jaylw314

So speaking about bad statistics, that's an example. Not just because the data itself is bad (who the hell is Neel Danesha, why should I trust him, and why does he not provide analysis of the total carbon cost of natural gas grilling?), but because it does not answer the problem you posed, which was cooking on gas stoves vs cooking on charcoal grills. Most bad statistics are not bad because the numbers are wrong (although I suspect there's no shortage of that either), but because people using them asked the wrong question.

Well, Mark Twain was wrong when he talked about "lies, damn lies, and statistics." He should have said "lies, damn lies, and bad statistics." We're all smart enough to take the time and make the effort to evaluate the quality of the information around us

I didn't pay for it, the Harvard School of Public Health did: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.1c08298 --If you really want to reduce pollution from cooking, you ban charcoal grills. As to that question, it all depends on what you mean by "pollution". If we're talking greenhouse gases, then natural gas is significantly worse. I assume you're talking about the other stuff (particulates, odors, CO and other gases). I haven't seen any good data actually comparing the two, but I suspect the differences are trivial since grills account for 0.0003% of the US carbon footprint.

The arguments I've seen: Methane is far more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and there have been studies showing household leaks occur in typical installations even when unused. NOx production is high enough to be a factor in children's asthma exacerbations, and there have been studies supporting this Gas stoves are far less efficient than electric (you lose a lot of heat to the air). This includes ovens, since they need an exhaust that loses heat. Electric stoves give at least the ability to convert to renewable sources later, even if it's a pipe dream now I've always cooked over gas, but I have used induction tops a couple times and found them far superior. The only reason I hadn't switched was due to cost at the time. But the typical electric tops drive me nuts.

LOL, those were different times when you could just rinse your kids off in paint thinner! I'm reminded of a line from George Carlin (though I can't remember which show): "ALL foods are 'natural'! The toxic waste that factory dumps in the river is 'natural'. Dog s--t is 'natural, it's just not very good food!" I miss you, George

My favorite is the pump next to the athletic field at Beverly Hills High School. They tried to dress it up in artsy facades but it just ends up looking bizarre

I grew up in San Diego in the 70's and 80's and don't recall issues with oil on beaches. I imagine the local geology has not changed much...

I went to the beach when we took a trip to Santa Barbara about 10 years ago. When we walked back in, I was trailing black stains on the floor. I panicked a little, thinking I had cut myself and was trailing blood, but it wasn't--I had all the black sticky stains all over both feet, and realized it must have been from the beach. We asked the hotel manager about it and he reminded us to wash our feet if we go to the beach, because the oil globules from the oil spill 40 years before were still there just under the surface.

Eyewear is not optional. Private flying is, which actually helps at least some. I mean, I think we've been flying and using 100LL under a monopoly already, since TEL is produced by only one company (I think). Why haven't they jacked up fees and prices for TEL to take advantage of their monopoly?

I think you should clarify your claim. The sale of 100LL is banned in certain airports, and its sale in various counties may be in question. The use of 100LL, though, is not banned right now AFAIK, and if you know of an airport or locality that does ban its use, I would expect citations.

Absolutely there will only be one or at most two players in such a small market. Yes, it could absolutely drive out private pilots like you, and you should fear that with no possibility of changing the outcome. That's just life in a free market--small markets beget few or one supplier. Why would one expect otherwise? The only alternative is lots and lots of government regulation and intervention (not a free market, IOTW). To take that argument ad absurdum, you should absolutely be afraid for many things you buy in a 'free market'. Eyeglasses, for example, are made by one supplier (they sell through different named suppliers, but they're all actually the same company and a monopoly). You should absolutely fear being priced out of eyeglasses. If you poke around, you'll find most things in the market are actually produced, sold or controlled by a monopoly or near monopoly, so you should pretty much be afraid all the time. The question is (like most things in life), are you able to live with that anxiety, deal with it and enjoy/maximize the opportunities you have while they last? Or do you carry angst about it indefinitely when there's nothing material or constructive you can do about it, and allow it to minimize your opportunities?

And healthcare policy administered by universities and private agencies has likewise been a great success here, no? Last I checked, we had some of the most efficient health care in the world

Like I said, we probably disagree. Handing it over to university based agencies and think tanks just opens another can of worms that I think is fundamentally worse.

That's a pretty strong opinion to be based on one interaction, isn't it? That's like telling someone who's had a gear-up landing their ticket should be taken away, and they should never fly again because they're a failure. FWIW as a physician, I think they've been a pretty solid agency until perhaps the past 4-5 years.

In case you hadn't noticed, they do that for Tylenol and aspirin, too That's their job.

Just as a nuance, my understanding is that static wicks SLOW DOWN the discharge of static. Static bleeds out quickly at corners, and that flow is what causes radio interference. The wicks are actually resistors that lower this current to mitigate the interference. True 'static' static wouldn't produce any RF emissions.

It's funny how people constantly attempt to pick apart the scientific process, and can attempt to because it, by its very nature, (should) invite open discourse and debate I'd speculate this guy would only be open to diatribe, and puts himself in a position where he can't be proven wrong. That's the sure sign of a quack in my business.

Oh, I saw somewhere that they made the phone call and made the flight 30 minutes late, but obviously not sure if that is accurate

Cup holder?

polycarbonate is pretty easy to scratch with a higher index of refraction, acrylic is more scratch resistant. It makes sense to make focusing lenses out of polycarbonate, and external light covers out of acrylic

I just got this year's quote from Old Republic, and they are quoting exactly the same as last year. It went up 25% the year before, but hopefully this means there's some steadiness coming?

If you can break prints up into smaller parts, you can get by without an enclosure for ABS But yes, I prefer PETG for anything functional. If I just need it to look good, I'll use PLA though

I guess the opposing hypothesis would be that the brain only perceives two lights as being connected if they move together, but since flashers are only on briefly, there is less perceived paired motion as opposed to constantly on lights. OTOH, alternating strobes (not multiflash strobes) or wig-wag lights are perceived as a single object moving back and forth, and I'd speculate the perception of that motion might be easier to detect against a background of lights. Again, just guesses with no actual data. I gotta imagine NASA has asked this questions at some point, though

Does anyone know of any studies that examined whether synced strobes were more visible than unsynced strobes? I mean, I intuitively thought synced strobes would be better, since you have a VERY bright on for a shorter time, but then I realized a lot of planes now have strobes with multiple flashes, with dimmer flashes spread out over multiple pulses. FWIW, I don't have mine synced, I was just too cheap to run the sync wire

Just out of curiosity, is this the free market that PROMOTES companies to form monopolies or the 'free market' that actually means intense government regulation to PREVENT monopolies? Surely you're not arguing for the latter definition, right? As a reminder, speech in the US has never been free, only certain forms are protected.