I remember the cans of Hershey's syrup, you opened them with a church key. This was the same era of oil cans with the special opener/spout you had to use. BTW, there's an unopened can of it on ebay for $25, claimed to be from the '60s, and is 5 1/2 ounces.
If you follow the links to the supplementary info it gives you intensity level, for example "The prepared dish was placed in a blue LED irradiation device and irradiated at 1.25 W/cm2 for 3 h."
As a reference, noon sunlight is very roughly 1000 W/m^2 or 0.1 W/cm^2, so this is pretty intense and I suspect would not be eye safe.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. People support encryption saying they have the right to private communication and algorithms are protected under the first amendment. People use encrypted communication to do unsavory things like hiring hitmen, viewing child porn, etc.
Best I can tell it's a sports term that has moved over. Google trends shows sudden peak in activity in just the past few months, so something has made the phrase trendy recently.
Tufte did make specific recommendations that one should prepare a real document that your audience can and should read, and that they would have in front of them during the meeting. I'm not sure how best to translate that to your API example.
What would make the most important point of that slide stand out any more in a "real document" than in a slideshow? If anything, I would expect it to be buried even more - a slide and limited-time presentation forces you to be concise, while in a document there tend to be few limits on length.
I would say the disaster occurred despite PowerPoint, not because of it. It's not clear to me at all why the slide author thought all that text was needed, when it seems to communicate almost nothing. If anything I would blame it on the culture around "real documents", where having more information is treated as better (probably because they serve multiple functions - to educate, but also as a record of activities), even if it makes it bloated and hard to read.
When I was a kid ('70s/'80s) a car engine might die due to cylinder wear, burning oil and losing compression. I wonder if those might have been noticeably inefficient (say one cylinder of eight still ingesting fuel but not compressing fully and leaking exhaust products into the crankcase). Now I have an EV (fairly new) and an ICE car w/ 220k miles. The ICE car is leaking oil and needs some suspension work but I think it's efficiency is pretty much the same as it has always been.
I rebuilt the engine in my 1961 truck 3 years ago, the bores were worn enough it was noticeably down on power. I can't easily track MPG in it for a precise number (no working odometer), but the mileage increase was significant enough to notice a difference at the gas pump, I'd estimate a 4-5mpg improvement. This would be an extreme case though, I really don't know how that engine even still had enough compression to start. The ring end-gap was slightly over 1/8" (0.128"), spec is 0.016", so on the extreme end of engine wear.
To get back to EVs though, I'm not really sure they will last any longer than current ICE cars. Engine reliability has gotten good enough that a worn engine normally isn't the reason a car gets taken off the road. IME the main killer is either body rust or just too many small parts being worn out to where it isn't cost effective to keep repairing. Suspension parts will wear faster on an EV, since they're heavier than equivalent size ICE cars. I've driven a lot of mechanic specials over the years, and of the 7 cars I've sold to salvage yards only 2 were due to engine issues, the rest were either body rust making them unsafe or just too many things wearing out.
reply