> I just watch a movie [...] We should at the very least do some exercises at home.
I bought a treadmill and do not allow myself to watch TV shows or movies I really enjoy without being on said treadmill. It makes me look forward to the exercise, and it allows me to "double up" the time spent by doing two things at once.
Paranoid, maybe. Schizophrenics? No. Firstly, "paranoid schizophrenia" is an outdated diagnosis. Paranoia is a common symptom of schizophrenia, but schizophrenics exhibiting paranoia are not considered to have separate mental illness from those who are not. Secondly, schizophrenia is not caused simply by psychological stress, and is associated with a large cluster of positive and negative symptoms, with paranoia being only one of them.
> My sister remembered the glowing handrails (radium?)
That reminded me of the "glowy tape" my brother and I used to play with when we were kids. It had come from my grandparents' estate, and we had no idea what it was for, but it was fun. My father thought it was from WWII, as he had vague memories of it being used to mark the corners of furniture during 'lights out' air raid drills. I now assume it was radium, and am not overly happy with my childhood self playing with it.
[1] agrees that World War II-era luminous materials featured radium, yes. Another use seems to have been putting discs on helmet fronts of paratroopers, to help soldiers see each other in the dark.
This page [2] has a picture of a variety of luminous products from the era, and also mentions one civilian usage was marking edges of clothing, also to help make pedestrians more visible in the (blacked-out) streets.
I'm rather low on the Interest in History scale, but it's fascinating how often WW2 manages to deliver something new. Thanks.
Note that this law is only for certain products. We would have people at the liquor store I used to own point out mislabeling occasionally and claim we owed them the $10 difference from this law. While we tried to work with customers when we made a pricing error, not only does the accuracy law not apply to alcoholic beverages, but it would often be illegal for us to offer the customer the mistaken price. Alcohol retailers in MA are not legally allowed to sell their products for less than they purchased them.
I assume eliminating the "loss leader" concept is the main effect, since shops shouldn't otherwise price things as losses regardless? In which case it seems like it's meant to maintain some friction / overhead for people wanting to visit the stores, possibly reducing consumption at least for the price-sensitive.
In Texas the law exists as well, phrased as cannot offer price below wholesale price for alcohol which in effect bans “bottomless/all you can drink” deals as well. It is indeed designed as a way to discourage consumption
Selling at a loss can also be a monopolistic practice: a firm with enough capital can sell at a loss to capture the market, and then buy out their now-flailing competition.
(That being said, even though I think it's a silly rule, it just seems to exist to annoy alcoholics who can't plan ahead. I'm not an alcoholic, and I rarely consume alcohol before noon, so I just laugh at people who whine about this law.)
Was at the airport on a trip with friends with the flight leaving before noon. None of the bars could sell. We are not alcoholics, but we were on vacation. Well, we were trying to start the vacation but had to wait until leaving uptight red state
> Well, we were trying to start the vacation but had to wait until leaving uptight red state
I live in Massachusetts, the bluest of blue states, and we still have special laws about Alcohol on Sunday. According to Gemini, Logan airport can't start serving until 10 a.m. (Because in Massachusetts, we don't want you getting drunk on the way to your Unitarian or interfaith Sunday service after you get off of your red-eye flight.)
> When buying groceries—food and non-alcoholic beverages, pet food or supplies, disposable paper or plastic products, soap, household cleaners, laundry products, or light bulbs—you must be charged the lowest displayed price, whether on the sticker, scanner, website, or app.
In Australia, when scanners became common, the law was "in the event of a mismatch, the consumer gets first item free, and any subsequent items at the lower price".
Back when I was a kid and paid any attention to the Bermuda Triangle myth (do kids still pay attention to it? I have no idea), we didn't have any idea about the details of Flight 19. It just got mushed into a vague "planes drop out of the sky". Because, I think, we didn't actually care about explaining anything. It was just fun to believe in spooky things, as you say.
The acid test is if when presented with new evidence, someone is willing to change their opinion or if they simply retreat and double down on their skepticism.
It can be really hard to abandon a false belief. Especially if you take the time and effort to shore it up with bad data. It starts with recognizing that everyone, including yourself, is wrong about something.
> The acid test is if when presented with new evidence, someone is willing to change their opinion or if they simply retreat and double down on their skepticism.
My opinion is that on the specific topic at hand of COVID-19 vaccine "scepticism", we are far past the point of rational scepticism being sustainable.
> other owners say it runs fine without coolant, oil, etc
Um, no. Go ahead dump your oil and coolant, go drive your car, and report back how "fine" it did.
(No, please don't actually do this. Although here's a guy who did, for the clicks. The Honda did impressively well, but it wasn't "fine". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyejT4VPzlE)
My friend ran his 1995 Civic about 40 miles with no coolant in it. It warped the head and blew the head gasket. But I skimmed the head, put in a new gasket and got another 50k out of it before selling it. It didn't have a single problem the whole time I had it.
I had a friend who had a Honda (edit: actually, Toyota iirc) for ~15 years that didn’t know it had oil; So when they sold it and was asked how often the oil was changed, the potential buyer was met with a quizzical look. Tires and gasoline and window washer fluid was its maintenance.
I coworker of my mother some 20-25 years ago bought a new car. Drove it until it stopped and refused to go further. Called some road service who upon inspecting it announced that she had run out of gas. She was surprised, "Cars still need to be refueled??!!".
I find that a bit hard to believe. Someone in that family knew and took care of it sometimes.
The longest I've seen a used car go without an oil change was 40k miles and it was changed when it started making noise instantly on startup. That was basically 90k to 130k. Sure 0 to 40k would go a bit better.. but not 15 years of typical driving.
Between carbon blowby, gasoline dilution, oil burning at the rings/cylinder walls even if minimal, no car is making it 15 years if the person drives more than 5k miles a year IMO.
Unless they were driving very very low miles per year, they are simply incorrect. A car isn't making it over 100k miles without an oil change IMO, even a Toyota.
Similar to how this person went most of a lifetime without noticing and wondering what oil change businesses, advertisements, coupons, etc were for... They also didn't notice someone in their household or a service provider of some kind (brakes, tires, idk) changing their oil.
On older heavy equipment of low value and high difficulty servicing (think like a forklift or skid steer) it's not uncommon to replace the coolant with oil to mitigate a head gasket issue and simply drain some oil and add to the coolant on some semblance of a schedule.
One of my favorite tractors was the old Oil Pull's which were designed for oil in the radiator. (they were a gas engine, but designed to run on "tractor fuel" which is closer to diesel than gasoline - in order to work the engine had to be very hot)
It's of course possible to design engines to be oil cooled, though water-glycol tends to be preferred due to about twice the specific heat capacity, meaning smaller coolant channels, radiators, and fans are required.
I don't think it occurred to anyone in 1905 that a water/glycol mix might be good. They either used straight water with a warning to drain the engine when you shut down in cold weather so it didn't freeze, or they used oil. My 1939 tractor has instructions to start the engine and then pour water in the radiator when it is below freezing.
Not in 1905, no. I believe water-glycol mixes became widely used in the 1920'ies. But without glycol, water is an even better heat transfer agent. Shame about the freezing thing, though.
Is it specific heat that we care about, or rate of heat transfer?
Specific heat matters a bit, but if you make your coolant take twice the energy to change 1 degree, the same thing happens on the radiator side and you must release twice the heat to cool 1 degree.
Rate of heat transfer in general if probably more important.
Well, it gets really complex. Yes, specific heat matters, but as you say so does the heat transfer coefficient. And the viscosity. And is the flow laminar or turbulent? Etc.
But, turns out water is just very very good also when you take these other factors into account. Compared to oil, it has, as mentioned, much higher specific heat, it has higher heat conductivity, it has lower viscosity which means less pumping power and more likely to see turbulent flow which helps with mixing.
In the case of the oil pull tractor they needed to run the tractor much hotter than water boils - even if they had known modern antifreeze it still boils too hot. They also didn't know to make modern radiators - they usee very large radiators to make up for lack of surface area. (They also used exhaust to pull air through the radiator instead of a fan). All in all a very ingenious design - but there is good reason they don't make them like that anymore. (My 1939 is a lot more modern - and it lacks electric start)
My son's school had the kids all put their phone in a "phone hotel" in the admin's office in the morning, and pick them up in the afternoon. This was fine, except, 1) a lot of kids just put a burner phone in and kept their actual phone hidden in their bag, and 2) the kids were all required to use laptops for class, which could do everything their phones could do.
I don't know where this narrative comes from. He wasn't forced to do any such thing. He voluntarily put his family peanut seed business into a blind trust when elected, with his personal lawyer as trustee. He subsequently only gave up the business once he took control again after his presidency, because it was in massive debt.
I’m assuming the property was mismanaged during his presidency, which means it largely amounts to the same thing. Evidence I would be looking for would be evidence that it wasn’t mismanaged, or that if Carter had retained control that the farm still would have gone bankrupt.
In the general case it’s near impossible to find a third party who can run your family farm as well as you can, a task made more difficult if that person also has to be a lawyer.
Well... the advertisers did.
reply