prova_modena

It's gentle on the transmission and clutch if you rev match on the downshifts.

I did several semesters' worth of biology fieldwork in college that involved handling many of these guys, under the guidance of a professor who was obsessed with them. Their toxicity was discussed more as a point of interest rather than an immediate danger. We always wore gloves when handling them, but the rationale was more for the newts' protection rather than our own. I never heard of there being a newt poisoning incident during the past decades of this professor overseeing similar fieldwork. Of course, eating them was out of the question.

The straps tend to break after a few years. Casio G Shock straps last a lot longer, despite being very similar. Not sure if it is because the F91W strap is thinner or made of a less durable material.

As of 2019, 72% of Arizona's water supply was used for agriculture.

https://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts

The American Alpine Club publishes an annual journal called "Accidents in North American Climbing" entirely dedicated to accounts of climbing accidents that happened during the previous year.

http://publications.americanalpineclub.org/about_the_acciden...

They publish one accident report every month that you can read without being a member/subscriber:

https://americanalpineclub.org/prescription

They are very informative for outdoorspeople of any kind, not just climbers.

The SF90 resale values seem to also be impacted by issues with the battery and charging system. I remember reading quite a few stories about electrical gremlins on FerrariChat. Even if the issues are worked out by later updates (which they may or may not be), that kind of bad reputation can have a big impact on depreciation.

...to get an allocation for the latest and greatest model. Pretty sure you can walk into most Ferrari dealers today and order a Roma, for example, without previous ownership history.

> Ferraris have to be serviced by licensed mechanics.

"Have to"? Says who? "Licensed"? By who?

As someone who is very close to both the "factory authorized" and "non-authorized" sides of the Ferrari service industry, this is incorrect or at best a gross oversimplification of things like warranty service or the Ferrari Classiche process.

There are a lot of misunderstandings and myths circulating about Ferrari ownership, but this is a new one to me.

We used old HP Laserjets in a warehouse up until about a year ago. Towards the end, we had to repair and replace them with increasing frequency due to the beige plastic becoming very brittle. As a result, the printers became hard to service and more prone to damage during regular use. Replaced with a cheap Brother laser.

Dunning-Kruger effect.

Can you elaborate on what the signs were? Is there sufficient interior volume remaining in the wreck for a sub to actually maneuver inside?

Regarding desoldering tools, I also hate solder suckers and instead use a mix of desoldering stations and desoldering braid. I used to very heavily use desoldering tools in challenging situations, such as large traces/joints covered with a lot of flux residue or conformal coating. I ended up working my way up the Hakko desoldering line and developed some opinions.

The Hakko 808 is discontinued and the FR-301 seems to be the current replacement. I used a FR-301 for a while and it was a fine tool. I've now switched over to a FM-2024 which connects to a FM-206 base station (among others). I found out that with heavy use I had many more issues with the FR-301 due to the longer tube between the nozzle tip and the solder capture chamber. The FM-2024 has a much shorter tube and the nozzle is integral with the tube. These factors make the FM-2024 more reliable and easy to clean under heavy use. The FM-2024 is also more lightweight and can be used with a gun or pencil grip. So if you do a lot of desoldering, desolder a lot of gunky/fluxy stuff, or have/want a compatible Hakko soldering station, I would suggest the FM-2024 over the FR-301.

As someone who owns a FA430 and has a sensitivity to flux fumes causing headaches and drowsiness, I agree with everything in this comment. Keep in mind you can become sensitized to flux fumes after repeated exposure (happened to me) so IMO it's better to go overkill on fume extraction before it becomes a problem.

It's "absolutely useless" because it doesn't do the thing its advertised to do, which is extract fumes from your workspace. It dilutes and mixes the air right in front of your face, but your workspace will still gradually fill with solder fumes as you work. If you're an infrequent solderer, that may be fine. But if you are making a habit of soldering, or its your job, get something that actually filters or removes the fumes. I'm giving this advice because I used a setup as effective as yours for years and it caused me health problems through sensitization even though it seemed ok for a long time.

My belief is that people who review the FA-400 positively would be as well served by a regular fan (and even better served by a box fan with a decent furnace filter in front of it). Possibly they are infrequent users or just not sensitive to flux fumes like I am. My understanding is that activated carbon filters like in the FA-400 rapidly lose effectiveness when exposed to the air.

It's probably possible to DIY something as effective as the FA-430 by adapting an existing purifier or fan, as long as you carefully seal the pre-filter path. Since I use the extractor every day in a workshop with coworkers, I need something durable and idiotproof with parts and filters easily available. So it made sense for us to shell out for the FA-430.

I would add a good fume extractor as a must-buy to this list if you're soldering once a week or more. The fumes from flux are noxious and prolonged exposure can cause sensitization. I have always been slightly sensitive to flux fumes, so since I began soldering on a daily basis for work I have always used some form of fume ventilation. I use a lot of the MG Chemicals 835 flux mentioned in the article. Even with a ducted extraction fan removing the smoke from my workspace, I began to develop headaches and fatigue from exposure to the flux vapor. These symptoms worsened over time and began starting with less and less exposure. Now I use a fancy Hakko FA430 extractor, which has a bulky HEPA filter and allows me to solder all day without ill effects. Even so, I watch my exposure and have drastically reduced my liquid flux use as just the flux aroma can make me feel a little off. I believe I have been permanently sensitized from using sub-optimal ventilation and that's not a good feeling.

I don't think you need to go buy the $700 FA430 I use, but I would say the extractor needs to have:

- a hose/duct that can be positioned right at the soldering site

- some kind of HEPA filtration or equivalent, even if it is exhausted outside your workspace

- well sealed ducting/hose/fan housing, so fumes don't leak out. I first used a duct fan with some hoses and loc-line for fume extraction, and I now believe it was leaking fumes into my workspace the whole time because the system wasn't airtight :(

Those little "benchtop extractors" with a fan and a carbon filter are absolutely useless. I wouldn't be surprised to learn companies buy them for "regulatory compliance purposes" as they don't really do much of anything except be cheap.

Older games, but "Omega Boost" and "Zone of the Enders" 1 and 2 are great examples of trying to realize this style.

They specifically removed the text on the website saying you can get API access from feeding, replaced this with a link to their paid RapidAPI (under "Enthusiast Usage Terms") and no longer automatically give you API access with an active feeder key. That seems like a pretty clear message even if they made an exception for you. Besides, how long do you think your free access will last under the new ownership?

EDIT: In their FAQ it currently states: "In very limited situations ADSBexchange.com may choose to allow non-profit, research, or educational entities access to the historical data or API at reduced fee, in these situations such entities must meet all other requirements including hosting a feeder. ADSBexchange.com API pricing is a fraction of the cost of ADS-B data available anywhere else." To me that is quite different than their previous policy of providing automatic noncommercial API access to anyone hosting a feeder. It removes an incentive to feed and discourages use of the API.

ADS-B Exchange used to have another incentive to feed in the form of free API access, subject to certain limits and for noncommercial use only. They stopped that a year or two ago, I believe because various commercial operations kept abusing it.

Well, dang. I have been maintaining a Twitter bot that uses the ADS-B Exchange API, but paused development after Musk started going after ElonJet aggressively and Twitter began to ban aircraft tracking accounts. I just restarted work this week to implement Mastodon support, but looks like I need to pause again to reassess what ADS-B data source(s) to support.

I would really like to know the story behind this acquisition as my previous interactions with the ADS-B Exchange owner (edit: after checking back in on the discord maybe this person was not the owner, but one of the main team members) on discord were positive and they seemed like a very passionate and principled person. This was like more than 1 year ago now, though. My suspicion is that the loud, polarized public discourse around the ElonJet controversy, which led to ADS-B Exchange getting banned from Twitter, may have caused them to reassess their priorities. I hope they are not under any kind of legal threat from Musk.

Perhaps that commenter observed that the author of the paper seems incredibly personally invested in the success of this method and tends to personally attack any detractors without regard to the soundness of the criticism. The author seems to also have a lot of fans who do the same. Publicly engaging with a person like that requires a certain tolerance for crankiness that not everyone possesses.

One issue here is that he is using a sort of semi-statistical method of identifying anomalies (whether an observed SNR is >1 standard deviation away from the mean), but lacking any of the requirements of a statistically sound experimental design. He is not doing any kind of rigorous hypothesis testing to determine if there are any statistically significant differences between the distribution of observed SNR values near the plane and the expected SNR values without the plane nearby. That's sort of the bare minimum to make this kind of method into a generalizable predictive tool, I would think.

I discussed in another comment in this thread one of his later case studies of this method, in which he seemingly tries to incorporate a more statistically sound method. In my opinion, that one commits an even worse statistical sin by claiming statistically significant support for his method when his own evidence and analysis shows none.

There was a decent size HN discussion about this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27044995

The person behind this method has a website here: https://www.mh370search.com/

I am interested in flight tracking, amateur radio digital modes and statistics, so I took the time to read through some of his analysis. I actually didn't look at the MH370 work, but instead at his case study of OE-FGR (https://www.mh370search.com/2022/10/28/oe-fgr-case-study/). His site states "The analysis in the report supports our previous belief that using WSPRnet data to detect and track MH370 together with the Boeing 777-200ER performance data and the Inmarsat satellite data provides a reliable method to determine the crash location."

After quickly reading through the full report (shared via dropbox on the previously linked page), I'm quite skeptical of the statistical methods used to support his results. The red flags I noticed were:

- claims of "statistical significance", but no actual hypothesis tests w/ p-values presented

- no description of the shape of the observed distributions of SNR values, seemingly just assuming they will be normal (although the words "normal distribution" never appear in the study)

- showing a Receiver Operating Characteristic curve where the diagonal is within the 95% CI of the observed data and the area under the curve (C-statistic) is approx 0.6, but presenting this weak evidence as if it supports a relationship between anomalies and aircraft position. They also state that the 0.6 C-stat for the cruise phase vs 0.55 for the descent phase shows the detection technique is more effective for the cruise phase. Again, it seems ill advised to make these statements without an actual hypothesis test showing statistical signficance.

- spending a huge amount of time narrating events and highlighting individual data points. When you're making an experimental claim like this, I want to understand the sample sizes and distribution of observed and expected values, which the study does not make easy. In a certain sense, I don't care about individual data points. While I understand contextually why the authors do this (we all ultimately want to know how the signals correspond the accident), it feels like I'm being directed to a particular narrative and not being given the kind of statistical summaries I need to judge the rigor of the claims being made. Not a good feeling, and one that makes me want to spend more time picking apart their experimental design for evidence of motivated reasoning and cherry picking.

That said, I'm just a very amateur stats nerd who spent a lot of time in R during undergrad long ago and now occasionally likes running t-tests and making plots for fun, so I'd love to hear the pros opinion.

I just changed a filter in my air purifier after having it next to the kitchen for about 6 months. The prefilter was covered in a layer of cooking oil mixed with dust. The built in air quality monitor always shows poor air quality wheen cooking. Its no joke, especially in places that have poorly constructed/cheap stove ventilation.

True, I would also add that a major contributing factor to the danger of the group B era was absolutely horrendous race organization and scheduling, creating dangerous situations for competitors and spectators. Most notably and tragically at Portugal in 1986. While Gr.B cars required great skill, the danger of the cars themselves was perhaps overemphasized by Jean Marie Balestre's FISA to direct blame away from their own organization and on to the manufacturers.

It really depends on what area of industry you are in and the safety culture of the shops you are around. I hear a lot of stories of really bad safety practices in metalworking. Including the exact inverse of your statement about machinists/woodworkers and missing fingers. I would also argue that accidents with common machine shop tools like lathes and mills may have higher consequences than your average table saw or jointer in a cabinet shop. The "potential energy" is higher so to speak, although I'm not trying to downplay the forces involved in something like a table saw kicking a workpiece back. For example, there's a prominent post on r/machinists now where a poster witnessed their coworker getting sucked into a lathe (fatally). This is not something that is a risk at most cabinet shops, but is a risk at most machine shops. That accident was indirectly caused by disabled safety interlocks on the lathe, an unfortunately common practice in the industry. All anecdotal evidence, of course, but I think machine shops have a different risk profile that isn't necessarily less risky overall.

Woodworking was also my gateway into CNC and machining metal. The most important lesson it taught me was that every manufacturing process has a system of tools around it. One tool is almost never enough to build anything of quality. Early on, I was very interested in the charm and ingenuity of individual tools. After learning more and working in the field, I realized that building sophisticated things is all about the integration of tool systems into stable, predictable processes. A holistic approach is necessary.

Agreed. I've seen a lot of people coming from 3D printing become interested in CNC and assume the complexity, risk and investment are similar. They hit a wall pretty quickly when they realize all these things are much higher when machining metal. There are a lot of hobby mill companies willing to perpetuate this assumption by selling cheap benchtop mills. But to do produce anything with "industrial" precision, strength and surface finish at a decent rate, the physical size of the equipment alone is more than what most garage shops are willing to accommodate.