News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists to B... by throwmtlsPhD on Saturday February 13, 2021 @07:21PM (#26128427)
Typo, car. And for some reason I can’t push edits on my comments
Re:50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists to B... by WheelsAtLarge on Saturday February 13, 2021 @07:39PM (#26128533)
Thx, I should have known. For a minute there I thought that it was short for a special type of fuel for machines.
Re:50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists to B... by samatman on Sunday February 14, 2021 @01:10AM (#26130099)
I assumed "cat fuel" was some shorthand for "catalytically cracked fuel" which I simply hadn't heard before.

Which actually works, because that's exactly what you'd have to do!

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

Re:50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists to B... by fuzzfactor on Sunday February 14, 2021 @05:52PM (#26137053)
"Cat feed" is raw material for the cat cracker unit.

Where heavy petroleum fractions and other applicable refinery streams are broken down into lower molecular weight hydrocarbons

The cat feedstock is some nasty material that looks worse than most crude oil.

It would seem feasible to introduce a small percentage of waste hydrocarbon plastics to the cat feed as it was being processed, in order to at least recover a bit of the fuel value from the plastic.

I can only imagine it is simply cheaper to continue to purchase the equal number of barrels of regular cat feed than it is to attempt to displace some of it using waste polyethylene & polypropylene which may even be possible to deliver at no material cost.

OTOH, for all I know people may be doing this already.

Re:50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists to B... by jamiek88 on Saturday February 13, 2021 @07:38PM (#26128525)
Yeah edit ability times out quickly.
Re:50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists to B... by hilbert42 on Saturday February 13, 2021 @10:27PM (#26129380)
Yeah, HN's short timeouts are a damn nuisance especially if one's as prolix as me (I've been caught out many times). That said, HN's edit duration is still considerably longer than say The Register's one of only ten minutes.

Of course, one should never be one's own editor as one always misses something - that is until one reads it the next day and sees one's glaring typos! But that's impractical.

It seems to me that a partial solution would be to allow small/limited edits after the normal timeout and or highlight the changes in some way. This would negate the problem of a subsequent poster's reply comment sounding ridiculous if the original post was altered too much.