Youtube comments of justanothercomment (@justanothercomment416).
-
1600
-
503
-
341
-
341
-
268
-
227
-
219
-
196
-
180
-
160
-
155
-
145
-
144
-
141
-
113
-
112
-
112
-
99
-
96
-
95
-
81
-
72
-
71
-
70
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
Most of the comments here don't really understand what's going on here.
This is really about fixed pitch props. This is also true for aircraft. Their highest efficiency occurs when the forward movement matches that of the prop's pitch relative to the RPM setting. Remember a prop is a screw. If the forward movement of the screw does not match that of the pitch/RPM, it is an inefficient use of energy. Accordingly, it's not that this new design is so amazing efficient. It's that fixed pitch props are so amazingly inefficient at all RPM settings outside of their ideal pitch/movement. Accordingly, 105% is easily believable and likely very accurate.
That said, contrary to the video's false assertions, this technology likely has little use outside of tri/quads and small boats. As props get larger and larger they are intended to spin much more slowly, if for no other reason than to avoid super sonic tip speeds (example, helicopters and cargo ships). The larger the prop the less likely they are to have high RPM requirements. Which is in large part why the prop blades become wider. In other words, they get their performance from size, not speed (RPM). This also means the operating RPM window is drastically reduced (1500-6000 RPMs (4500 rpm window) vs for example, 100-250 RPM (150 rpm window), of a large cargo ship). This in turn means a large ship's propeller is much more likely to always operate at or near ideal RPM whereas the smaller boats commonly transition to and fro as their standard operating environments. Accordingly, the inefficiency is much more commonly observed. In turn making the efficiency improvements a much larger percentage of it's overall fuel consumption as it commonly spends more time as it transitions in the less ideal RPM range.
For example, a small craft likely operates around 20% of it's life in transition. Whereas a large ship likely operates 0.0001% of it's life in transition, with a much smaller window for transition. Accordingly, a well optimized fixed pitch is almost always be ideal for large cargo ships. Additionally, for things like wind turbines, most prop aircraft, and so on, they already have variable pitch props, which addresses this inefficiency.
54
-
53
-
52
-
49
-
48
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
@KoRntech It's actually not surprising for fixed pitch props. This is also true for aircraft. Their highest efficiency occurs when the forward movement matches that of the prop's pitch relative to the RPM setting. Remember a prop is a screw. If the forward movement of the screw does not match that of the pitch, it is an inefficient use of energy. Accordingly, it's not that this new design is so amazing efficient. It's that fixed pitch props are so amazingly inefficient at all RPM settings outside of their ideal pitch/movement. Accordingly, 105% is easily believable and likely very accurate.
That said, this is also likely why OP's comment is also true. As props get larger and larger they are intended to spin much more slowly, if for no other reason than to avoid super sonic tip speeds. The larger the prop the less likely they are to have high RPM requirements. Which is in large part why the prop blades become wider. In other words, they get their performance from size, not speed (RPM). This also means the operating RPM window is drastically reduced (1500-6000 RPMs (4500 rpm window) vs for example, 100-250 RPM (150 rpm window), of a large cargo ship). This in turn means a large ship's propeller is much more likely to always operate at or near ideal RPM whereas the smaller boats commonly transition to and fro as their standard operating environments. Accordingly, the inefficiency is much more commonly observed. In turn making the efficiency improvements a much larger percentage of it's overall fuel consumption.
For example, a small craft likely operates around 20% of it's life in transition. Whereas a large ship likely operates 0.0001% of it's life in transition with a much smaller window for transition. Accordingly, a well optimized fixed pitch is almost always be ideal for large cargo ships.
31
-
31
-
31
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@andrewallen9918 That's exactly right. This is not a universal improvement. The operation of the boat makes a big difference. If the boat is mostly parked fishing and slowly moving around from point to point, then there will be almost no benefit. Ideally this prop helps those who frequently go from idle to plane and back again, with a ton of "on plane" cruising for extended periods. This is because it improves the transition period from idle to on plane and to a much lessor extent, the on plane economy. But if you look, you can see the constant speed prop does eventually catch up once on plane, but at a higher RPM; which is where that fuel savings is really coming from. And the basis of comparison is fuel economy, not speed. Want that fuel savings? Get a normal prop designed to operate at that RPM.
This also implies the prop used for comparison is not ideal of the desired operating RPM. In prop design, they generally design for a single ideal RPM (raising the question if the comparison is really on the up and up). Meaning there is likely a more ideal prop selection, for the ideal torque, for which they should compare. Additionally, to benefit from the smaller prop efficiencies, you need to be at that RPM for extended periods of time. Sure you'll always benefit once on plane and no longer accelerating, but if you don't commonly cruise for extended periods, it represents a tiny overall percentage the engine is running. Which means it represents a tiny overall percentage of fuel economy.
This is one of those topics where the devil is in the detail. And contrary to the video, it's far from anything approaching a generic, general purpose improvement. So yes, absolutely, this is a niche product. Though I expect for those within the niche, it is a good product. Good for the price? Hmmm. If you're outside the niche, not so much.
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@snippletrap Correct. This is why, for example, you don't see say, mechanics hanging around with researchers. Or construction workers hanging around with doctors. This doesn't mean each group hates the others (which is what the current day agenda requires everyone believe). Rather, it means people with shared histories, associations, cultures, and so on, hugely benefit by assocation and facilitating the rise of that group.
Why is every ryce allowed homelands except for whytes? Why is simply pointing this out considered raayyyycistss? Name a single group in history which has willingly surrendered their political power. Yet this is a requirement of the agenda. If it's not willingly, what is it? Do you understand the power of shaming? And why it's not allowed for those who actually should be? And why it's used on those who should not be? Specifically here, the word, "slooot." You know what I mean.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Not really. This video does a good job (accidentally) of explaining (between the lines) of why we are so far away. The AI really did nothing useful. All of the "thinking" was done for it and it simply applied rules against goals, which were themselves assigned externally (intelligence wouldn't need this). Additionally, the basis for the entire library is itself based upon the intelligence of humans and not of its own creation. For example, who attributes scoring as beneficial or good vs negative? The AI certainly did not. Is mining all of the gold useful? No. But it does allow technology progression. Does technology progression, in of itself, serve a purpose? No. It's part of the human stimulus for game progression, to keep human interest, but doesn't actually make the game more enjoyable nor is it actually beneficial in of itself. Accordingly, how can this actually make it a better player when it doesn't, even at the most fundamental level, understand what "better" actually means? It has no concept of "better." It's "better" is whatever its programmer ranked as a priority for which it then goal seeks to achieve a scoring. No thinking or intelligence is required - except by the human programmers. This is called anthropomorphization.
The fallacy of people's understanding of AI is they really don't understand the basis of evaluation for intelligence. This is for two parts. One, we really don't understand what defines "intelligence." Made worse that much of this research is highly censored for politics. Two, humans are easily fooled in simple contexts to believe mimicry is the same as intelligence. Which is why so many people falsely anthropomorphize many animal behaviors. And this is with animals who frequently do poses some actual measure of intelligence with organism we largely know and understand. Most people know nothing of technology and even less of AI. It doesn't help that the hype train is full of pop culture "information" which is frequently completely wrong.
Additionally, the fringe of real intelligence research very strongly implies that our brains require some type of quantum effect for effective communication within. Accordingly, this hints that any real form of intelligence requires some form of quantum communication. In other words, parallelization (the current basis of all LLM AIs), in of itself, does not and very likely cannot ever create real intelligence. There isn't even a hint from current AIs which challenges this position.
Now then, quantum computing may eventually rebuff my statements. There is some research which hints that this may be the case for DoD/DARPA/military black projects. But what is in the mainstream, while interesting tools, provide absolutely no inference of intelligence in anyway. Anyone telling you otherwise is highly suspicious.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TrueMohax The real redress is to end their immunity. It's blatantly unconstitutional and rampantly abused. There is no repair. Police are citizens. As with any other citizen they liable for their behavior and actions. The real redress is to allow the courts to hear the cases.
Likewise, when you have a judge doing their job and obvious abuse of the system to undermine police, you harshly clamp down on the abusers. Jail and fines exist for these reasons. This ensures police are treated equally under the law, as they are legally and constitutionally required. This ensures citizens are fairly treated and have recourse with the courts are constitutionally and legally required. Anything else is abuse and denial of constitutional rights of the citizenry.
There are only two classes of people under the Constitution. One, military. Two, citizens. Any special privilege not related to arrest powers, and not extended to all citizens, are by definition illegal and unconstitutional. Qualified immunity is advocated by the mentally strained and is blatantly illegal and unconstitutional.
A very simple legal standard exists. Is the privilege, which places them above us, which denies us due process, available to all citizens? The answer is no. By definition, it is unconstitutional. Period.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ThePrimeagen lol. I'm not even a rust guy and it shows that in no way, shape, or form. What you said is that you need to know the standard library and if you misuse it, it's not your fault. That's extremely dishonest. This a fundamental problem of learning any and all new languages. Guess what, you have to learn their standard libraries and misuse is entirely your fault. Because apparently, "reading", and, "being professional", is, "hard", and "never my fault", when I don't do it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@wilb6657 I'm sorry. I'm sure mean well, but your position is completely baseless. Black Egyptians is a more modern thing, after the Europeans were forced from the lands. The current population has only been there 800-1000 years. Even they have nothing to do with biblical or ancient Egypt. With few, more recent exceptions, the further back in time you go the whiter it becomes.
Honestly, for you to even attempt to disagree, albeit politely, means you've never bothered to look at what's there. In stead you care to only look for what you want to believe. I would love to provide more info, including genetics, but YT prohibits the truth. Regardless, I request you seek the truth. Because whomever is telling you this stuff is not your friend. Nor are they honest.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Contrary to popular muythology, the NAs absolutely are not native. In fact, Europeans are native. Europeans came, started civilization, NA cames, Europeans left, Europeans returned.
Many NA, Central, and SA Indians had oral histories of the people here before them. They describe bearded, light skinned people, frequently with blue, freen, and grey eyes.
Europeans are the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@GrantGryczan I just read, per your suggestion, and it says what I said. It has to track that drop. It does so on the stack. It has to know when to drop. It's either explicit or implicit. If it's implicit and you declare it explicitly (adding a drop), the result is no change because the drop was always already there.
I suspect you misunderstand what I said or how things work.
BTW, good suggestion to RTFM. I'm happy to have done so.
"The drop flags are tracked on the stack. In old Rust versions, drop flags were stashed in a hidden field of types that implement Drop."
If it's on the stack this limits the types of stack restructuring commonly required for TCO. Why? Because that drop must be there at the end of the scope. Which is in fact precisely what the guy in the article stated and the basis of my statement and understanding of drop. Which the documentation fully supports.
Now then, is it possible TCO can still be applied? I'm sure it can. But appears, based on the article and implied by runtime behavior, this type of TCO isn't taking place. As I said above, I guess we'd have to look at the generated code to fully appreciate exactly what's going on here.
Honestly not sure on which you disagree here. My statement fully aligns with the docs, the article, and apparent runtime behavior.
If it's wrong, you might suggest a documentation change and correct the author while you're at it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
From dark to light.
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. "
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@monkey39128 Firstly, there is no such thing as Jud Christian values. That's propaganda. They are entirely conflicting. Christianity is downstream of Hebraism (Hebrewism). Jud is not. This is factually well established.
Secondly, Americans, per our Founding Fathers, foundling documents, and so on, are Europeans. Indo-Europeans. Only Indo-Europeans. The real question is, why you don't see Indo-Europeans collectively as you are conditioned to see all other groups?
Thirdly, once you learn history, you find a certain symbol is everywhere the Indo-European has been. Which is now universally banned. It was not banned for the reasons you're taught it was. Once you learn the origins of cultures throughout history, almost all goes back to a singular peoples; Indo-Europeans.
Literally, most all significant cultures of Indo-Europeans. In other words, your take on my comment omits thousands of years of history.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rullvardi The simple fact is, you're asking questions on which entire books have been written. Your premise is unfair.
Our founding documents do not contain "democracy" in any place. Our Founders EXPLICITLY rejected democracy. WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRACY. This entire concept that we are has existed for less than forty years. We are a republic. They are entirely different forms of governance.
Even during the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s, there were common education films confirming this fact. These facts were commonly taught within schools.
Now then, understand that the word, "democacy" is frequently used to mean different things. Democracy has historically been used to mean representative and not mob rule. However, when they say this today they literally mean mob rule.
See Ope Ration Paper Cli P.
He who controls the mob, rules. This is the "democracy" they defend. The real question is, why are so many here upset at defending the republic and fight to support mob rule? Why are those same people so diseducated on the facts and our history? It's not an accident.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kobi665 I don't have a take on that. Am willing to agree. If they are not teaching the fundamentals of abstraction, interfaces, inheritance, composition, and the associated low level implications of each choice, then most anything which follows is taught to early.
Both have advantages and disadvantages. The primary push for composition is specifically for performance for cache/memory locality. There certainly is something to be said for that. This push primarily originates from game programming. But it's found to have advantages anywhere large numbers of objects in memory is a requirement. Which potentially brings in "records." Likewise, there are some other advantages, yet the primary push did originate for games for performance.
There's a time and place for both approaches. Yet premature optimization remains the root of all evil. Which means when people pick composition over inheritance simply because of a potentially imagined performance benefit, they are still juggling with folly.
The truth is, most people understand the abstractions provided on inheritance better than other models. It's more or less how we are taught to relate to the world around us. That, however, doesn't mean abstractions can't be poor, too complex, too abstract, or just plain dumb. That's before the implementation even occurs.
IMOHO, this is one of the greatest issues with languages like C# and especially Java, in that their libraries are frequently designed by committee, resulting in sheer idiocy of interface and abstraction. They are burdens rather than solutions.
Sadly, far too many fight "best tool" logic, which includes best design and best abstraction. If your favorite tool is a hammer we always try to see the world through nails. Nothing wrong with nails. In many cases nails are excellent. But some jobs require screws. In many cases, screws are superior to nails. In some cases nails are required. Side note, nails and screws provide different failure modes and as such have specific requirements for use to avoid structural catastrophe. Our jobs is to understand nails, screws, and many other fasteners. And then apply them appropriately.
/soapbox
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your gains will be determines by how often you transition from stopped to "on plane" travel. If you do this frequently, there is likely some benefit to be found for you. Though the noise benefits will always remain. If, however, you spend most of your time parked or most of your time at a specific RPM, ideal for your existing props, you'll find very little fuel benefit.
It's actually about fixed pitch props and how they operate. This is also true for aircraft. Their highest efficiency occurs when the forward movement matches that of the prop's pitch relative to the RPM setting. Remember a prop is a screw. If the forward movement of the screw does not match that of the pitch, it is an inefficient use of energy. This is why the transition period (how long it takes to match the pitch/rpm/forward speed) is so important. Accordingly, it's not that this new design is so amazing efficient. It's that fixed pitch props are so amazingly inefficient at all RPM settings outside of their ideal pitch/movement. This is why the use case matters. The more time you speed at your prop's ideal RPM the much smaller the benefits are from these props. Notice in the graph the fixed pitch does eventually rise.
For example, a small craft likely operates around 20% of it's life in transition. Whereas a large ship likely operates 0.0001% of it's life in transition with a much smaller window for transition. Accordingly, a well optimized fixed pitch is almost always be ideal for large cargo ships. While there is some benefit from these props, you really need to focus on the ideal RPM differences and how you use your boat.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1