Barely tangentially related, but I5 desperately needs to be widened to 3 lanes with a strict "No semi trucks in the left lane, for any reason" rule that is enforced with impounding trucks, the goods they're carrying, and loss of licensing for the drivers and the companies they work for. I'm not even against making it so that CHP, OHP...etc, are allow to use the proceeds from auctioning off the impounded trucks and goods to fund themselves.

I've wasted far too many hours of my life getting stuck behind a left-lane truck on that road, trying to overtake a column of trucks in the right lane while going up a 6% grade.

I've long said that anyone making that argument for having your average car be able to go up to 150 or so needs to be put in a car, forced to drive at a minimum speed of 150, and forced to do 50 or so miles on your average American highway.

If after that experience they are still alive and still wish to make that argument, then I will accept it.

But with that said, I have heard an alternate argument for it that makes more sense to me. Most cars aren't running their engines at 100% -- they shouldn't be. But the top of the RPM and speed dials, are meant to represent that 100%. So the 155mph standard upper limit on many cars' speed gauges is more to account for the fact that if you push the powertrain of the car to 100%, you will probably find yourself at somewhere near those kinds of speeds anyways, and you want to still show the driver how fast they're going, even if they're doing something nuts.

I think what the speedometer is capable of displaying, what the car is actually capable of reaching, and what the governor should be set to are 3 separate items. I wouldn't have any problem with the latter being set lower on general cars mostly because it'd be an extra "and you removed the limiter on a public road" charge when they are caught more than the hope it'd actually do anything preventative. It's not like people getting pulled over for doing 120 mph now are getting a $100 speeding ticket though and the same thing could be achieved through just making that punishment higher directly.

Also anyone buying a car that can genuinely take itself to 150 (i.e. not that the speedometer can read 150 but that the whole car, tires included, are actually rated to not fall apart when the engine tries to do so) who hasn't already taken the thing to a track is either nuts or one of those people with a car collection garage of things they never actually drive. That includes any of you model S owners... it's a blast.

> I think what the speedometer is capable of displaying, what the car is actually capable of reaching, and what the governor should be set to are 3 separate items.

I agree, but I think there was at one point more coherency between those 3 items and it made more sense to just have the speedos go up to 155 or thereabouts, because that was basically the highest speed that any reasonably consumer-accessible car would reach (so not the ones tuned up to go really fast, but maybe something like a muscle car which could on a good day maybe get close to those numbers.)

These days, you're right. No sane manufacturer is going to overprovision their cars to be able to do 2x the speed limit of their target market without an expectation that the car will be extremely niche if they do.

Annual sales are a fraction of the hardware that's already out there. If you dig into the Steam HW surveys you will find positively ancient hardware still being used. Most people don't replace their systems more than one or twice a decade.

Iirc, the Nvidia 1000 series gpus were still the most common ones according to the stream survey even when the 4000 series was being released. And when Ryzen was first released, there was still a sizeable fraction of steam users on core2duo processors.

Well that's true, but even so the delta should indicate what people are buying right this moment. If we take the 132M Steam users and have each one buy something every 5 years, that's 2.2M each month or 1.67%. The 5 year figure is probably on the high end so let's maybe say 1.5%.

The delta this month was +1.2% for AMD, so would that imply that 80% of people bought AMD, and 20% Intel? In August AMD seems to have actually had negative delta, maybe from people selling the effed up 13/14th gen for cheap? Idk.

The latest X3D cpu was just released, as part of the 9000 series. Though it's probably out of stock because it's currently just about the best processor for cache heavy workloads, especially gaming.

The X3D chips have way larger caches so they punch well above their weight on many workloads that are traditionally cache bound. And with the 9000 series they figured out a better assembly method so they work even better than the 7000 or 5000 series ones.

Thanks for the info. So if I wait a few months for stock to replenish it sounds like the 9000 series X3D may be a good option for a future-proof gaming PC

yea, or if you're in hurry, get something older gen with AM5 socket, and swap to 9800X3D once it's available.

You might even be able to pick up a used 7000 X3D from someone else that's upgrading to the 9000 X3D series. They're still very capable chips.

There's a limit to how much you can buy per day, per 30 days, and per year.

Many of the eastern-european markets around here have a little mini pharmacy where you can buy stuff that's either stronger than what you can find in the US, or can't be found at all. Especially various topicals, they tend to have versions with 2-5% of the active ingredient whereas most of the equivalents I can find in the US are 1%; Obviously nothing that's controlled/scheduled.

I believe the problem is that the oral route causes most of it to be broken down in the digestive system. Nasal spray seems to be more effective because it has a chance to directly enter the blood stream rather than go through the gut.

Even doses as low as 1g taken daily for a week or two will show significant changes in liver chemistry. Consider that many other medicines, especially cold medicines, often include it as well, and it's not hard to see how someone that is suffering from a strong cold could end up taking more like 2-3g per day for extended periods of time. That will definitely cause some damage to the liver, which can be recovered from, but should probably be avoided. At least in the US though, many people have already compromised liver function due to chronic metabolic diseases, and for many, the damage might end up being permanent.

A lot of restaurants also just overdo how much they add in an attempt to make it seem like they put a lot of truffles into the dish and so there's a strong aroma from the dish. Whenever I use it, in something like my attempts at a mushroom truffle risotto, I will usually use a drop or two for a whole pan. Maybe a little more if I plan to cook the dish for a while after, such as if I am making a sauce that will simmer for a bit. Usually even a teaspoon is too much.

The petrochemical-like aroma is probably due to the sulfur in the dithiapentane.

I've noticed that if used at room-ish temperature, most decent truffle oils don't have a strong sulfur-based smell, but if cooked, say on a pizza or a french fry where the temperature gets relatively high, I think some of the dithiapentane might degrade into stuff that's more more reminiscent of petroleum products.

>>I think some of the dithiapentane might degrade into stuff that's more more reminiscent of petroleum products.

Seems very likely, considering the process of refining or"cracking" oil into usable products is based on temperature and pressure, and organic compounds in general have different reactivity at different temperatures. In cooking with oils, one of the key properties to consider is their "smoke temperature", above which they will not be cooking your food but smoking and ruining the flavor, so you must select an oil that is good at higher temps than you need to cook the other ingredients. So, it wouldn't be at all surprising if there's a threshold temperature that will break or re-combine the molecules of this artificial "truffle oil" in a way that ruins it.