I've seen catastrophic moisture damage in every form of home construction utilized in North America from the 1850s to present day. Anecdotally the most common failure modes break down roughly thus:
1850s-1960s: Termite damage followed by rot. This time frame is notable for ready availability of dense, tightly grained building materials. Lumber from this time period shrugs off all but the most egregious wetting cycles. So what happens is high humidity attracts termites which break down the structure. This in turn gives rot a plate to establish a foothold and spread (slowly).
1970s-1990s:
This period is notable for a steady decline in quality of building materials and introduction of first and second generation engineered products. First-to-market siding products, condensation issues due to the aluminum craze in the 80s, and material adhesives edging out toward the end of their life expectancy all contribute to problems with mold/rot. Looser grained building materials also mean that when a problem is present it will quickly spread to larger areas of the structure than older materials would permit under similar conditions.
2000-2010: Easily the absolute nadir of home building in the US. The industry saw a massive influx of "budget" engineered materials, with no substantive changes to code to address the deficiencies of these materials. My personal favorite from this era include OSB siding that turned into a kitchen sponge whenever the paint layer was breached.
2010-present: same as it ever was. The market is still flooded with engineered materials that have a fraction of the life expectancy of more traditional materials. Building codes have largely caught up with the obvious limitations of these materials, however now the biggest issue is as a nation we are short two full generations of trained craftspeople in the construction industry and as such installation errors are rampant. This leads to more and bigger issues, bigger abatement projects, and in significantly newer homes. Case in point: a pinhole leak in a caulk seam on a window surround that resulted in all of the structural members surrounding that window, the wall cladding, the sill beam, a section of the floor, and several joists rotting out in short order. Root cause: didn't use plywood. Engineered sheathing acted like an enormous sponge both retaining and broadcasting moisture to all of the surrounding materials.
So yeah, you're not wrong inasmuch as according to theory and per code it is within the realm of possibility to use these construction methods and materials successfully. In practice, however, the least competent subcontractor on any given jobsite presents a hard ceiling to what one can get away with. You design a fault-intolerant system that has any flavor of complexity to it's installation and odds are good someone's going to screw something up. The Achilles Heel of modern vapor tight building systems is the fact that houses leak. Either through incompetence during the initial build or breakdown of materials over time all houses leak. Whereas older construction methods would tolerate this to varying degrees, newer systems do not.
We've been using SQLite in production as our exclusive means for getting bytes to/from disk for going on 6 years now. To this day, not one production incident can be attributed to our choice of database or how we use it.
We aren't using SQLite exactly as intended either. We have databases in the 100-1000 gigabyte range that are concurrently utilized by potentially hundreds or thousands of simultaneous users. Performance is hardly a concern when you have reasonable hardware (NVMe/SSD) and utilize appropriate configuration (PRAGMA journal_mode=WAL).
In our testing, our usage of SQLite vastly outperformed an identical schema on top of SQL Server. It is my understanding that something about not having to take a network hop and being able to directly invoke the database methods makes a huge difference. Are you able to execute queries and reliably receive results within microseconds with your current database setup?
Sure, there is no way we are going to be able to distribute/cluster our product by way of our database provider alone, but this is a constraint we decided was worth it, especially considering all of the other reduction in complexity you get with single machine business systems. I am aware of things like DQLite/RQLite/et.al., but we simply don't have a business case that demands that level of resilience (and complexity) yet.
Some other tricks we employ - We do not use 1 gigantic SQLite database for the entire product. It's more like a collection of microservices that live inside 1 executable with each owning an independent SQLite database copy. So, we would have databases like Users.db, UserSessions.db, Settings.db, etc. We don't have any use cases that would require us to write some complex reporting query across multiple databases.
yes. if you wanted to annotate your genome you could “easily” do it on your brand new macbook (this is ram intensive, you probably need 32G). you’d need a reference genome, like https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/genome-bottle
Calcium tartrate is a great high speed introduction to crystal growing because it is very forgiving and "magical." You can get ~millimeter size crystals in seconds. Then once you're hooked you can try growing crystals that require more patience/technique. If you ever saw the demonstration of lead (II) iodide precipitating from solution [1], this demonstration looks similar except that the crystals are sparkly and colorless instead of sparkly and golden.
You'll need potassium hydrogen tartrate (cream of tartar), sodium hydrogen carbonate (baking soda), and calcium chloride (sold as DampRid or Pickle Crisp).
Add a spoon full of baking soda and a spoon full of cream of tartar to a glass of distilled water. They should fizz together as the baking soda neutralizes the acidity of the cream of tartar, releasing CO2. This is what you want, since the mixed neutral salt of tartaric acid is more soluble in water. Stir and wait for the fizzing to die down, then gradually stir in small portions of more cream of tartar until the additions stop dissolving. Let the solids settle in the glass.
Meanwhile, dissolve a spoon full of calcium chloride in a second glass of water. It should dissolve readily with a bit of stirring.
Once residual solids have settled in glass one, decant the clear liquid into another glass.
Now pour the clear decanted liquid into the calcium chloride solution with stirring. Within seconds, you should see sparkling needles rain out of the solution. These are your crystals. The transition is especially striking in direct sunlight. The crystals can be saved and seem to remain stable in air regardless of ambient humidity.
I unfortunately have not seen this demonstration written down elsewhere so I can't offer a citation. I came to it by personal experience when I was on a crystal growing kick as a kid. (Though it may well have been written down somewhere that I have never come across.)
Sildenafil (Viagra) is old and busted. Tadalafil (Cyalis) has a longer duration of action and less side effects (17 vs 4 hours half life) due to a lesser reduction of PDEs besides the targeted PDE5.
Additionally, studies show that daily tadalafil is much better in managing or even “curing“ ED.
Want a little extra boost? Consume 6g of L-Citrullin a day. One of the few proven, freely and cheaply available substances that improve erections. L-Citrulline gets converted to L-Arginin and is better that L-Arginin supplementation.
If you want to increase the half life, consume pomegranate juice.
Warning, L-Citrullin and PDE5 inhibitors potentiate each other.
Need even more arguments? Daily PDE5 inhibitors are cardioprotective and cardioregenerative.
Studies used 5mg Tadalafil daily, I am on 20 -why not?
I'm introvert myself (INTP). I share your frustration. Maybe you have some business hints for introverts? AFAIK, the only successful Unicorn created by INTP's is Google, but I cannot have a talk with Google founders, obviously.
Vitamin D is vital for adaptive immune system function too!
When a T-cell encounters a foreign pathogen, it extends a vitamin D receptor. A signaling device allowing it to bind to the active form of vitamin D. Only after this can T-cells perform their intended function. [1]
Which is likely why healthy levels > 40 ng/mL significantly reduce COVID mortality, there's been > 2 dozen obersvational studies and at least one randomized controlled one. [2]
1. von Essen MR, Kongsbak M, Schjerling P, Olgaard K, Odum N, Geisler C (April 2010). "Vitamin D controls T cell antigen receptor signaling and activation of human T cells". Nature Immunology. 11 (4): 344–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/ni.1851
2. Entrenas Castillo, M., Entrenas Costa, L. M., Vaquero Barrios, J. M., Alcalá Díaz, J. F., López Miranda, J., Bouillon, R., & Quesada Gomez, J. M. (2020). "Effect of calcifediol treatment and best available therapy versus best available therapy on intensive care unit admission and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19: A pilot randomized clinical study". The Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology, 203, 105751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2020.105751
Doing the math with some quick Google searches...
A single red photon has the energy 2.810-19 J.
This sensor is for a telescope with the primary mirror size of 8.4 meters. So area ~ pi8.4m^2 = 221.7 m^2 (square meters)
The distance to the closest galaxy, Andromeda, is 2.537 million light years = 2.4×10^22 meters
If we assume it's a broadcast message (a poor guess for Andromeda, but reasonable for further galaxies), with energy projected in all directions, we can use the surface area of a sphere given a distance to get an idea for how much energy would need to be broadcasted to detect a single red photon: A=4πr^2
Wolfram alpha helpfully says that is "≈ ( 0.024 ≈ 1/42 ) × energy output of the sun in one second ( 1 s L_ )"
Which is better than I expected, honestly.
So, even for detecting life in the closest galaxy, an intelligent species would need to be working on the energy level of output of stars to have a hope of light reaching earth. Not even counting getting above the noise of the rest of the stars, and then sending something identifiable as intelligent.
1850s-1960s: Termite damage followed by rot. This time frame is notable for ready availability of dense, tightly grained building materials. Lumber from this time period shrugs off all but the most egregious wetting cycles. So what happens is high humidity attracts termites which break down the structure. This in turn gives rot a plate to establish a foothold and spread (slowly).
1970s-1990s: This period is notable for a steady decline in quality of building materials and introduction of first and second generation engineered products. First-to-market siding products, condensation issues due to the aluminum craze in the 80s, and material adhesives edging out toward the end of their life expectancy all contribute to problems with mold/rot. Looser grained building materials also mean that when a problem is present it will quickly spread to larger areas of the structure than older materials would permit under similar conditions.
2000-2010: Easily the absolute nadir of home building in the US. The industry saw a massive influx of "budget" engineered materials, with no substantive changes to code to address the deficiencies of these materials. My personal favorite from this era include OSB siding that turned into a kitchen sponge whenever the paint layer was breached.
2010-present: same as it ever was. The market is still flooded with engineered materials that have a fraction of the life expectancy of more traditional materials. Building codes have largely caught up with the obvious limitations of these materials, however now the biggest issue is as a nation we are short two full generations of trained craftspeople in the construction industry and as such installation errors are rampant. This leads to more and bigger issues, bigger abatement projects, and in significantly newer homes. Case in point: a pinhole leak in a caulk seam on a window surround that resulted in all of the structural members surrounding that window, the wall cladding, the sill beam, a section of the floor, and several joists rotting out in short order. Root cause: didn't use plywood. Engineered sheathing acted like an enormous sponge both retaining and broadcasting moisture to all of the surrounding materials.
So yeah, you're not wrong inasmuch as according to theory and per code it is within the realm of possibility to use these construction methods and materials successfully. In practice, however, the least competent subcontractor on any given jobsite presents a hard ceiling to what one can get away with. You design a fault-intolerant system that has any flavor of complexity to it's installation and odds are good someone's going to screw something up. The Achilles Heel of modern vapor tight building systems is the fact that houses leak. Either through incompetence during the initial build or breakdown of materials over time all houses leak. Whereas older construction methods would tolerate this to varying degrees, newer systems do not.