There are a few historical types of deed restrictions that have been judged illegal and unenforceable. A corporation placing a deed restriction on a parcel to prevent competition with itself sounds like an illegal class of restriction
At some point the correct solution is for engineers to collectively agree to refuse to model government-prescribed deviations from convention. Or, put more obliquely, provide more feedback to make it more obvious who is bearing the cost of the complexity of these requirements.
It's a social problem and it calls for a social solution.
I know, there's a lot of disagreement around where the point in question is, but it would serve us well if more engineers were more assertive about stating their opinion on where it is.
This sounds good until you realize that half or more of the software engineers are people working in 3rd world countries who just need a job, or they're H-1B's working in the US who can't afford to make waves.
We would need to form some kind of global union and push back together.
In the US there is a great example of a government agency that works to reduce emergent complexity in situations like this - NIST.
NIST does a lot of work behind the scenes in advanced technical fields. I wonder if it would help if there was a NIST publication enumerating common time and date keeping patterns, like we have for cryptography.
disagree - good products meet their users where they are and bury complexity under the hood. i can't imagine trying to use a calendar app (or any app really) that refuses to operate in any mode other than UTC.
OK but most people would agree that "only UTC" is not an ergonomic default. There is a balance.
Also, are the users where they are because they want to be there, or because long ago some government or religious leader forced something through and they go along with it because of some kind of inertia?
Hydraulic brakes have far better power and better power modulation. I think that matters a lot in terms of usability and confidence to a beginner. Especially in rainy weather.
What was the model? I recently encountered something similar with a GE over-the-counter microwave. One day it stayed on after opening the door. I replaced the control module and the board in it looks exactly like the one in the OP photo (Midea with all of the same components), which leads me to think the fault is the same as the one described in the post.
Yep, the GE over-the-range model PNM9196SF3SS. GE is just a Haier badge since 2016. I'm not surprised by a Chinese company not giving a shit, but for a microwave magnetron to fire on its own feels like a sign of deep engineering rot.
The only fix was to unplug it then swap the logic board. Once it happened again with the new board we threw it out.
I had non-stop issues with GE OTR microwaves for 2 years. I started with a PVM2188SLJC that I ended up getting replaced three times by GE over a year for separate issues (buzzing turntable, cracked casing). I ended spamming the executive team and got an upgraded model with convect for free.
Fast forward two years later, and the fuse tripped inside the microwave after I forget a bottle sterilizer overnight, on Christmas Day.
I said fuck this, and went and got a Panasonic NN-SG158. The twist was that it looked like it was a different version of the first GE microwave we had from the same OEM, but a little reworked.
It's a microwave, non-ionizing. They're pretty much easy-bake ovens which shine a monochromatic light at a color water is very black/absorptive at (a color far redder than infrared). They cook outside-in so he'd be baking his skin well before internal injury.
It would be like thermal burns but deeper. The heating is more diffuse and deeper than traditional cooking methods so I'd imagine if you did get a burn, it would go deeper into the tissue than you might expect.
An extremely irresponsible video. He talked a lot about scary apocrypha to do with eyeballs exploding but never once mentioned the possibility of vision damage or blindness without the drama. I think he knew that microwaves are extremely dangerous to your eyes and avoided doing the most potentially damaging things without talking about it. To whit:
If you bypass the door interlocks and operate the magnetron with the door open and then stick your head into the cavity, you risk have your eyes pass through one of the microwave peaks in the standing wave pattern set up by the cavity. Extremely intense, localized heating within your eyeballs is never a good idea, and you risk burning your retinas or damaging your corneas or lenses.
The eyeball is large made of water and protrudes somewhat from the eye socket. Peering forward into the interior of the microcave cavity has the potential to expose your eye to the full brunt of the standing wave peak without much other body mass in the way to absorb the energy, creating the potential for that intense localized heating.
I think it's a combination of that and curtain air bags which are often packaged on the pillars. And of course the rollover requirements are predominantly due to SUVs and trucks being so high off the ground (needlessly most of the time) they are more susceptible to rollover.
Minimal visibility requirements around A pillars (and in front of the car/over the hood) sound like the logical next step.
>>high off the ground (needlessly most of the time) they are more susceptible to rollover.
Also the far greater mass of the vehicle requires far stronger A-, B- and C-pillars to not crush in a rollover
Forcing all vehicles onto a 30-50% weight loss diet would help every factor tremendously, including reduced braking distances and more nimble turning to reduce collisions in the first place, reduced impact when there are collisions, reduced road wear, reduced fuel/energy consumption, etc.. Everything gets better with lighter weight, but engineers/designers seem happy to blow right past any weight budget at the slightest excuse (if there even is a weight budget in the design brief). The sheer mass of vehicles these days, even so-called "sportscars" never ceases to amaze me, and when it gets to SUVs and trucks, it's just insane. The technology certainly exists to cut weights by close to half, to levels of 35 years ago, and improve safety and performance while doing so.
Getting hit by a car is much more survivable than getting hit by an oversized pickup truck/SUV whose designers deliberately chose a huge, blunt frontal cross-section with poor visibility over the hood.
This deliberately unsafe design needs to be outlawed. Infrastructure improvements like traffic calming and dedicated grade-separated pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure are great too, but we need both.
Many people have legitimate needs and uses for pickup trucks and SUVs, and the definition of "dangerously oversized" and unsafe is rather subjective. Should semi trucks be banned because they are "dangerously oversized"? What should people use to move large and heavy items? Should farmers be prevented from having the vehicles they need to do their job?
While I agree that large pickup trucks and SUVs pose an increased risk to pedestrians, particularly in urban areas, and should be discouraged as single person commuter vehicles, particularly in urban areas, there are a lot of other use cases. What should someone who needs to move bulky/heavy/rough things with regularity and can only afford to have one vehicle use?
Discouraging negative externalities through taxation makes sense, but setting taxes to be so punitive that they make it difficult for people to afford the vehicles they need to do what they need to do is also harmful.
As an example, I have a pickup truck and a regular car. Driving around town I use my regular car, but when I need to move large or heavy things I use my truck. It's much more convenient to be able to use my truck when I need it rather than having to rent one every time or hire a company to move things for me.
The pickup truck is large (RAM 1500), and some would argue it's dangerously oversized, but its size is needed when I need to do truck things with it. The truck being affordable means I can afford to have a regular sized vehicle for tasks that don't involve moving big/heavy/dirty things.
It's not subjective. RAM 1500 and trucks like it kill more pedestrians and cyclists in collisions because they have a larger frontal cross-section that limits the driver's view in front of the cab and is more likely to cause fatalities when a collision does occur.
I agree that trucks like the RAM 1500 are useful in many applications. They should be taxed appropriately (in a way that offsets or negates what currently amounts to subsidies in the US market), and manufacturers should be required to enable the driver to see a certain minimum distance in front of the vehicle and obstruct a certain maximum angle around A pillars. Trucks and SUVs over a certain size should also have speed limiter governors that activate on city streets. It is not acceptable to have drivers of these vehicles - which were originally developed for specialized industry applications - speed in areas where it directly endangers pedestrians and cyclists.
What's subjective is the threshold of what is considered "dangerous". I do agree improving visibility would be a good thing, and incentivizing safer designs through taxation could be good. Insurance prices already do that to an extent. I do agree that SUVs and pickup trucks have become taller than necessary in recent years; pickups from the 1990s were appreciably lower and had better visibility without being any less useful for moving things around.
The CAFE exemptions for SUVs and trucks compared to cars don't make sense to me and encourage maximizing vehicle footprint, so changing those rules would make sense. What else do you consider "subsidies" for this size of pickup trucks? Not being subject to the "chicken tax"? (not directly relevant to me as I'm in Canada)
In the US it's CAFE gaming, 6000LB GVW tax incentives and arguably fuel, registration and tolls aren't (sufficiently) scaled with vehicle size. The chicken tax thing definitely contributes even to Canada's market since it's relatively rare for automakers to consider it separately from the US one.
Would you support more stringent driving licence for such vehicles? So that anyone who needs a truck puts up with the faff of getting one, but regular Joes who just want moar car might not bother?
> Should semi trucks be banned because they are "dangerously oversized"?
Poor example, they already are. You require a special license. This is a tax, and a rather severe one. Never mind that those drivers are also directly responsible if their vehicle malfunctions. That's how some big rig drivers are able to get 150 years in jail because their brakes went out.
Your computer is not unsafely designed in a way that kills tens of thousands of people a year in accidents.
Also, your computer's power consumption is in fact regulated on a semi-voluntary basis via a program called Energy Star. People are fine with it because Energy Star certification saves them money. By contrast, the problem with trucks is that their unsafe design is subsidized by the government, so smaller more efficient vehicles that would normally save people money end up being penalized.
Last I checked my desktop doesn't slam into pedestrians/bicyclists trying to use what public infrastructure we have in the US. If unbounded vehicle bloat is systematically contributing to the deaths of citizens then yes, we have a collective responsibility to regulate it.
I can’t think of many consumer products more dangerous and widespread than cars. Going from a suggestion that we make them safer to “What’s next, regulate everything?” is quite the jump.
Dude we are literally doing calculations of the power usage of our employees at their home office for a ISO 14001 certification. It’s beyond ridiculous
Yup, here I was wondering why I already had it starred if this move only happened today, but then reached the same conclusion that it was probably a mirror repository before.
This research is focused on modeling individual protein binding sites. Pleiotropic effects and off-target side effects are caused by interactions beyond the individual binding sites. So I don't think this tool by itself will be able to design a protein that acts in the way you describe (and that's putting aside the delivery concerns - how do you get the protein to the right compartment inside the cell?).
But novel binding domain design could be combined with other tools to achieve this effect. You could imagine engineering a lipid nanoparticle coated in antibodies specific to cell types that express particular surface proteins. So you might use this tool to design both the antibody binding domain on the vector and also the protein encoded by the payload mRNA. Not all cell types can be reached and addressed this way, but many can.
reply