I'm more of a Surgeon's Knot[0] guy, myself. Just like a "regular" shoelace knot, with one easy-to-remember twist. I don't recall that knot having ever come loose without my intentional untying. Great for ultramarathons when the last thing I want to do after 40 miles is bend over to tie a shoelace. (Especially if I'm wearing Altra shoes, whose laces I'd swear are coated in Teflon and come undone if I look at them too hard.)
i find it funny that as a kid, velcro laces are used, and then as senior, they come back. but in that time in between, "adults" are wasting their time fiddling with laces. it's one of the most useless things when other solutions are available.
US adults (and, to a lesser extent, those in Europe—I gather the loafer caps out a bit lower there as far as how “high up” you can dress it) can get away with wearing slip-on shoes a whole lot of the time, while also looking smarter-dressed than sneakers or what have you.
Doesn’t get you away from laces entirely, but can seriously cut down on how often you have to fiddle with them.
(Or you can come at it the other way and become a Crocs Guy, of course)
> So much of the modern world depends on our mastery over materials (to make a precision screw, you need a precision-machined harder material—diamond / titanium—to work on a softer material—steel), and our ability to turn rotary motion to linear motion (it's stupidly difficult to reliably precision-machine a harder material without even more precise linear + rotary motion—lathe/CNC machine). Hence, a bootstrap problem.
Steel is hardenable (or rather, some steels are hardenable), you can change its hardness through the specific application of heating and cooling. So you can make a crude tool with relatively soft steel, harden it, and use it to make a more precise steel tool (again machine soft, then harden). This does make the bootstrapping problem a bit easier, I think. Although not easy in the absolute.
There's a way to grind mirrors optics for optics with polishing stones that aren't even flat to the naked eye. Basically the system arrives at tiny tolerances via the process of using the system.
And there's way to make three perfectly flat sharpening stones by starting with three raw pieces of natural sharpening stone, just by alternately rubbing the three stones together until they flatten each other out.
Paul Sellers can teach you how to flatten a large board without a planer. He also has videos on how to get a wood plane perfectly flat using a large sharpening stone (which can be made as above or with float glass).
And if memory serves, you to make something perfectly round you first need something perfectly flat. Once you have something perfectly flat and something perfectly round it's off to the races.
Do you have links to the other videos about the other things you said besides the creation of something perfectly flat? I saw that covered in the Origins of Precision but was left wanting on the lens making and board flattening. It seemed to be more historical and less practical, from the perspective of bootstrapping things.
I think the same channel covered mirror grinding but I'm very fuzzy on that. Paul Sellers is all over Youtube. He's practically the elder statesman of hand tool woodworking. The video I'm thinking of, he's planing a board that is too big to go through a hobbyist's planer, so that one always made the most sense to me. Rob Cosman's might be easier to find, like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGuGFGAQTxE
Flat boards require a flat plane, and like chisels, the tolerances on a new plane are fairly loose. Partly down to thermal contraction (from running the production line too fast? I've never gotten a straight answer). So the first thing you do with both is grind them truly flat, and you need a reference surface for that, like float glass or a diamond stone. Common protocol is to use the diamond stone only to flatten sharpening stones, and the sharpening stones to flatten chisels, and the chisels to flatten mortises. Basically diamond stones are very accurate but too expensive to have sufficient grit ratings and longevity
This is not the one I'm thinking of, but it's a taste:
Right angles can be achieved by a process of iterative refinement. A square is two flat surfaces that are used to adjust two other flat surfaces, and they are only at right angles when 90.0º + 90.0º = 180.0º. So if you reverse the square or make two identical squares, they should touch along their entire length. If they don't then they're not square. Alternatively you can apply a square multiple times and check if the 1st and 3rd plane are perfectly parallel. Or if the 1st and 4th plane intersect at the same point, which also increases your accuracy by 4x by multiplying the error. I've seen this demoed by fine woodworkers squaring up a table saw for instance.
OP here. Thanks for the critique! Yes I agree fully. The specific example of diamond/titanium aside, the general point stays, I feel. A youtube rabbit hole is nigh, clearly :)
A year ago, my 9 year old daughter begged me to watch a video from her favorite YouTuber. It was the Great Potato War. We watched all three parts and I became an instant Techno fan. It also led to me playing Hypixel with her for many many hours.
Sure lots of organizations have unique capabilities, and SpaceX is one of those! Better to bring home Hubble than let it burn up once it's no longer operational. I definitely rate inspiration much higher than 'dubious' :)
Maybe the comment would have been better off just saying "Wouldn't it be great if at the end of it's life we could bring Hubble back to earth to put it in a museum". Because that's how I read it, it's something I completely support (just like putting ISS into a parking orbit instead of letting it burn up when that decision comes). Hubble is an important part of history and deserves to be preserved; to inspire current and future generations.
Dragging a specific method of accomplishing that into it was kind of unnecessary from GP.
> Dragging a specific method of accomplishing that into it was kind of unnecessary from GP.
Without pointing out that it could theoretically be done (that rocket isn't ready yet, and may never be), the assertion that it should be done is seriously devalued.
Disagree about DLSS being cheap marketing trash. Especially on the quality or balanced settings, it produces a significant framerate improvement in Cyberpunk without any noticeable quality loss.
I'm going to have to side with the other poster here as well. Enabling "DLSS" on auto significantly improved framerate without noticeable quality loss(to me). I'm on a 2070 Super running "high"ish settings @ 1440p.
I had no idea electricity was so expensive in NYC. Also, I think 3 miles per kWh is a bit pessimistic. Lifetime average for my Model 3 is 260 Wh/mi, which works out to 3.8 mi/kWh. Given Colorado's ~$0.11/kWh, it all works out to just under $0.03/mi which looks a lot more favorable against the other options. It's still a heckin' expensive car though.
I pay the same rate, but if I switched to peak charging rates, I can pay only $.025/kWh for most of the day. And then $.25/kWh during a few peak hours. Making a Tesla a lot cheaper to drive.
There are only three right now. The usual procedure is to have enough Soyuz capacity for everyone on the station, so when the station has 6 people, there are two Soyuz.
I love that fact that there are "usual procedures" when it comes to humans going back and forth to our 20-year-old SPACE STATION!
Maybe we don't have the space program of our dreams. But we've certainly accomplished the goal of having "routine" operations in space over a long period of time. How much have humans learned in that time!
Without heroes the public will turn against it and not give a damn about robots and computers. I think we need manned space programs to keep the momentum going. Otherwise everyone will be like "why are we in space when the homeless don't have homes". I know it's stupid logic but that the way the masses think quite often.
Most people I know were, and still are, pretty excited about Spirit and Opportunity. Those were exciting robots at the time. Especially the fact that they worked for so long! 14 YEARS. The design is validated, let's have an assembly line cranking them out and tweaking them.
I love that fact that there are "usual procedures" when it comes to humans going back and forth to our 20-year-old SPACE STATION!
Next, we'll have real-life gritty action heroes who admit to "making it up as I go along?" (Actually, that was Neil Armstrong when we manually piloted the first lunar landing.)
Nothing in space in usual or "safe". There is always a relatively large chance that you can end up in a fireball relative to say getting on an airplane or driving to work. I wouldn't ever take space for granted at this point.
Also I believe the seats are all custom shaped for each astronaut's body. I'm sure in dire circumstances they could use a capsule that wasn't designed for them, but it's very much a case of each astronaut having a very specific seat designated for the ride home, rather than "do we have enough seats".
The custom seats mean you cannot use someone else's. You wouldnt fit (if too big) and would obstruct things. I may be possible, but would never be part of any plan. There are also weight/balance issues to consider.
It's really excellent, my shoes never come untied and I don't have to double-knot