Youtube comments of justanothercomment (@justanothercomment416).

  1. 1600
  2. 503
  3. 341
  4. 341
  5. 268
  6. 227
  7. 219
  8. 196
  9. 180
  10. 160
  11. 155
  12. 145
  13. 144
  14. 141
  15. 113
  16. 112
  17. 112
  18. 99
  19. 96
  20. 95
  21. 81
  22. 72
  23. 71
  24. 70
  25. 66
  26. 66
  27. 66
  28. 60
  29. 60
  30. 59
  31. 55
  32. 54
  33. 54
  34. 54
  35. 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
  36. 53
  37. 52
  38. 49
  39. 48
  40. 45
  41. 45
  42. 44
  43. 42
  44. 42
  45. 42
  46. 42
  47. 41
  48. 39
  49. 39
  50. 39
  51. 38
  52. 38
  53. 37
  54. 36
  55. 36
  56. 36
  57. 35
  58. 35
  59. 35
  60. 34
  61. 34
  62. 33
  63. 33
  64. 32
  65. 32
  66. 32
  67. 31
  68. 31
  69. 31
  70.  @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
  71. 31
  72. 31
  73. 29
  74. 29
  75. 29
  76. 28
  77. 28
  78. 27
  79. 27
  80. 25
  81. 25
  82. 25
  83. 24
  84. The rust guy is out to lunch. Prime misunderstands the "talking past each other" part. The C guy is saying they are developing to work on improving the kernel and improving Rust isn't a priority. The kernel dev's priority is improving the kernel, not another language. The Rust guy says the kernel dev's priority should be supporting Rust so the Rust guys can mirror what the kernel devs are doing. The Rust dev seems completely out of touch with the unreasonableness of his position. The kernel dev's response is we don't even know if Rust actually solves our problems and as such asks are extremely unreasonable. Thus he says let's see where we're at after things mature a bit. Where the Rust guy then says we can mature only after you make us your priority and you're unreasonable if you refuse our demands and burdens. Shesh. The disconnection here is very much with the Rust devs. No reasonable developer is going to accept that their responsibility is to support other developers outside of their core responsibility such that its a detriment to the speed and flexibility of their core responsibilities. The religion comment guy is spot on. The Rust guys want to convert everyone for the sake of the one true langauge, regardless of the impact or implications. It is zealotry. The kernel guys want to develop technology and improve the kernel. They are inherently in conflict. And it doesn't help that the Rust presentation starts off with baseless assertions of quality improvements. They have no numbers to back their "improvements" as it reflects upon the kernel space. Numbers backed by low tier application developers does not necessarily say anything about higher tier developers within an entirely different problem domain. Far too much religion and handwaving on the part of the Rust devs. The kernel devs are understandably annoyed by the circus and the implicit burdens and demands put upon them.
    24
  85. 24
  86. 24
  87. 24
  88. 23
  89. 23
  90. 23
  91. 23
  92. 23
  93. 23
  94. 23
  95. 22
  96. 22
  97. 22
  98. 22
  99. 21
  100. 21
  101. 21
  102. 20
  103. 20
  104. 20
  105. 20
  106. 20
  107. 20
  108. 20
  109. 19
  110. 19
  111. 19
  112. 19
  113. 19
  114. 18
  115. 18
  116. 18
  117. 18
  118. 18
  119. 18
  120. 18
  121. 18
  122. 18
  123. 18
  124. 18
  125. 17
  126. 17
  127. 17
  128. 17
  129. 17
  130. 17
  131. 17
  132. 17
  133. 16
  134. 16
  135. 16
  136. 16
  137. 16
  138. 16
  139. 16
  140. 15
  141. 15
  142. 15
  143. 15
  144. 15
  145. 15
  146. 15
  147. 15
  148. 15
  149. 15
  150. 15
  151. 15
  152. 15
  153. 14
  154. 14
  155. 14
  156. 14
  157. 14
  158. 14
  159. 14
  160. 14
  161. 14
  162. 14
  163. 14
  164. 14
  165. 14
  166. 13
  167. 13
  168. 13
  169. 13
  170. 13
  171. 13
  172. 13
  173. 13
  174. 13
  175. 12
  176. 12
  177. 12
  178. 12
  179. 12
  180. 12
  181. 12
  182. 12
  183. 12
  184. 12
  185. 12
  186. 12
  187. 12
  188. 12
  189. 12
  190. 12
  191. 12
  192. 11
  193. 11
  194. 11
  195. 11
  196. 11
  197. 11
  198. 11
  199. 11
  200. 11
  201. 11
  202. 11
  203. 11
  204. 11
  205. 11
  206. 11
  207. 11
  208. 11
  209. 11
  210. 11
  211. 11
  212. 10
  213. 10
  214. 10
  215. 10
  216. 10
  217. 10
  218. 10
  219. 10
  220. 10
  221. 10
  222. 10
  223. 10
  224. 10
  225. 10
  226. 10
  227. 10
  228. 10
  229. 10
  230. 10
  231. 10
  232. 10
  233. 9
  234. 9
  235. 9
  236. 9
  237. 9
  238. 9
  239. 9
  240. 9
  241. 9
  242. 9
  243. 9
  244. 9
  245. 9
  246. 9
  247. 9
  248. 9
  249. 9
  250. 9
  251. 9
  252. 9
  253. 9
  254. 9
  255. 9
  256. 9
  257. 9
  258. 9
  259. 9
  260. 8
  261. 8
  262. 8
  263. 8
  264. 8
  265. 8
  266. 8
  267. 8
  268. 8
  269. 8
  270. 8
  271. 8
  272. 8
  273. 8
  274. 8
  275. 8
  276. 8
  277. 8
  278. 8
  279. 8
  280. 8
  281. 8
  282. 8
  283. 8
  284. 8
  285. 8
  286. 8
  287. 8
  288. 8
  289. 8
  290. 8
  291. 8
  292. 8
  293. 8
  294. 8
  295. 8
  296. 8
  297.  @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
  298. 8
  299. 8
  300. 7
  301. 7
  302. 7
  303. 7
  304. 7
  305. 7
  306. 7
  307. 7
  308. 7
  309. 7
  310. 7
  311. 7
  312. 7
  313. 7
  314. 7
  315. 7
  316. 7
  317. 7
  318. 7
  319. 7
  320. 7
  321. 7
  322. 7
  323. 7
  324. 7
  325. 7
  326. 7
  327. 7
  328. 7
  329. 7
  330. 7
  331. 7
  332. 7
  333. 7
  334. 7
  335. 7
  336. 7
  337. 7
  338. 7
  339. 7
  340. 7
  341. 7
  342. 7
  343. 7
  344. 7
  345. 7
  346. 6
  347. 6
  348. 6
  349. 6
  350. 6
  351. 6
  352. 6
  353. 6
  354. 6
  355. 6
  356. 6
  357. 6
  358. 6
  359. 6
  360. 6
  361. 6
  362. 6
  363. 6
  364. 6
  365. 6
  366. 6
  367. 6
  368. 6
  369. 6
  370. 6
  371. 6
  372. 6
  373. 6
  374. 6
  375. 6
  376. 6
  377. 6
  378. 6
  379. 6
  380. 6
  381. 6
  382. 6
  383. 6
  384. 6
  385. 6
  386. 6
  387. 6
  388. 6
  389. 6
  390. 6
  391. 6
  392. 6
  393. 6
  394. 6
  395. 6
  396. 6
  397. 6
  398. 6
  399. 6
  400. 6
  401. 6
  402. 6
  403. 6
  404. 6
  405. 6
  406. 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
  407. 6
  408. 6
  409. 6
  410. 6
  411. 5
  412. 5
  413. 5
  414. 5
  415. 5
  416. 5
  417. 5
  418. 5
  419. 5
  420. 5
  421. 5
  422. 5
  423. 5
  424. 5
  425. 5
  426. 5
  427. 5
  428. 5
  429. 5
  430. 5
  431. 5
  432. 5
  433. 5
  434. 5
  435. 5
  436. 5
  437. 5
  438. 5
  439. 5
  440. 5
  441. 5
  442. 5
  443. 5
  444. 5
  445. 5
  446. 5
  447. 5
  448. 5
  449. 5
  450. 5
  451. 5
  452. 5
  453. 5
  454. 5
  455. 5
  456. 5
  457. 5
  458. 5
  459. 5
  460. 5
  461. 5
  462. 5
  463. 5
  464. 5
  465. 5
  466. 5
  467. 5
  468. 5
  469. 5
  470. 5
  471. 5
  472. 5
  473. 5
  474. 5
  475. 5
  476. 5
  477. 5
  478. 5
  479. 5
  480. 5
  481. 5
  482. 5
  483. 5
  484. 5
  485. 5
  486. 5
  487. 5
  488. 5
  489. 5
  490. 5
  491. 5
  492. 5
  493. 5
  494. 5
  495. 5
  496. 4
  497. 4
  498. 4
  499. 4
  500. 4
  501. 4
  502. 4
  503. 4
  504. 4
  505. 4
  506. 4
  507. 4
  508. 4
  509. 4
  510. 4
  511. 4
  512. 4
  513. 4
  514. 4
  515. 4
  516. 4
  517. 4
  518. 4
  519. 4
  520. 4
  521. 4
  522. 4
  523. 4
  524. 4
  525. 4
  526. 4
  527. 4
  528. 4
  529. 4
  530. 4
  531. 4
  532. 4
  533. 4
  534. 4
  535. 4
  536. 4
  537. 4
  538. 4
  539. 4
  540. 4
  541. 4
  542. 4
  543. 4
  544. 4
  545. 4
  546. 4
  547. 4
  548. 4
  549. 4
  550. 4
  551. 4
  552. 4
  553. 4
  554. 4
  555. 4
  556. 4
  557. 4
  558. 4
  559. 4
  560. 4
  561. 4
  562. 4
  563. 4
  564. 4
  565. 4
  566. 4
  567. 4
  568. 4
  569. 4
  570. 4
  571. 4
  572. 4
  573. 4
  574. 4
  575. 4
  576. 4
  577. 4
  578. 4
  579. 4
  580. 4
  581. 4
  582. 4
  583. 4
  584. 4
  585. 4
  586. 4
  587. 4
  588. 4
  589. 4
  590. 4
  591. 4
  592. 4
  593. 4
  594. 4
  595. 4
  596. 4
  597. 4
  598. 4
  599. 4
  600. 4
  601. 4
  602. 4
  603. 4
  604. 4
  605. 4
  606. 4
  607. 4
  608. 4
  609. 4
  610. 4
  611. 4
  612. 4
  613. 4
  614. 4
  615. 4
  616. 4
  617. 4
  618. 3
  619. 3
  620. 3
  621. 3
  622. 3
  623. 3
  624. 3
  625. 3
  626. 3
  627. 3
  628. 3
  629. 3
  630. 3
  631. 3
  632. 3
  633. 3
  634. 3
  635. 3
  636. 3
  637. 3
  638. 3
  639. 3
  640. 3
  641. 3
  642. 3
  643. 3
  644. 3
  645. 3
  646. 3
  647. 3
  648. 3
  649. 3
  650. 3
  651. 3
  652. 3
  653. 3
  654. 3
  655. 3
  656. 3
  657. 3
  658. 3
  659. 3
  660. 3
  661. 3
  662. 3
  663. 3
  664. 3
  665. 3
  666. 3
  667. 3
  668. 3
  669. 3
  670. 3
  671. 3
  672. 3
  673. 3
  674. 3
  675. 3
  676. 3
  677. 3
  678. 3
  679. 3
  680. 3
  681. 3
  682. 3
  683. 3
  684. 3
  685. 3
  686. 3
  687. 3
  688. 3
  689. 3
  690. 3
  691. 3
  692. 3
  693. 3
  694. 3
  695. 3
  696. 3
  697. 3
  698. 3
  699. 3
  700. 3
  701. 3
  702. 3
  703. 3
  704. 3
  705. 3
  706. 3
  707. 3
  708. 3
  709. 3
  710. 3
  711. 3
  712. 3
  713. 3
  714. 3
  715. 3
  716. 3
  717. 3
  718. 3
  719. 3
  720. 3
  721. 3
  722. 3
  723. 3
  724. 3
  725. 3
  726. 3
  727. 3
  728. 3
  729. 3
  730. 3
  731. 3
  732. 3
  733. 3
  734. 3
  735. 3
  736. 3
  737. 3
  738. 3
  739. 3
  740. 3
  741. 3
  742. 3
  743. 3
  744. 3
  745. 3
  746. 3
  747. 3
  748. 3
  749. 3
  750. 3
  751. 3
  752. 3
  753. 3
  754. 3
  755. 3
  756. 3
  757. 3
  758. 3
  759. 3
  760. 3
  761. 3
  762. 3
  763. 3
  764. 3
  765. 3
  766. 3
  767. 3
  768. 3
  769. 3
  770. 3
  771. 3
  772. 3
  773. 3
  774. 3
  775. 3
  776. 3
  777. 3
  778. 3
  779. 3
  780. 3
  781. 3
  782. 3
  783. 3
  784. 3
  785. 3
  786. 3
  787. 3
  788. 3
  789. 3
  790. 3
  791. 3
  792. 3
  793. 3
  794. 3
  795. 3
  796. 3
  797. 3
  798. 3
  799. 3
  800. 3
  801. 3
  802. 3
  803. 3
  804. 3
  805. 3
  806. 3
  807. 3
  808. 3
  809. 3
  810. 3
  811. 3
  812. 3
  813. 3
  814. 3
  815. 3
  816. 3
  817. 3
  818. 3
  819. 3
  820. 3
  821. 3
  822. 3
  823. 3
  824. 3
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832. 2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839. 2
  840. 2
  841. 2
  842. 2
  843. 2
  844. 2
  845. 2
  846. 2
  847. 2
  848. 2
  849. 2
  850. 2
  851. 2
  852. 2
  853. 2
  854. 2
  855. 2
  856. 2
  857. 2
  858. 2
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. 2
  862. 2
  863. 2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. 2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873. 2
  874. 2
  875. 2
  876. 2
  877. 2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. 2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. 2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. 2
  894. 2
  895. 2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. 2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903. 2
  904. 2
  905. 2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908. 2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912. 2
  913. 2
  914. 2
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. 2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 2
  933. 2
  934. 2
  935.  @Winnetou17  You have to do the research yourself. For example, Win over counts by millions. They count installs which no longer exist. Including ancient installs. The result is Win is massively over represented. As most computers running Linux come installed with a Win license, this is counted as a Win install. Again, over representing Win installs. Even best case, this results in a Win + Linux install count, which still over represents Win installs. Keep in mind Win installs are subsidized so it's almost always cheaper to buy a Linux computer with a Win license which is never used. My last five computers all fall into this category. As is the case with most Linux users. Most Linux installs are not counted. And methodology is known to be inaccurate with very conservative reporting. Making Linux installs under reported. Just based on these facts which are trivial to confirm, which way do you believe the install counts slant in reports vs reality? Additional indirect market data reflects Linux desktop installs are roughly that of MacOS. Easy to see why. Sadly, many people misunderstand and mireport Valve's (Steam) user surveys. These represent a tiny subset of Linux installs and their report reflects the minority of users which game and use Steam. Their counts do not represent actual Linux vs Win installs. But pay attention to how these stats reflect upon what I'm telling you. I invite you to investigate for yourself. If you spend much time researching you'll quickly confirm and agree.
    2
  936. 2
  937. 2
  938. 2
  939. 2
  940. 2
  941. 2
  942. 2
  943. 2
  944. 2
  945. 2
  946. 2
  947. 2
  948. 2
  949. 2
  950. 2
  951. 2
  952. 2
  953. 2
  954. 2
  955. 2
  956. 2
  957. 2
  958. 2
  959. 2
  960. 2
  961. 2
  962. 2
  963. 2
  964. 2
  965. 2
  966. 2
  967. 2
  968. 2
  969. 2
  970. 2
  971. 2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974. 2
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980. 2
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. 2
  985. 2
  986. 2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 2
  994. 2
  995. 2
  996. 2
  997. 2
  998. 2
  999. 2
  1000. 2
  1001. 2
  1002. 2
  1003. 2
  1004. 2
  1005. 2
  1006. 2
  1007. 2
  1008. 2
  1009. 2
  1010. 2
  1011. 2
  1012. 2
  1013. 2
  1014. 2
  1015. 2
  1016. 2
  1017. 2
  1018. 2
  1019. 2
  1020. 2
  1021. 2
  1022. 2
  1023. 2
  1024. 2
  1025. 2
  1026. 2
  1027. 2
  1028. 2
  1029. 2
  1030. 2
  1031. 2
  1032. 2
  1033. 2
  1034. 2
  1035. 2
  1036. 2
  1037. 2
  1038. 2
  1039. 2
  1040. 2
  1041. 2
  1042. 2
  1043. 2
  1044. 2
  1045. 2
  1046. 2
  1047. 2
  1048. 2
  1049. 2
  1050. 2
  1051. 2
  1052. 2
  1053. 2
  1054. 2
  1055. 2
  1056. 2
  1057. 2
  1058. 2
  1059. 2
  1060. 2
  1061. 2
  1062. 2
  1063. 2
  1064. 2
  1065. 2
  1066. 2
  1067. 2
  1068. 2
  1069. 2
  1070. 2
  1071. 2
  1072. 2
  1073. 2
  1074. 2
  1075. 2
  1076. 2
  1077. 2
  1078. 2
  1079. 2
  1080. 2
  1081. 2
  1082. 2
  1083. 2
  1084. 2
  1085. 2
  1086. 2
  1087. 2
  1088. 2
  1089. 2
  1090. 2
  1091. 2
  1092. 2
  1093. 2
  1094. 2
  1095. 2
  1096. 2
  1097. 2
  1098. 2
  1099. 2
  1100. 2
  1101. 2
  1102. 2
  1103. 2
  1104. 2
  1105. 2
  1106. 2
  1107. 2
  1108. 2
  1109. 2
  1110. 2
  1111. 2
  1112. 2
  1113. 2
  1114. 2
  1115. 2
  1116. 2
  1117. 2
  1118. 2
  1119. 2
  1120. 2
  1121. 2
  1122. 2
  1123. 2
  1124. 2
  1125. 2
  1126. 2
  1127. 2
  1128. 2
  1129. 2
  1130. 2
  1131. 2
  1132. 2
  1133. 2
  1134. 2
  1135. 2
  1136. 2
  1137. 2
  1138. 2
  1139. 2
  1140. 2
  1141. 2
  1142. 2
  1143. 2
  1144. 2
  1145. 2
  1146. 2
  1147. 2
  1148. 2
  1149. 2
  1150. 2
  1151. 2
  1152. 2
  1153. 2
  1154. 2
  1155. 2
  1156. 2
  1157. 2
  1158. 2
  1159. 2
  1160. 2
  1161. 2
  1162. 2
  1163. 2
  1164. 2
  1165. 2
  1166. 2
  1167. 2
  1168. 2
  1169. 2
  1170. 2
  1171. 2
  1172. 2
  1173. 2
  1174. 2
  1175. 2
  1176. 2
  1177. 2
  1178. 2
  1179. 2
  1180. 2
  1181. 2
  1182. 2
  1183. 2
  1184. 2
  1185. 2
  1186. 2
  1187. 2
  1188. 2
  1189. 2
  1190. 2
  1191. 2
  1192. 2
  1193. 2
  1194. 2
  1195. 2
  1196. 2
  1197. 2
  1198. 2
  1199. 2
  1200. 2
  1201. 2
  1202. 2
  1203. 2
  1204. 2
  1205. 2
  1206. 2
  1207. 2
  1208. 2
  1209. 2
  1210. 2
  1211. 2
  1212. 2
  1213. 2
  1214. 2
  1215. 2
  1216. 2
  1217. 2
  1218. 2
  1219. 2
  1220. 2
  1221. 2
  1222. 2
  1223. 2
  1224. 2
  1225. 2
  1226. 2
  1227. 2
  1228. 2
  1229. 2
  1230. 2
  1231. 2
  1232. 2
  1233. 2
  1234. 2
  1235. 2
  1236. 2
  1237. 2
  1238. 2
  1239. 2
  1240. 2
  1241. 2
  1242. 2
  1243. 2
  1244. 2
  1245. 2
  1246. 2
  1247. 2
  1248. 2
  1249. 2
  1250. 2
  1251. 2
  1252. 2
  1253. 2
  1254. 2
  1255. 2
  1256. 2
  1257. 2
  1258. 2
  1259. 2
  1260. 2
  1261. 2
  1262. 2
  1263. 2
  1264. 2
  1265. 2
  1266. 2
  1267. 2
  1268. 2
  1269. 2
  1270. 2
  1271. 2
  1272. 2
  1273. 2
  1274. 2
  1275. 2
  1276. 2
  1277. 2
  1278. 2
  1279. 2
  1280. 2
  1281. 2
  1282. 2
  1283. 2
  1284. 2
  1285. 2
  1286. 2
  1287. 2
  1288. 2
  1289. 2
  1290. 2
  1291. 2
  1292. 2
  1293. 2
  1294. 2
  1295. 2
  1296. 2
  1297. 2
  1298. 2
  1299. 2
  1300. 2
  1301. 2
  1302. 2
  1303. 2
  1304. 2
  1305. 2
  1306. 2
  1307. 2
  1308. 2
  1309. 2
  1310. 2
  1311. 2
  1312. 2
  1313. 2
  1314. 2
  1315. 2
  1316. 2
  1317. 2
  1318. 2
  1319. 2
  1320. 2
  1321. 2
  1322. 2
  1323. 2
  1324. 2
  1325. 2
  1326. 2
  1327. 2
  1328. 2
  1329. 2
  1330. 2
  1331. 2
  1332. 2
  1333. 2
  1334. 2
  1335. 2
  1336. 2
  1337. 2
  1338. 2
  1339. 2
  1340. 2
  1341. 2
  1342. 2
  1343. 2
  1344. 2
  1345. 2
  1346. 2
  1347. 2
  1348. 2
  1349. 2
  1350. 2
  1351. 2
  1352. 2
  1353. 2
  1354. 2
  1355. 2
  1356. 2
  1357. 2
  1358. 2
  1359. 2
  1360. 2
  1361. 2
  1362. 2
  1363. 2
  1364. 2
  1365. 2
  1366. 2
  1367. 2
  1368. 2
  1369. 2
  1370. 2
  1371. 2
  1372. 2
  1373. 2
  1374. 2
  1375. 2
  1376. 2
  1377. 2
  1378. 2
  1379. 2
  1380. 2
  1381. 2
  1382. 2
  1383. 2
  1384. 2
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457.  @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
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 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
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1