Literally, the suffix -less means a complete absence of the thing. It is not a synonym for fewer.

“Stainless except for odd situations you wouldn’t normally find messing with the oxide protective layer” isn’t a very good marketing name.

Even though it is a lie, stainless does mean the absolute.

It may have meant the absolute, because the term was likely invented by a marketer, but in reality "stainless" steel has never been rustproof. It really depends on the alloy, plus the manufacturing quality. Lower grades with less chromium rust pretty easily, just not nearly as much as regular carbon steel.

Another fun fact about "stainless steel": it's usually said to be non-magnetic: you can't stick a magnet to it. But again this isn't completely true: the lower grades are indeed magnetic, but the higher chromium-content ones are not.

Why bother with a low-chromium-content SS? Probably either cost, or performance reasons. The high-chromium alloys are more brittle.

> Haha I remember when I first realised that.

It seemed like you were making a joke until you talked about "realizing" something. So on the off chance you weren't, you should know that "___less" and "___ free" have identical meaning. The -less suffix means "present in the quantity zero", not "present in a quantity which is smaller than some unspecified other quantity".

> The -less suffix means "present in the quantity zero"

Prescriptively, sure, maybe, why not. Descriptively? Nah. Otherwise anyone using the world "endless" would be lying because nothing can be "endless". Most people using "penniless", the same, although some people may truly be "without a penny" (depending on your definition of "having a penny" - do material assets count?)

No, descriptively that is what it means. You're trying to argue that people who say "the best thing since sliced bread" actually mean something different by the word "since" than everyone else, or indeed than what they themselves mean in other contexts, but that is obvious nonsense. People make false hyperbolic claims all the time; hyperbole is not expected to be true.

Well, linguistically speaking, adding the suffix "-less" to a word implies "without", in English.

You can be penniless, having not one penny. You can be homeless- not just fewer homes but by golly none at all. You could be endlessly fearless and remain motionless when facing things that aren't harmless.

Doubtlessly, I've been tasteless in this reply.

If English followed stricter rules "stainless" would mean "without stain", and to convey "unable to be stained" we would always use "unstainable" instead, a real but rarely used word.

> If English followed stricter rules "stainless" would mean "without stain"

It does mean that (and/or "unable to be stained").

Sure but I meant without such ambiguity (unable to be stained VS not stained as of now)

Since we are on a tangent anyway I've just realised that the current British PM just this week appeared to be using the non-standard definition when talking with a "homeless" man at a soup kitchen over Xmas. I think I'm this case the PM was corrected fairly quickly but the assumption that homeless means having fewer homes explains a lot of government policy

No it's worse, he asked the dude if he's in business hahaha

Imagine if the prime minister was LARPing a role in the service industry asked you that when you're living in a cardboard box

If you read the whole conversation it's not as bad as it sounds

I dunno, I've heard/read it and it is pretty bad - "What are you doing this weekend?" is about as tone-deaf as you can get towards a homeless person.

I have to agree with you on that point but I still think that the PM needs a lot more time at that soup kitchen before he starts understanding the problems it's actually his job to fix.

> Well, linguistically speaking, adding the suffix "-less" to a word implies "without", in English.

It's also frequently an exaggeration and I doubt most people who heard "I'm penniless" or "It's endless" would think "they have zero money" or "this will continue until I die (and beyond)".

Useful. But back to the subject is this hydrogen thing related to the strange property like ice float unlike nearly all other solid state of matter.

Linguistically wrong, factually correct. There are many grades of stainless steel, and they will in fact develop rust over time.

430 is a mild stainless steel that has decent corrosion resistance, but you're not going to want to test it too hard.

304 is more common, albeit more expensive, and will hold up pretty well under most normal conditions.

Any expected prolonged exposure to salt requires 316 or better, though.

Manufacturing quality matters, too. Cheap stainless steel (e.g. basically anything from a Lowes or Home Depot, or elsewhere standards aren't rigorously enforced, like so much exterior cladding, trim, and fasteners on modern construction) will often rust almost immediately in spots as the alloying isn't sufficiently homogenous or pure. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_pig_iron

What do the numbers mean?(slightly confused because your description of 316 makes it sound generally more badass than 304, but I can’t fit that in sequence with 430 being the worst).

soooo only the first digit in number matters ? rest look pretty randomly assigned

The first is the category / blend of metals, the latter represent the amount of alloy metals.

And more “badass” to machine than 304, too. Not for amateurs or flimsy machines.