I had a couple of friends buy cars at the same time - one bought a new Subaru, and the other a used 997 Porsche 911. The 911 cost more, but not a large difference in price. In that part of the world, the Subaru (and almost all new cars) loses 40% in the first year in depreciation, and continues to drop off at 10% - 15% per year. The 911 has more expensive maintenance and insurance, but has so far, and could easily continue to be depreciation-proof. The difference in fuel is less than you might think too given how much lighter (and risky in crashes) older smaller cars are. So far the 911 has turned out to be by far the more sensible financial decision. Obviously there are much more financially-prudent alternatives to both, but I find it interesting how older interesting cars are looked at as frivolous purchases, but new utilitarian cars aren't.
Your comment was presumably talking about new or expensive 911s, and I don't want to criticise what you said at all. I just wanted to say something to hopefully encourage some people to consider sillier, more-fun cars as perhaps not a crazy option.
There are a million practicality reasons why this wont work out for most people, but a lot of families have two cars. I really like seeing the 2nd car being something in that realm of interesting but nearly as reliable, costs more in maintenance but less in depreciation, less practical but more enjoyable. It feels to me like that has gotten less common, and a lot of people think every vehicle needs to be as practical as possible.
It seems that I was talking about a place with one of the highest depreciation rates (1) in the world, so what I said may not be widely applicable at all. I didn't realise it varied so much by country. I should have remembered that New Zealand has unusual prices because it gets a lot of used car imports from places like Japan and Singapore who get rid of their cars quickly.
This is an old study which points to New Zealand having quick depreciation in the first year. Looking around briefly, I think depreciation reduced substantially since COVID, and I think those numbers in that study may have been too high anyway (the study found over 50% in the first year). I'm interested in what happened, so I'll try and find what the reality is when I get a chance.
My impression of Neutrogena too, despite them testing well in NZ. Nivea is cheap, basic and actually works.
Absolutely hate mineral ones, literally worst of all worlds - expensive, bad ux and doesn’t work. All while greenwashing. So much so it became my litmus to test people’s literacy.
I use the spf 50 ‘sport’ version on my legs and arms (not the face, too greasy) and it seems to do the job OK.
I guess if it’s 35 in testing that’s still OK-ish for general use. I do really plaster it on. And as I’m usually doing that before a lot of outdoor work, it draws a further protective layer of sand and dirt to itself…
This is what's strange to me, I've never, ever heard anyone here in QLD say "buy banana boat products", it's always said that it is shit though.
So, we, as a community knew to avoid them for an awful long time. I can't be specific about when I heard this first but I'm almost certain some one said this to me in the first 12 months I moved to Brisbane (from the UK) 17 years ago.
So, there's been an urban myth for almost, if not longer than 2 decades. And we're only finding out now that it's true? That's the most surprising part of this to me IMO.
The photons were created a long time ago in the core. It takes thousand of years for it to reach the surface, and THEN it takes 8 minutes to get to us.
The photons created in the core are some seriously energetic gama rays. Sure, gama rays are very penetrating, but the solar core is dense, and it's about half a million miles to the surface, so these mostly get absorbed right there in the core, making stupendous amounts of heat. At any given depth that means that matter is going to re-emit photons, but never any more energetic than the original ones that are absorbed, but that radiation will be reabsorbed as well. That process of emission and reabsorption means that energy travels to the surface a lot slower than light in a vacuum, and sure, it takes a long time for that energy to reach the surface, but the photons that reach the earth are only the ones created close enough to the 'surface' to escape into space.
Photons are not created on the surface but in the core where the environment has the higher pressure needed for the physical creation of the photon and the photon takes about that long to work its way out.
Is this in any sense hydrogen being converted to photons? Photons are massless, but… the mass of the elements in the star are converted to pure energy?
In a way yes. It’s a byproduct of fusion IIRC. One way to look at it is to examine the atomic weights of hydrogen and helium and the subatomic particles. They don’t exactly add up. So where is the missing mass? This was a big question until we discovered the even smaller particles that made up electrons and protons. I recommend the book How to Make an Apple Pie from Scratch for a good read for laymen on particle physics.
What is the ratio between those and well heat due to nuclear reactions and well pressure. Hot stuff generates visible photons. Say like incandescent light bulb.
So there must be a range in age. As some closer to still hot surface don't need to travel through parts of the sun.
So I am not an expert and recalling what I have read in several books and articles, but the conditions of fusion necessary to create photons only exists in the core of the sun. It was a mystery to us and we did not know until scientists were able to use quantum mechanics was able to explain the mechanism, it requires enough temperature and gravitational pressure to force subatomic particles close enough to overcome the forces that ordinarily keep them apart, and this only happens to a small percentage of meeting nuclei with quantum tunneling explaining how they overcome the forces that want to keep the nuclei apart - there's just so many particles squeezed close together that a small percentage that meet (possibly easier to visualize as the quantum wave function describing the position) fuse. This is also why we cannot use this method of fusion on earth - it's impossible to do on earth barring some sci fi artificial gravity invention. If this were not true and fusion could take place anywhere on the sun, the sun could rapidly use up all of the fuel of hydrogen. I am simply repeating what I have read - each photon has to make its way to the surface of the sun after many collisions, since the direction is random and not always outwards, it is theorized they just ping pong back and forth for x years where x can be hundreds of thousands of years. Here's the clearest explanation I found though they only use one slide on the photon's drunken walkhttps://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11084
>> if they have open source (or if an internal transfer, internal) code I can review.
I give you a lot of credit for doing this. When I was still in development, I had a pretty robust github page, a sizable portfolio of stuff I had built and other side projects I was working on with various other platforms like Salesforce.
Not once did an interviewer review any of that. I would find myself referring to my github page several times over during the interview. I got so frustrated with interviewers asking me how to do simple things in interviews, I finally walked out of several and told them if they had just taken five minutes and looked at any of my github projects, they would've saved themselves a lot of time asking stupid questions about basic stuff.
Unfortunately, most people’s GitHub accounts are just a smattering of forked repos with maybe one or two (or no) commits done by them. Unless you look closely, it would be easy to be fooled by the average candidates github that is essentially meaningless.
idk, I really can't imagine hiring someone that not only had such a github profile, but saw fit to send it to the interviewer
look for repos that aren't forked, especially one that doesn't have all or most of its code committed in a single commit (i.e. forked with extra steps)
Feral cats kill 2 billion birds a year, FYI the green energy kills birds thing is a right wing talking point designed to distract and delay. All human activity kills some nominal number of birds
Indeed. They care about the environment when pretending to do so lets them fight against things which are actually good for the environment and bad for the fossil fuel industry.
The post opens with the following TL;DR:, snipped for brevity:
> It would be great if someone can connect me with the right person inside Apple, or direct them to my feedback request FB17475838 as well as this devlog entry.
Feedbacks often go into a black hole unless either:
1. A bunch of people file effectively the same bug report (unlikely here)
2. An individual Apple employee champions the issue internally
3. Someone makes a fuss on Twitter/X and it starts to go viral
Sounds like the OP is trying to get #2 to happen, which is probably his best bet.
Feedback is as effective as creating a change.org petition to some politician to stop doing crimes please. You'll be lucky to get an acknowledgement that something's a real issue after months.
