The quote was "ultimately some responsibility lies with us to think through how those tools will be used". It's saying that we as builders have a responsibility to consider and be mindful of the impacts of what we're building. It's not saying that the maintainer of wget is directly responsible for a system used to exfiltrate data from a database of political asylees.
To take your same point to its logical conclusion, no one is responsible for evil aside from the one who pulls the trigger.
> It's saying that we as builders have a responsibility to consider and be mindful of the impacts of what we're building.
Yes, and my argument is that building those things doesn't have the "impact" referred to; using them does.
> To take your same point to its logical conclusion, no one is responsible for evil aside from the one who pulls the trigger.
Tools, by their nature, have explicitly designed uses, and potential cascading consequences of that use. This is one of the reasons that open-source licenses include a disclaimer of warranty: for the legal protection of the author, not just from claims by users, but claims by third parties injured by those users.
As far as culpability goes, I'm much happier drawing the line in a place where, if you keep applying the same logic you used originally, it will stay put rather than moving inexorably further. Contrary to what many have tried to tell me, intent does matter, a whole lot.
Good rebuttal, a lot of absolutes in philosophy you can just extrapolate out to absurd conclusions on both sides.
As an aside, one thing I notice a lot on internet forums is the tendency to immediately jump to these two extremes (often as a form of strawman). Might be projecting here, but I think it's an attempt to get internet points and seem smart, e.g. debate culture. Though I could totally see that maybe everybody can intuitively see these absurd conclusions, so it follows that there will probably be one genuinely disgruntled reader that that finally reaches their breaking point. I know I've certainly made similar comments.
How do we navigate this line? Ultimately I think the answer can only lie in human experiences, and thus I'm glad that the original article exists. It's another datapoint. (though this spawns a whole other discussion about how we get our data)
The first compounds to be extracted with coffee tend to taste sharply sour, shifting to sweet and then to bitter as the brew progresses - you can actually taste this directly by sampling a bit of the coffee that drips out at the start, middle, and end phases of your brew.
In a world where AirPods are ubiquitous, what value does such a niche product provide? Apple could easily add the same feature to something a huge number of people already own.
That was tried in Ontario (cap and trade), but there was enough misinformation going around that the general populace thought it was just a standard tax on individuals.
Washington State does cap and trade on industry. And yes, it has just become a 'standard tax' on individuals passed from industry to the pump to the tune of 40-50 cents/gal. While I agree that it is important to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, the infrastructure isn't there to enable people to commute from lower-cost areas of living to higher-cost areas of working.
This will likely be repealed by voters via initiative[0] this fall.
Did the people there start getting money every month into their bank account (the “dividend” part)? If not, I imagine that that would’ve cleared that misinformation up rather quickly.
I have a problem identifying what hole tablets have filled, or even what devices they've truly replaced. When the iPad was released, many outlets were making silly claims like laptops will be gone within 5-10 years.
The touchscreen smartphone has almost entirely replaced the landline and dumb/feature cell phones. The iPad has possibly replaced laptops for some, but otherwise it's replaced the... portable DVD player?
I don't see VR headsets replacing the phone or the laptop or the desktop as long as I have something to strap to my head. It's a matter of form factor, longevity, and convenience.
These kinds of statements are why it's going to succeed. Apple hasn't failed in the last 20 years, so that of course means this attempt won't fail either. You get enough devs hyped up because it's an infallible Apple product, they rush to build a bunch of apps for it to get their name out there, people buy it because it says Apple on it, it's claimed as the winner because it's got the most apps and has made the most money. Technical considerations are only secondary at best
Not sure how many devs they’ll get. Of course they’ll get some, but we refocused to invest in PWA’s because of Apple and Googles App Store behavior…we’re certainly not the only devs doing this.
The whole set of edits look like 1) someone did something stupid and 2) they finally hired Big Boy HR that is now responsible for a bunch of stuff instead of people managers
From my own experience seeing people switch from ICE vehicles to EVs, I would guess this comes down to people not being used to one-pedal driving / regenerative braking.
I consult for a specialty coffee shop, and in my experience the electrical ground of the machine has no impact on static generation - I doubt the burrs themselves are grounded. The amount of static you get very much depends on the specific grinder you use. Our large-batch shop grinder creates massive amounts of static and requires water to be added to not end up with a mess, while our espresso grinders tend to generate less.
To your second point, one of the fascinating things about this study is that the static charge during the grinding process causes the coffee to clump - that means that by the time the water hits the coffee puck it is too late to avoid the static-induced clumping.
As I've seen several comments on this here - people have used spritzes of water to reduce static when grinding coffee for years, but the interesting part of this study was the finding that beyond reducing static, adding enough water prior to grinding actually reduces flow rate and increases extraction by preventing the creation of coffee clumps / aggregates.
So it confirms the anti-static properties that everyone already knew, but has interesting implications for increasing extraction without changing any other variables.
It also bears pointing out that the amount of water needed to achieve these anti-clumping effects is probably twice what people are using following existing RDT (water spraying) methods.
WDT was already super popular, so the declumping properties aren't very useful. And the static issue is mostly limited to non-traditional light roasts.
Is this the same when you try to mix coco powder with milk? You need to first use a little bit of milk or water to get it to form a sauce. After that you can easily mix it with milk
I am not a coffee historian or even very knowledgable, but I thought that light roasting is the more traditional (even ancient) way of making coffee and that the roasting has gotten darker over time. Not so?
"Ancient" coffee roasting was probably very uneven. The beans were often just roasted in a skillet over a fire, not unlike toasting pine nuts. If you've ever tried toasting pine nuts on a stove, you've gotta be very careful with the heat control and keep the nuts moving frequently, or else you'll have some that are still blonde and some that are bordering on burnt.
It says in the linked article that darker roasts have less internal moisture content (obviously, they've been roasted longer) and therefore produce more static/clumping.
WDT would be an extremely obvious thing to test in both the original paper as well as the follow-up videos by Hoffman/Hedrick. It is absent in all three.
Also note that Hoffman found RDT only helped in _some_ grinders. WDT also only helps with some grinders.
I would imagine that the gelling problems ethanol can sometimes cause in automobiles is magnified when used for aircraft due to the thermal dynamics present in aviation (the temperature drop while in-flight) that aren’t a factor for most automobiles. That’s just my intuition, I’m sure there are better informed people here who know better.
Yup, also, there are specific chemistries used in some composite wet-wing designs that can be damaged by ethanol. It's the final reason I became less interested in the DarkAero 1 while following its development.
That's part of it. Ethanol is incompatible with materials commonly found in airplane fuel systems.
Another aspect is that many piston airplane engines need high octane because they have relatively high compression ratios: WWII era engines need 130 octane to develop full horsepower (they can be operated at reduced manifold pressure on currently available 100 low-lead gas), and even many post-war civilian engines require 100 octane.
Still another aspect is that the FAA is relatively conservative and doesn't want to approve something that might lead to, for example, vapor lock or fuel freezing issues.
>airplane engines need high octane because they have relatively high compression ratios: WWII era engines need 130 octane to develop full horsepower
I mean, high octane and compression relative to other 1960s engines. The common engines in nearly any single prop cessna have about a 9:1 compression ratio, which was massive back when it was built, but laughably bad compared to anything manufactured after the advent of Fuel injection and better piston geometry.
Modern cars regularly have over 12-1 compression ratios on 87 octane.
1960s era carbs and top ends were just abysmal and did a terrible job of mixing the fuel and air charge and controlling the flame front, because we just didn't have the kinds of computer controls and fluid dynamic simulations we have now, to dynamically prevent knock.
Rotax engines are modern and can reach identical performance figures or better, with the same weight or lighter, simply by using modern techniques like fuel injection or a small turbocharger. They do this while running on 91 octane
Except none of that can be used until someone goes through the millions of dollars to do all the design work, safety testing, and mountains of FAA paperwork. Oh, and take on the liability of a mistake killing a bunch of people.
In the mean time, rebuilds have to meet the existing design. Which has specific standards.
It's not like Cessnas themselves can't be wildly improved on in general!
As an old Boeing engineer friend of mine used to say 'when the weight of the paperwork exceeds the gross weight of the plane, it will fly.'.
1) Regulations (vehicle fuel comes from sources/supply chains generally not willing to do the paperwork)
2) Lack of solid quality control relative to aviation fuels (see #1)
3) Power to weight ratio matters a LOT in aviation, and aviation engines run at typically far higher elevations for at least part of their flight time. So aircraft engines generally push things harder, have higher compression, and can be damaged more easily with 'junk' or contaminants.
From memory octane levels have a huge bearing on engine performance and that affects take off distance. Aviation has had a much higher octane rating than your typical car gas.
To take your same point to its logical conclusion, no one is responsible for evil aside from the one who pulls the trigger.