Devial

joined 1 week ago
[–] Devial@discuss.online 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (8 children)

The value is being transported from point a to b. How anyone with a straight face can argue that low leg toom is an airline providing "zero value" is a fucking mystery to me. Like do you buy plane tickets for the sole purpose of sitting comfortably in a flying tube for shits and giggles, with no regard to destination or origin ?

And also, THEY ALREADY DON'T. The profit margins on the completely basic, zero extras or add ons econeomy seat are ALREADY close to 0 for most airlines. Negative for some.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 14 points 5 days ago (18 children)

You do know that tickets for those nice spacious old timey flights you're dreaming of were upwards of thousands of dollars, adjusted for inflation, even for the cheapest seat on a domestic flight.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 2 points 5 days ago

There are no profits to cut on Economy calls seats. You seem to have no clue how airlines actually make their profit. And it's not from economy seats. Those are already sold by airlines for virtually no profit. They make their profits from baggage and service upgrades, higher classes like business, and in the US credit card reward programs.

Making economy seating more spacious WILL lead to higher costs for everyone, because ther is no mentionable margin on the current prices.

Also, cramped aircraft are good for the environment. I'd rather everyone have to be slightly uncomfortable for a few hours than needing to spend 3 times the aircraft and cause 3 times the pollution to transport the exact same number of people, but in more comfortable planes.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (14 children)

I covered that. Different rating. That 15A cord will survive a 20A fault. Its rated at 15A because the voltage drop will be out of spec at 20A draw, not because it will be a fire hazard at 20A. You will be able to get enough current through that 15A cord to trip the 20A breaker. You might not be able to get 20A through a 5A cord before the cord catches fire.

ANY cable being driven above it's rated load is a fire hazard. There healthy margins in those ratings, so going slightly over is likely not going to have any affect, but those margins are for good reason (namely people like you thinking it's fine to plug a 15A cable into a 20A circuit without external fusing or current limiting), and deliberately overloading any part of an electric circuit is ALWAYS dangerous and stupid. And what about 7A cables you can get in japan ? you can explicitly get 0.75mm² cables, which are only rated to 7Amps. Just as confident of blasting 20A through those ? Almost 9 times the amount of waste heat being generated in the core than at it's max rated load.

My point is that UK appliances are specifically not designed to trip UK breakers in a fault. US devices are.

In every jurisdiction where fuses are not required in plugs, appliance standards require the appliance to be able to trip the household breaker. This is a fundamental concept of electrical safety.

Nope, again completely untrue. Breakers are only required to trip if the circuit becomes overloaded.

Your breakers don't, and can't give a shit about what's happening on the other side of the outlet.

Your device could slowly be melting itself into a pile of burning plastic, as long as it's drawing less than 16 Amps to do so, the breakers will not trip. As I've pointed out, repeatedly already, and you have repeatedly ignored, breakers are solely and exclusively for protecting the wire from overheating /overloading.

And in fact, the fused plugs actually make it way MORE likely for something to trip on a device side fault in the UK, because the current only has to be like 3Amps to kill the fuse. In every other place of the world, current needs to be at least 16A before anything trips.

That's actually false. You're conflating the resistance of "skin" with the resistance if the "body". Once you burn away that skin, your internal resistance drops substantially.

I address that point, quite literally, in a later a paraph where I write

Maybe an amp or two if you stick electrodes inside yourself

So what happened here ? Did you not read my comment ? Did you not understand it ? Or did you read it understand, and then continue to pretend like I haven't already explicitly addressed this anyway ?

At this point I think calling this behaviour accidental would be an insult to your intelligence, and just have assume that you know exactly what you're doing, and are knowingly and deliberately arguing in bad faith and with intellectually dishonesty, so stop. Just go away. I'm done. You're either fully incapable of, or unwilling too, engage in honest debate, so I'm not linger interested in continuing this.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

And how exactly doe the same exact thing not ally to a branch Circuit suffering a break?

[–] Devial@discuss.online 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (16 children)

Stick your finger in a 20A outlet, and you'll pull out a burned finger. Stick your finger in a 100A outlet, and you'll lose your hand, or your life. More power will pass through you before the circuit can be interrupted

Did you just deliberately ignore everything I wrote ? Both 20 and 100amps are several hundred times more current than it needs takes to kill you. And the resistance of your body is way to high to pass more than a few hundred milliamps anyway.

For a given voltage, the outcome of recieving a shock on a 20A fused circuit is literally indistinguishable and fully identical to that of receiving a shock on a 100A fused circuit. Identical. Literally.

Our appliance wiring is rated to carry 20A from the receptacle throughout the appliance, or to a secondary current limiter within the appliance. Since the wiring is rated to the 20A the circuit can provide, we don't need the secondary fuse in the plug. This is part of our appliance wiring standards.

No it isn't. I literally just told you you can buy 15A rated extension cords in Japan in the comment you're replying to. 15, is in fact less than 20, just fyi. Are you deliberately ignoring half of what I wrote ?

Obviously. That has been part of my point the entire time: You use fewer, higher wattage circuits. UK circuits carries more power to pass through your body than a comparable circuit elsewhere in the world. The household wiring standards in the rest of the world are more restrictive than they are in the UK. You are repeating the exact points that I (and others) have been making from the start.

Wrong. Again. The current limit imposed by the internal resistance of your body at voltages in the range of 100-200 is a few hundred milliamps. Maybe an amp or two if you stick electrodes inside yourself, and anything higher than 100 mA going through your heart is already lethal anyway. You're gonna be dead 200 times over waiting for your 20A fuse to save you. The power that will pass through your body depends exclusively and solely on the voltage. The capacity and fusing of the circuit is utterly irrelevant, unless it's fused at like 40 MILLI amps.

UK ring circuits are fused at 30 Amps.

Man I fucking love how you literally just picked out the first line in a comment pointing out another one of the things you said that are objectively untrue (a dead short not blowing a UK ring fuse) and ignore everything else in the comment. You must have seen the comment to quote part of it, and yet you ignore it entirely. You're clearly and demonstrably not arguing in good faith.

Reread my comments from the start

That's fucking rich, when I've literally explicitly addressed every single point you made, whilst you seemingly deliberately ignore half the ones I make. Literally repeating falsehoods I disproved in the comment you're replying to, whilst you're replying.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (19 children)

Breakers on UK household circuits are designed to allow considerably more power than comparable breakers around the world.

That is utterly irrelevant. Circuit breakers and fuses are designed for the exclusive and sole purpose of protecting the circuit from being overloaded. A 100 amp circuit with a 100 Amp fuse is exactly as safe as a 20 amp circuit with a 20 amp fuse or a 5 amp circuit with a 5 amp fuse. If the voltage is above ~100-200V, all 3 of these are hundreds of times the amount of current it would take to deliver a fatal electric shock, and none of those fuses would trip from you getting shocked.

To protect humans from electric shock we use residual current devices, which trip at 10's of Milli amps. And here's actually an advantage of a ring circuit. It forces you to place RCD protection on every single outlet in the building, instead of skimping on costs by just putting it on the branches that legally require one, like bathrooms and kitchens.

Those fuses are not needed in Japanese (or North American, or most other) plugs. We don't need to protect the "external wiring" separately from the household wiring: the household circuit breaker is rated lower than the "external wiring". Drawing a direct short on the "external wiring" in a UK circuit is not sufficient to trip the UK circuit breaker in the UK distribution panel; they need a secondary current limiter (a fuse) to provide that function.

That's just demonstrably untrue. An individual branch of a household circuits in both the US or Japan can easily be fused at 20A (fun fact: European branch circuis, because of the higher voltage that you were raging against in your first comment, can handle more electric load whilst having SMALLER 16A breakers). In both Japan and America you can buy extension cords rated for 10 or 15A. So no. You just told a straight up, unequivocal lie there. And a dead short on a 240V network will literally trip everything. UK ring circuits are fused at 30 Amps. A dead short at 240V with only the internal resistance of copper wiring would pull current in the neighborhood of 1000 amps. 1000, somewhat famously, being slightly larger than 30, making this another lie there.

And even if it weren't a lie, how on earth does the location of the fuse make a difference in safety here ? If it's in the wall or in the plug, as long as it's there and does it's job both would be equally safe.

The function provided by those shutters is achieved in the Japanese wiring by lower voltage, narrow holes in receptacles (allowable because they don't need as large a contact to safely carry the lower rated current) and whole-house AFCI/GFCI.

No it isn't. 110V is still dangerous to a child, and if you think otherwise I hope to god you aren't, or ever become a parent. Also, as I stated, your plugs literally allow for an electric shock to happen whilst unplugging them because they're so terrible. As for whole house GFCI, that is by necessity included in a ring circuit that wants GFCI on any outlet at all.

Also you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the relationship of current and voltage. For a given electrical appliance, with a given wattage, a lower voltage means it needs to draw more current, not less. That's why the US Japan need to have 20A household breakers, whereas in the EU 16A branches are more than enough, whilst still providing a higher load handling capability than a 20A Japanese fuse. A 1000 Watt microwave plugged into a Japanese socket will draw over twice as much current as a 1000 Watt microwave plugged into an EU or UK socket (which also means it produces 4 times the amount of electrical waste energy as heat, though that is generally negligible for short household cable runs either way. Can make a difference on the scale of a country though).

And don't think I didn't notice you just quietly avoided responding to any of my arguments pointing out the obvious falsehoods in your voltage claim.

Frankly, at this point, all you've done is utterly convince me that you are totally and utterly unqualified to speak on this topic. Almost every claim you make is wrong. And not even just "slightly oversimplified/technically incorrect" wrong, just straight up demonstrably untrue.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (21 children)

The higher voltage has nothing whatsoever to do with ring circuits. The UK runs on the same 220-240V AC as all of mainland Europe. And Africa. And most of mainland Asia. And South America. And Oceania. And most of the middle east. So not quite "higher than any other country"

Also those two claims are diametrically opposed to each other. Unless UK people use over twice the amount of electricity than Americans, the higher voltage will lead to LOWER total current. That's quite literally the specific and sole motivating factor behind choosing a higher grid voltage.

And the current a conductor can pass has nothing whatsoever to do with it's safety. You could have 50 amps blowing through a circuit, if it's at 12V you can still touch it without getting a shock. Your car battery is capable of peak currents of several HUNDRED amps, and those are considered safe enough to just carry around by random people with bare hands.

Again, the amount of current passed depends only on the voltage, which again, is the same in the UK as all of mainland Europe (and most of the rest of the world except America and Japan), and has been since the early 20th century, so I've no idea what you're trying to go on about there.

And lastly, no it isn't. For one, the child safety shutters on all UK outlets are certainly not contained in a Japanese breaker panel. Neither are the fuses in the plug, which protect the external wiring. And nor is the insulation on the lower legs of the contacts contained in a breaker panel. The Japanese plugs are basically the same as American. You can literally get an electric shock if you hold them wrong whilst unplugging. There's exposed live contacts from when you start unplugging until the prongs break their connection to the outlet.

Basically everything you said is demonstrably false. I've rarely seen someone be this confident and this incorrect about something.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Reminds of the old pile of gold (empty) meme

[–] Devial@discuss.online 11 points 6 days ago

I mean that is kinda exactly what the developers want to provoke with timed dialogue choices. Timed dialogue choices are a game design mechanic to try and get a player to answer on instinct/gut feeling, rather than over analysing and trying to optimise the dialogue.

You not getting to think about it long is very much the intended effect, and allowing a pause would entirely defeat it.

There are of course definite accessibility concerns that should be considered and worked around, such as people with dyslexia who may not be able to properly parse the dialogue options before the timer runs out, but as a game mechanic I think forcing the player to pick on instinct definitely has merit. It helps make the game more immersive, because it puts you under the same pressure to react as your character is in the story right now, and it can lead to more interesting and ultimately enjoyable games by forcing players to potentially make a mistake, and having to find out a way to deal with the fallout.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 18 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

Games that don't allow you to pause and skip cutscenes.

I don't want to have to miss half of the cutscenes just because someone interrupted me or the phone rang or something half way through. Alternatively, when I'm on my 23rd replay of a game, I do not want to have to sit through every cutscenes I already know by heart.

Oh, and modern games that allow manual saving at any time, not having any kind of regular auto save (looking at you here BG3).

If you're fine from a gameplay pov with having the player save whenever, then there's really no good reason whatsoever to not have one or two auto save slots that get saved every 10-20 minutes or so, at least as an option in the menu. ESPECIALLY in open world games (like BG3...) where you can easily go literal hours at a time without hitting a checkpoint save. And yes, I am still salty over learning about BG3's lack of regular auto save when I lost like 2.5 hours of progress on my first run.

[–] Devial@discuss.online 49 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Fun fact, basic ethanol works excellent as a fuel additive to reduce knocking, but because it's already a well known compound, fuel companies couldn't patent it as an additive, that's why they invented leaded petrol instead, so they could patent it.

(E: For full completeness, it should probably also be noted that potential legal difficulties surrounding reliably obtaining or producing industrial quantities of Ethanol alcohol in prohibition era America probably also played some role, but the patent thing was definitely the main reason)

view more: ‹ prev next ›