't mean the Labor Theory of Value isn't totally bonkers.
The idea that D&D has hoovered up so much of the world as to deny people of their own creative expression is absurd and I couldn't get past the first paragraph without thinking the author is off his rocker.
IIRC there's existing case law in copyright law about the amount of creative work required to perform "transformative work" to an existing work. I figure that essentially, if you barely touched up the photos, you'd not have "transformed" the original work, and it would remain in the public domain, but if you performed sufficiently extensive restoration, it may count as a transformation.
(going off of memory here and a bit of speculation, hope I didn't misremember it)
>Unaccounted for are the varying bone densities, muscle structures, and abdominal and chest physiologies that differentiate women from a male dummy. For example, the neck musculature of an average woman contains far less column strength and muscle mass than a man’s, making women 22.1% more likely to suffer a head injury than men
It seems to me that there are two possible root causes (assuming the vehicle is constant, i.e. not from women driving smaller cars):
1. The crash test and vehicle designs are optimized around average male physiology
2. average female physiology would be more at-risk of injury and death regardless of crash test design/vehicle design
I'd like to know more about how much each of these factors contribute. The article does not make this clear.
I spent months trying to get a valve to pass the API 622 fugitive emissions test. It never passed before I got laid off. I suspect that valve stem packing for valves at methane plants is one of the leading contributors for this.
Turns out that the big 5 have predictive power. Hard to call it "tea leaves" if it has broad correlates with human behavior that are replicable across cultures and predict forward-looking behavior.