When I see "Xitter", I think it might be pronounced Exeter, like the town in southwest England. But that feels like an undeserved slight against the good people of Devon and England.
So far as I'm aware, non-occupational pre-nominal honorifics inure to the individual, so generally speaking, if that person doesn't want to use their title, they don't have to. And in the same way that most people will go along with someone's acquired honorific of Dr or Capt or whatever, the same should also apply if someone expressed that their honorific should not used. I have no citation for this, other than what I've seen in life.
As a sidenote, in Britain, I understand that medical doctors are able to use the pre-nominal of Dr, but surgeons specifically will drop the Dr and just use Mr. or Ms.
Apparently this stems from ages ago when surgeons did not have to have a medical degree, and the doctoral view was that surgeons were akin to butchers. This may have reflected the crudeness of early surgeries. As a result, surgeons developed a history of being Mr -- it's not clear if female surgeons also took on Mr. So after the various laws/rules changed so that surgeons also had to be medically qualified, they still kept the tradition of Mr.
Thus, a male student of medicine in the UK could go from Mr, graduate to Dr, and then graduate as a surgeon to Mr again. I have no citation for this either, but it's plausible for the ardently traditional British nation.
If you were to properly consider the problem the actual cost would be determined by cost per distance traveled and you essentially decide the distance by which ever you are budgeted for.
I wrote my comment in response to the question, and IMO, I did it justice by listing the various considerations that would arise, in the order which seemed most logical to me. At no point did I believe I was writing a design manual for how to approach such a project.
There are much smarter people than me with far more sector-specific knowledge to "properly consider the problem" but if you expected a feasibility study from me, then I'm sorry to disappoint. My answer, quite frankly, barely arises to a back-of-the-envelope level, the sort of answer that I could give if asked the same question in an elevator car.
I never specified that California would be the best place to implement this process.
While the word California didn't show up in the question, it's hard to imagine a "state on the coast" with "excess solar" where desalination would be remotely beneficial. 30 US States have coastlines, but the Great Lakes region and the Eastern Seaboard are already humid and wet, with rivers and tributaries that aren't exactly in a drought condition. That leaves the three West Coast states, but Oregon and Washington are fairly well-supplied with water in the PNW. That kinda leaves California, unless we're talking about Mexican states.
I'm not dissing on the concept of desalination. But the literature for existing desalination plant around the world showcases the numerous challenges beyond just the money. Places like Israel and Saudi Arabia have desalination plants out of necessity, but the operational difficulties are substantial. Regular clogging of inlet pipes by sealife is a regular occurrence, disposal of the brine/salt extracted is ecologically tricky, energy costs, and more. And then to throw pumped hydro into this project would make it a substantial undertaking, as dams of any significant volume are always serious endeavors.
At this point, I feel the question is approaching pie-in-the-sky levels of applicability, so I'm not sure what else I can say.
I'm not a water or energy expert, but I have occasionally paid attention to the California ISO's insightful -- while perhaps somewhat dry -- blog. This is the grid operator that coined the term "duck curve" to describe the abundance of solar energy available on the grid during the daylight hours, above what energy is being demanded during those hours.
So yes, there is indeed an abundance of solar power during the daytime, for much of the year in California. But the question then moves to: where is this power available?
For reference, the California ISO manages the state-wide grid, but not all of California is tied to the grid. Some regions like the Sacramento and Los Angeles areas have their own systems which are tied in, but those interconnections are not sufficient to import all the necessary electricity into those regions; local generation is still required.
To access the bulk of this abundant power would likely require high-voltage transmission lines, which PG&E (the state's largest generator and transmission operator) operates, as well as some other lines owned by other entities. By and large, building a new line is a 10+ year endeavor, but plenty of these lines meet up at strategic locations around the state, especially near major energy markets (SF Bay, LA, San Diego) and major energy consumers (San Joaquin River Delta pumping station, the pumping station near the Grapevine south of Bakersfield).
But water desalination isn't just a regular energy consumer. A desalination plant requires access to salt water and to a freshwater river or basin to discharge. That drastically limits options to coastal locations, or long-distance piping of salt water to the plant.
The latter is difficult because of the corrosion that salt water causes; it would be nearly unsustainable to maintain a pipe for distances beyond maybe 100 km, and that's pushing it. The coastal option would require land -- which is expensive -- and has implications for just being near the sea. But setting aside the regulatory/zoning issues, we still have another problem: how to pump water upstream.
Necessarily, the sea is where freshwater rivers drain to. So a desalination plant by the ocean would have to send freshwater back up stream. This would increase the energy costs from exorbitant to astronomical, and at that point, we could have found a different use for the excess solar, like storing it in hydrogen or batteries for later consumption.
But as a last thought experiment, suppose we put the plant right in the middle of the San Joaquin River Delta, where the SF Bay's salt water meets the Sacramento River's freshwater. This area is already water-depreased, due to diversions of water to agriculture, leading to the endangerment of federally protected species. Pumping freshwater into here could raise the supply, but that water might be too clean: marine life requires the right mix of water to minerals, and desalinated water doesn't tend to have the latter.
So it would still be a bad option there, even though power, salt water, and freshwater access are present. Anywhere else in the state is missing at least one of those three criteria.
On one hand, I'm pleased that C++ is answering the call for what I'll call "safety as default", since as The Register and everyone else since pointed out, if safety constructs are "bolted on" like an afterthought, then of course it's not going to have very high adoption. Contrast this to Rust and its "unsafe" keyword that marks all the places where the minimum safety of the language might not hold.
On the other hand, while this Safe C++ proposal adopts a similar notion of an "unsafe" context, it also adds a "safe" keyword, to specify that a function will conform to compile-time safety checks. But as the proposal readily admits:
Rust’s functions are safe by default. C++’s are unsafe by default.
While the proposal will surely continue to evolve before being implemented, I forsee a similar situation as in C where code that lacked initial const-correctness will struggle to work with newer code and libraries. In this case, it would be the "unsafe" keyword that proliferates everywhere just to call older, unsafe code from newer, safe callers.
Rust has the advantage that there isn't much/any legacy Rust to upkeep, and that means the volume of unsafe code in Rust proframs is minimal, making them safer overall today. But for Safe C++ code, there's going to be a lot of unsafe legacy C++ code and that reduces the safety benefit for programs overall, for the time being
Even as this proposal progresses, the question of whether to start rewriting some code anew in Rust remains relevant. But this is still exciting as a new option to raise the bar in memory safety in C++.
Haha, your reply beat out mine by only a minute.
This does not agree with what the Social Security Administration has published:
Q20: Are Social Security numbers reused after a person dies?
A: No. We do not reassign a Social Security number (SSN) after the number holder's death. Even though we have issued over 453 million SSNs so far, and we assign about 5 and one-half million new numbers a year, the current numbering system will provide us with enough new numbers for several generations into the future with no changes in the numbering system.
For the historical questions, I don't really have answers, especially where it involves departures from the Western world. I did, however, briefly touch up on Islamic banking, which I've always found intriguing as the Islamic faith does not permit charging interest on loans, viewing it as usurious. I'm informed that Christianity also had a similar prohibition on usury, but apparently it fell due to the need to fund the constant wars in Europe.
I'm not really seeing the difference in feudalism except a members only kind of participation with a crony pool of inbreds, not all that different than the billionaires of today.
I think the important distinction insofar as stock markets is that the crony pool of inbreds have access, but so too does the commoner. Well, the middle-class commoner usually. And we've seen David-vs-Goliath cases where the commoners put up a decent fight against the inbreds' institutions; the whole GameStonk fiasco comes to mind. An equivalent economic upset would have been wholly impossible at any point during any feudal period in history.
What are the idealist or futurist potential alternatives between the present and a future where wealth is no longer the primary means of complex social hierarchical display? My premise is that basing hierarchical display on the fundamental means of human survival is barbaric primitivism.
From conversations I've had previously, possible answers to that question are presented in the works of Paul Cockshott, author of Towards A New Socialism. I've not read it, but friends in Marxist-Leninist parties have mentioned it. The Wikipedia page, however, notes that it's an economics book, which could be fairly technical and difficult to read. Sort of like how Das Kapital is more-or-less a textbook, in contrast with how Wage Labour And Capital was meant for mass consumption.
Wealth extraction neglects the responsibility of the environment and long term planning.
True. The cost to the environment is not "internalized", to use the technical term. Hence, it doesn't need to be paid for, and is thus "free real estate". Solutions to internalize environmental harm include carbon taxes or cap-and-trade. But the latter is a lukewarm carbon tax because it only looks at the end-result emissions, rather than taxing at the oil well, so to speak.
I'm curious how humanity evolves in a distant post scarcity future but without becoming authoritarian or utopian/dystopian
Might I recommend The Three-Body Problem and the trilogy overall by Liu Cixin? This phenomenal hard scifi work describes a space-faring future where the human species faces a common, external threat. After all, much of today's progress was yesterday's scifi. So why not look to scifi to see what tomorrow's solutions might be. It's no worse than my crystal ball, which is foggy and in need of repair.
If you're in the USA, I cannot understate how useful it may be to refer to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics's (BLS) Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), a resource which I believe has no direct comparison:
How can I learn about an occupation that is of interest to me?
The Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) provides information on what workers do; the work environment; education, training, and other qualifications; pay; the job outlook; information on state and area data; similar occupations; and sources of additional information for more than 300 occupational profiles covering about 4 out of 5 jobs in the economy.
As for answering the question, anecdotal conversations I've had suggest that the trades (eg glazier, electrician, plumber) in the USA are promising fields, since while the nature of the job might change with different needs, people still require electric wires and piped water. But the OOH could give you more specific outlooks for those specific trades.
I was once told that plumbers can make very serious sums of money, even if they're only ever installing supply-side piping. That is to say, the plumbing for water supply, as compared to drainage or sewer pipe, which are generally perceived as less appealing.
I'll take a shot from the hip at this question, but note that I won't add my customary citations or links.
The stock market is the paragon of property and trusts, contracts, corporations and law, and the capitalist socio-economic system. The very existence of the stock market implies a society that has some or most of these concepts.
For example, for shares to be traded, there generally must exist ownership rights upon the shares, distinct from the ownership rights that the company has of its own property. Or if not outright ownership of a share, then the benefit that a share provides (eg dividends). It also implies a legal system that will enforce these rights and the obligations of the company to its shareholders.
For a tradable company to exist, it must be organized/chartered as an entity distinct from any single person. This is different than the feudal days, when ventures would be undertaken "in right of the King" or some member of the nobility. The feudal method wouldn't work for modern companies, or else the King/Duke/Count/whatever could stiff the shareholders by just taking all the earnings. The company still needs to be created by legal means, either an Act of Parliament/Congress, by letter patent from the Monarch, or the modern administrative method of applying to the state Secretary of State (USA) or Companies House (UK) as examples.
Even the structure of a for-profit tradeable company -- when compared to a state-owned enterprise, a non-profit, a co-op, or an NGO or QUANGO -- is a representation of the values inherent to capitalism. A company is obliged to use the shareholders' funds -- which is held by the company but is owed to the shareholders -- to extract the greatest return. But this can come in many forms.
Short-term value from buying investments and quickly flipping them (eg corporate home buyers) is different than rent-seeking (eg corporate landlords) and is still different than long-term investments that actively work to build up the value (eg startup incubators, private wealth funds, Islamic banking, transit-owned adjacent property). If a for-profit company doesn't have a plan to extract a return... they're in hot water with the shareholders, with penalties like personal liability for malfeasance.
Another way of looking at the stock market is that if you have all the underlying components but don't yet have a stock market, it would soon appear naturally. That is to say, if the public stock markets were banned overnight, shares would still trade but just under the table and without regulation. But if any critical part underpinning the markets stopped existing, then the market itself would collapse.
History shows numerous examples where breakdowns of the legal system resulted in market mayhem, or when corporate property is expropriated for the Monarch's wars or personal use, or when funds invested into or paid out of companies is hampered by terrible monetary inflation.
As for what the stock market does, its greatest purpose is to organize investments into ventures. Historically, ventures were things like building a ship to sail to the New World and ~~steal~~ obtain goods to sell at home. Merchant ships were and are still very expensive, so few singular persons could afford it. And even if the could, the failure of the venture could be catastrophic for that person's finances. Better to spread the risk and the reward amongst lots of people.
What was once the sole domain of the landed gentry and nobility, slowly opened to the nouveau riche during the Industrial Revolution(s), then in turn to everyday people... for better or worse. It's now almost trivial to buy a share in any particular listed company, but just opening the stock market to everyone would have been chaotic at best. I think it's NYSE that still has on-floor traders/brokers, but imagine if all shares in that market had to be traded in a single room, with no digital trading. It's already quite lively on the trading floor today, now add all the trades from middle class Americans on payday. It would become physically impossible.
Likewise, a pure capitalist stock market would permit awful things like bribing journalists to write fake stories to crash a stock, then buy it for cheap. Or pump and dump scams. And would have no "circuit breakers" that halt a share during so-called flash crashes.
I'm reminded of a scene from the ITV show Agatha Christie's Poirot in the episode "Appointment With Death", where a wealthy woman is not only murdered but her business empire collapses because the murderer also spooks the markets as a double whammy, causing investors to panic and sell up. The relevant implications here is that despite her company not having changed its financial picture, it got cut up for scrap and thus lost most of its value, rendering the business worthless in the end. Companies are usually valued more as a going-concern, above what all its property put together would amount to. Where does that additional value come from? It's the prospect of a return from this particular assemblage of resources.
Suffice it to say, the stock market is a lot of things. But I view it as a natural result of certain other prerequisites, meaning we can't really get rid of it, so instead it should be appropriately regulated.
From an urban planning perspective, there are some caveats to your points:
A new downtown would make a subway very easy and cheap to build, you could cut and cover instead of tunnelling
Cut-and-cover will make shallow underground tunnels cheaper to construct in almost all cases irrespective of building in an old city center or as part of building a new city center from scratch. In fact, older pre-WW2 cities are almost ideal for cut-and-cover because the tunnels can follow the street grid, yielding a tunnel which will be near to already-built destinations, while minimizing costly curves.
Probably the worst scenario for cut-and-cover is when the surface street has unnecessary curves and detours (eg American suburban arterials). So either the tunnel follows the curve and becomes weirdly farther from major destinations, or it's built in segments using cut-and-cover where possible and digging for the rest.
Cheeeaaap land for huge offices, roads, and even houses
At least in America, where agricultural land at the edges of metropolitan areas is still cheap, the last 70 years do not suggest huge roads, huge offices, and huge house lead to a utopia. Instead, we just get car-dependency and sprawl, as well as dead shopping malls. The benefits of this accrued to the prior generations, who wheeled-and-dealed in speculative suburban house flipping, and saddled cities with sprawling infrastructure that the existing tax base cannot afford.
Green field is just so cheap.
It is, until it isn't. Greenfield development "would be short term appealing but still expensive when it comes to building everything". It's a rare case in America where post-WW2 greenfield housing or commercial developments pay sufficient tax to maintain the municipal services those developments require.
Look at any one municipal utility and it becomes apparent that the costs scale by length or area, but the revenue scales by businesses/households. The math doesn't suggest we need Singapore-levels of density, but constant sprawling expansion will put American cities on the brink of bankruptcy. As it stands, regressive property tax policies result in dense neighborhoods subsidizing sprawling neighborhood, but with nothing in return except more traffic and wastewater.
Either these cities must be permitted to somehow break away from their failed and costly suburban experiments, or the costs must be internalized upon greenfield development, which might not make it cheap anymore.
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/22165919
This entry of mine will not match the customary craftsmanship found in this community, but seeing as this was formerly a pile of miscellaneous, warped scrap 2x4 segments recovered from old pallets, I think I've made a reasonable show of things.
This bench is for my homegym, designed to be stood upon, which is why there's a rubber mat inlaid on the surface, a leftover of the gym floor. My design criteria called for even the edge of the top surface to support weight, so the main "box" of the bench uses 2x4 segments mitered (badly) together at 45 degrees, held together with wood glue.
I then routed the inner edge to support a 1/2" plywood sheet, which is screwed into the box. And then the rubber mat is glued down to the sheet, so there are no visible screws.
Finally, the legs are also 2x4 segments, cut so the bench sits 43 cm (~17 inch) from the floor; this is only coincidentally similar to the IPF weightlifting bench standards. I used screws instead of glue, just in case the legs needed to be shortened later.
All edges were rounded over with a 1/2" bit, as the bench is expected to be picked up and moved frequently. And everything stained in cherry and clear-coated.
Some of the annoyances from using scrap included:
- Stripping old paint off. Awful chemicals, awful scrubbing, awful disposal.
- Sanding away twists along the 2x4 segments
- Filling nail holes or arranging them so they don't draw attention
- My lack of experience with clamping and gluing wood that's not dimensionally consistent
If I were to do this again, I'd figure out a way to reduce the amount of routing needed for the inner edge, since I essentially removed 0.75 inch by 1.5 inch of material all around the edge. This took forever, and perhaps a CNC machine would have simplified things, in addition to squaring and planing the surfaces before mitering.
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/20965205
This is the story of how I turned a 15" Titan adjustable dumbbell to be 80 cm (31.5 inch) long. Why? Because I have a space-constrained home gym but still wanted a leg press, and so I had to remove its original barbell.
In its place, I built a pair of wood mounts for a normal barbell to rest upon, covered in that earlier post. However, since this machine is wall-adjacent, such a barbell would have to fit inside the width of the leg press, so about 80 cm. But must also be wider than the spacing from outside-edge to outside-edge of the wood mounts, which is 60 cm.
Such a short barbell -- or long dumbbell -- does not readily exist commercially, with the narrowest one I've seen being 48 inch barbells, which are still too wide. So I decided to build my own, using my spare Titan dumbbell as the base.
To start, the Titan dumbbells are excellent in this capacity, as the shaft diameter is 28 mm -- not 32 mm as the website would indicate -- which is a common diameter, if I am to cut short a cheap barbell to replace this dumbbell's shaft.
In keeping with my preexisting frugality, I purchased a cheap 1-inch barbell, hoping that it adopts the Olympic 28 mm shaft diameter, and not the 29 mm deadlift bar shaft diameter, as the Titan collars have small clearances. Matching neither, I find that this bar is closer to 23 mm, which although will fit into the existing collars, poses its own issues.
Nevertheless, this 7 ft barbell can conveniently be cut in half to yield two 42 inch segments. And then the included bar stops can be loped off, and then the length further refined to 77 cm, thus hiding the marks from the bar stop within the Titan collars, and also centering the (meh) knurling from the cheap bar.
But perhaps a picture will be more explanatory. Here, the original collar is dismantled at the top, showing the original shaft with a groove cut into it, about 1/4-inch from the end. Into that groove would fit two half-rings with an inner diameter of 20.4 mm and an outer diameter of 40 mm. In fact, all the parts inside the collar use 40 mm outer diameter, except the spacer cylinder, which is smaller at 37 mm. All of these parts are held captive within the collar using the C-ring and the geometry of the collar itself.
To deal with the difference between the collar expecting 28 mm, and the cheap bar's 23 cm, I designed an ABS 3d printed part in FreeCAD to act as a bushing, upon which the original Titan brass bushing will ride upon. This ABS bushing is held captive by way of its center bulge, which fits within the dead space inside the collar.
As for how I cut the groove into the end of the new shaft, I still don't own a lathe. So the next best is to mount an angle grinder onto a "cross slide vise" taken from a drill press, with the shaft secured in a wooden jig to only allow axial rotation manually. The vise allows precision control for the cutting wheel's depth, with me pausing frequently to measure how close the groove is to the desired 20.4 mm inner diameter. This is.... not a quick nor precise process. But it definitely works.
After reassembling both collars onto the new shaft and lubricating with white lithium, the final result is a long dumbbell (or short barbell) with Titan's 3.5 inch collars on the end, with 63 cm of shaft exposed and 80 cm from end to end. The ABS bushing is remarkably smooth against the brass bushing, after some sanding with 180 grit. The whole dumbbell weights 5.48 kg empty.
Here is the comparison with the stock Titan dumbbell. It's pretty amazing how the knurling conveniently lined up. It fits well onto the wood mounts of the leg press.
But why would I do all this just to add a weirdly long 3.5-inch collar dumbbell to a leg press, when it already can accept weights underneath the carriage? I will answer that in a follow-up post.
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/20133956
With the exception of the weight stack for my functional trainer and its change plates, I wanted all my subsequent equipment to be metric. To that end, I saw some cheap 45 lbs CAP bumper plates, and figured that I could make them into metric with not too much effort.
Some rough math prior to purchasing suggested that these plates -- with a width of 68 mm -- could be slimmed down from 20.4 kg (45 lbs) to nearly 20.0 kg, by boring two 2" holes (51 mm). To keep balance, the holes should be on on diametrically opposite ends. And should be neither too close to the edge, nor too close to the center, since the plate still needs to absorb a drop without deforming. That the bored holes are 51 mm is a fantastic happenstance, nearly identical to the center hole for Olympic-spec plates.
Examining each plate before drilling, I found that the silkscreen letter A in "CAP" is well-centered diametrically, although it doesn't line up with the matching logo on the back side. Also, since these are cheap CAP plates, the initial weight tolerances are pretty poor. 45 lbs should be 20.41 kg (2 sig figs), but my first four plates registered at 20.58, 20.51, 20.64, 20.56. That's nearly an extra half pound!
To drill the holes perfectly plumb, I did the work on a drill press using a 2-inch hole saw. Because the saw wasn't deep enough to go through the full width in one pass, I started with a 1/4-inch (6 mm) pilot hole straight through the tip of the letter A in "CAP". Then I drilled from both sides with the hole saw until a ~200 gram rubber core fell out. Repeat for the second bore.
To finish, I took some sandpaper to remove the old "45 lbs" markings, then used my label maker to affix new values. All plates are still high, but ranged from 20.030 kg to 20.105 kg. Not too shabby, I think.
In a happy coincidence, the position of these bored holes is perfect for one's thumbs when grasping the plate like a steering wheel, making it easier to pick up when laid flat on the floor. I also added a strip of blue electrical tape around the perimeter to make it easy to identify these as 20 kg.
In the end, I got the cheap metric plates I wanted, and it came with a usability improvement as well. I've not dropped these yet, so time will tell how they hold up.
I'm trying to remind myself of a sort-of back-to-back chaise longue or sofa, probably from a scene on American TV or film -- possibly of the mid-century or modern style -- where I think two characters are having an informal business meeting. But the chaise longue itself is a single piece of furniture with two sides, such that each characters can stretch their legs while still being able to face each other for the meeting, with a short wall separating them.
That is to say, they are laying anti-parallel along the chaise longue, if that makes any sense. The picture here is the closest thing I could find on Google Images.
So my questions are: 1) what might this piece of furniture be called? A sofa, chaise longue, settee, something else? And 2) does anyone know of comparable pieces of furniture from TV or film? Additional photos might help me narrow my search, as I'm somewhat interested in trying to buy such a thing. Thanks!
EDIT 1: it looks like "tete a tete chair" is the best keyword so far for this piece of furniture
EDIT 2: the term "conversation chair" also yields a number of results, including a particular Second Empire style known as the "indiscreet", having room for three people!
My guess is that reading tomes like this is useful as a vocal exercise and can be a way of "getting one's name out" for aspiring vocal talent. After all, what better way to showcase voice work on a resume than to point to examples online? As for the exact tome, it doesn't really matter for this purpose but might as well also contribute to the wealth of human media.