timmaxw
I've found wood screws work well for this. The wood screw can cut its own threads without needing to use a tap.
It does put some stress on the part, though. I mostly print in PETG, which is strong enough; but PLA might split if the hole was parallel to the layers.
> A design limitation of threaded inserts is that they are not reliably usable for screws inserted from the back side. During insertion, heat-set inserts often push some molten plastic into the hole beneath them, preventing easy insertion of a screw from the back side.
A trick I sometimes use:
1. Before installing the insert, insert the screw from the back side
2. Screw the insert onto the protruding screw
3. Use a soldering iron to install the insert+screw together into the plastic
Because the screw is filling the hole, the molten plastic can't block the hole. Instead, the molten plastic forms itself around the screw, and it acts like a Nyloc nut.
That doesn't sound right...? Credit/debit card chargebacks are handled by the bank. If the merchant doesn't pick up the phone, the bank will take the money from the merchant and return it to the customer.
https://www.usatoday.com/money/blueprint/credit-cards/credit...
Were you using a different payment system with fewer consumer protections than credit/debit cards?
No, that's not the _only_ fair way. Suppose the $2B creditor bids $200M in cash and also agrees to forfeit their share of the proceeds from the sale. Then the $1B creditor would receive the entire $200M, which is more than the $167M they would have received from a $500M cash sale. The bid is effectively equivalent to $600M.
Isn't that what happened in the InfoWars case? The bankruptcy judge agreed that the structure of the Onion's bid was valid; he just said the auction would have continued for more rounds.
(Also: If T=0, then β would be undefined/infinity. This corresponds to the fact that absolute zero temperature is impossible. β is arguably a more natural way of thinking about temperature than T is.)
To get a true sense of scale, here's the same view on Google Earth: https://earth.google.com/web/@44.48152905,11.33820409,94.604... You can see the towers that are still standing. They visibly stick out from the shorter buildings, but they're nowhere near as big as in the picture.
Some general tips for algorithmic complexity in Python:
- Python's list is equivalent to C++ std::vector. If you need to push/pop at the head of the list, use Python's "collections.deque" to avoid the O(N) cost. Python's standard library doesn't have a linked list implementation.
- Python's dict is a fast unordered hashmap. However, if you need order-aware operations like C++'s std::map::lower_bound(), you're out of luck; Python's standard library doesn't have a tree implementation.
- Python has a "bisect" module for binary searching in a Python list, and a "heapq" module for using a Python list as a heap. However, neither one is nicely encapsulated in a data type.
If your Python program is seriously CPU-bound, the normal solution is to use a C/C++/Rust extension. For example, if you're doing large numeric calculations, use NumPy; it can store a vector of numbers as a single contiguous array, which is much faster than a list-of-Python-floats.
If you want to parallelize across CPU cores, it's important to understand the Python GIL (global interpreter lock). Often you need to use multiple Python processes. See e.g. https://superfastpython.com/multiprocessing-pool-gil/
Maybe also worth reading about __slots__ (https://wiki.python.org/moin/UsingSlots); it's a micro-optimization that helps when allocating a lot of tiny Python objects.
Hope some of that is helpful! Good luck with your job interviews.
The general public pays enough money to pay the artists' salaries, plus the marketing budget and all the other costs. Otherwise Hollywood would go out of business.
> There's an endless continuum libraries, languages, tools and machines out there which have trivial impact on the world but are absolute objects of beauty when you know what's inside.
Imagine if the SF MOMA were replaced with a museum full of those niche libraries and languages, showing these absolute objects of beauty to the general public, and (implicitly) saying "you ought to appreciate the beauty; if you can't appreciate e.g. the beauty of the Haskell programming language is, you're ignorant".
The "high art" world, on the other hand, fetishizes the original physical work of art. If an expert painter spends weeks on a painting, then they must sell it for enough money to cover "weeks of an expert's income"; so of course only wealthy people will be able to afford it. How is this price more "appropriate" than the prices that non-wealthy people pay?
I've heard the cache is the biggest part. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A17, the A17 has 72MB of cache. Cache is typically SRAM. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_random-access_memory, a single bit of SRAM typically uses 6 transistors, but it could be anywhere from 4 to 10. So that's between 2.3B and 5.7B transistors for the cache.
That leaves about 1B transistors for each of the 12 cores (6 CPU + 6 GPU). The instruction set is a few hundred instructions. Surely it doesn't take millions of transistors to implement each instruction. Other than the cache, which parts of the processor need millions of transistors?
etymology: "the punch probably so called for resemblance to the wide swinging stroke of a scythe"
DC AG Karl Racine filed a lawsuit over this in May 2021. The judge threw it out, supposedly for lack of evidence that it actually raised prices: https://www.jurist.org/news/2022/03/dc-trial-court-dismisses... I can't find details; it's unclear what the evidence or lack thereof was.
CA AG Rob Bonta filed another lawsuit over the same issue in Sept 2022. Some juicy quotes here (although only one side of the story): https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont... The CA lawsuit is set to go to trial in 2026.
People would submit fewer applications, but each individual application would have a higher chance of success, because everyone else would _also_ be submitting fewer applications. The number of job openings is the same either way, so the same number of people get hired in the end, right?
aga98mtl pointed out this isn't actually true in practice.
It sounds like you're describing a different form of potentially anti-competitive behavior, which is not the same as the one yonron accused Amazon of.
- Desirable job applicants get hired quickly, but people who can't get hired stay on the market
- People who can't get hired will keep applying to more and more jobs
- So every new job opening gets flooded with applications from people who couldn't get hired elsewhere
- Employers don't have time to read the flood of applications in detail, so they rely on cheap filters (keywords on resume, where they went to college, did they work at FANG, etc.)
- Which makes the process worse for everyone
What if there was some way to limit job seekers to e.g. 10 job applications per month, industrywide? Feels like that could cut down the noise and allow employers to consider each individual applicant more carefully.
(It would be hard to implement this limit, though. You could do it via data-sharing between Greenhouse, Lever, Workday, etc., but there are huge privacy concerns and it would run into the same sorts of issues as credit reports do.)
> When talking about revenue, we could mostly ignore the demand side of the equation (users and queries) and only focus on supply side of advertisers, ad formats, and sales. Sure, we had to build the best product, made smart marketing/distribution investments to get our product everywhere, but we could essentially tear the economics textbook in half.
They explicitly mention "we had to build the best product", so I'm not sure where you're getting the "not any product attributes" bit from. (Your linked article is paywalled.)
I agree there are other cases where evolution removes/simplifies things. Evolution is adaptation, and that adaptation can consist of adding, changing, and/or removing.
Hmmm, my impression was that evolution took an existing structure and stuffed a bunch of new functionality into it, making it much larger and more complicated. Although the structure already existed in some form, it didn't have the same function. I think it's reasonable to think of this process as "adding" something, even if the structure itself is not entirely new. And human brains pretty clearly _are_ more intelligent than reptile brains!
Here's an analogy: Ancient organisms had light-sensitive "eyespots", and many of our distant cousins on the evolutionary tree (e.g. present-day flatworms) still have eyespots. Evolution gradually modified these existing structures into eyes. I think it's reasonable to think of eyes as a "new" organ that humans have and flatworms don't; and our eyes are clearly superior to flatworms' eyespots.
I think it's the opposite -- tech and politicians agree on the vast majority of things, but they're considered banal so the topic never comes up. But, you could imagine an alternate universe where tech did things differently, and then politicians wanted to regulate them. Here are some examples:
* Tech companies offer most of their services for free. You could imagine a world where Google charged for searches and Facebook charged for posting, and so "poor people being excluded from the Internet" became a political issue.
* Tech companies translate their services into a variety of languages. You could imagine a world where Google and Facebook were only available in English, and so "non-English-speakers being excluded from the Internet" became a political issue.
* Tech companies don't allow anyone to view DMs, private posts, etc. except law enforcement. You could imagine a world where Google and Facebook had a culture where it was normal for employees to snoop on other peoples' DMs, and it became a political issue.
* Conversely, you could imagine a world where tech companies refused to allow law enforcement access to peoples' DMs even with a valid warrant, and it became a political issue. (This is starting to happen.)
* Tech companies allow anyone to post by default. You could imagine a world where tech companies only allowed people to post if tech companies liked their political views (similar to how newspapers' biases affect which editorials they publish) and it became a political issue. (This is starting to happen: the left is pressuring tech companies to restrict certain right-wing content, and the right is talking about regulation to force tech not to do that.)
* Tech companies sometimes kick people off the platform for arbitrary procedural reasons, but not for personal pettiness reasons (with the notable exception of Elon Musk kicking people off Twitter). You could imagine a world where it was normal for e.g. Google to delete a journalist's GMail account if the journalist published something Google didn't like, and it becoming a political issue.
* Tech companies often contribute to open-source standards and software. For example, Google is heavily involved in defining web standards; and they made Chromium open-source, allowing rivals like Microsoft to build on it. You could imagine a world where the tech ecosystem was much more fragmented and closed-source than it is today, and it becoming a political issue.
This is what I was saying about a selection effect: You can easily think of ways that politicians want to regulate tech more, because those topics are controversial and make the news. But there are actually a ton of ways that tech _could_ be much worse than it is, but those topics never come up, so it takes some imagination to think of them.
Current tidal generators work either by inserting a turbine into the moving water; or by a dam that captures the high tide, then releases it through a turbine at low tide. Depending on the exact details, it could slow down the rate at which the current later flows over the seabed, which would reduce the energy dissipated from friction with the seabed. But, there's no guarantee that this would compensate for the energy taken by the tidal power generator.
You could imagine a different type of tidal power generator: covering the seabed with a giant treadmill. As water flows past, it drags the surface of the treadmill, generating power. My guess is this would dissipate less total energy than the natural friction of the seabed does. But, it doesn't sound very practical.
(Anyway, all of this is a moot point. As other commenters have noted, if human energy consumption actually were to grow 2% annually for 1000 years, we'd have way bigger problems than the moon becoming tidally locked.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration#Angular_mom...