Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Strange, I though all trains had that.

There is this little anecdote about regeneration in trains: there is a mine ore train next to the Swedish/Norwegian border that goes downhill to the harbor full of ore and uphill empty, even with the efficiency factor, it's still sending quite some power to the general electric grid.




Nearly all railway vehicles use brake energy. Older trams wasted the energy with heating resistors. Newer ones feed back energy back to the grid if possible. Otherwise banks of supercaps are charged to allow going short distances without power (like old town where contact wire is not desirable).

http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-service...


>Nearly all railway vehicles use brake energy.

Do you mean nearly all new ones, or nearly all in service today?


Do you have a link with more info? It would be a nice story to submit.



I might well have read it here or on reddit, I don't remember.

I guess it's ok to propagate a factoid as long as it's true.


I got bit by this once: a factoid is an anecdote that people share thinking it is true, but it is not. From reading your comment, I think you just meant "... ok to propagate a fact as long as it's true.". Just a friendly heads-up :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factoid


Your Wikipedia link then continues 'the term has evolved from its original meaning, in common usage, and has assumed other meanings, particularly being used to describe a brief or trivial item of news or information."

We no longer use factoid in that meaning. Even your clarification here is not really how Mailer defined it; as "facts which have no existence before appearing in a magazine or newspaper, creations which are not so much lies as a product to manipulate emotion in the Silent Majority". (See http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=factoid ).

It's on the same path that "computer" (someone who computes), "awesome" ("profoundly reverential") and many other words have been on.


And the same path of "couldn't care less" versus "could care less."


Does this apply to legal language?


I have no idea. How do you mean?


I was wondering what happens when the popular meaning of a word or phrase diverges from a law which uses that phrase for a different meaning or scope.


What happens is, things get complicated.

For a related example, consider the phrase "we settled the debt without prejudice" That sounds like it means there are no bad feelings, but it actually means that there may be future attempts to change the terms of the negotiation.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: