Internet of shit
-
-
@Bulb actually it's approaching 30.
-
The thread is
-
@Gustav said in Internet of shit:
@Bulb actually it's approaching 30.
Does it? Because your second link dates that term to 2004, and that's just 19 years ago.
-
@Bulb the term is a bit younger, but the mocking of elderly followers of Rydzyk dates back to at least mid-90s.
-
Wanted a smart switch
bought some new screwdriver bits since I am at it
why so many kits have lots of hexagonal slot bits, who uses it?
shit, this thing needs a neutral wire that wasn't present in my normal switch
I don't have a ladder long enough to get to the attic and pass a new wire
brought a ladder
shit, this ladder's feet needs an hexagonal screw head to assemble(things worked out, just not smoothly)
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Internet of shit:
why so many kits have lots of hexagonal slot bits, who uses it?
IKEA
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Internet of shit:
why so many kits have lots of hexagonal slot bits, who uses it?
They can take more torque than slot or Phillips (cruciform) heads because the screwdriver won't tend to slip out as you tighten it. For smaller sizes, they've been mostly upgraded further to Torx (six-pointed star socket) that allow a bit larger tolerances, so they scale down better.
@sockpuppet7 said in Internet of shit:
hexagonal screw head to assemble
Hexagonal heads, turned with a wrench, is what we've used since basically ever when high torque is needed. And it always is when assembling things that will carry significant load.
-
@Bulb said in Internet of shit:
Hexagonal heads, turned with a wrench, is what we've used since basically ever when high torque is needed.
Well, after switching away from square heads, anyway.
-
-
@dcon Looks awfully flimsy.
ETA: And it also looks pretty awful.
-
Also not exactly 100 m water resistant.
-
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
Also not exactly 100 m water resistant.
Yeah, watch water resistancies labels are a fucking disgrace. Most amateur level underwater cameras are rated for less than 20m, yet watch producers slap "30m" on their stuff, when it actually means 'splash resistant'.
Also
Water Resistant 30 Meters / 3 Atmospheres / 3 Bar
It's 4 Atmospheres / 4 Bar at 30 meters.
-
@MrL said in Internet of shit:
Also
Water Resistant 30 Meters / 3 Atmospheres / 3 Bar
It's 4 Atmospheres / 4 Bar at 30 meters.
Absolute yes, but it's the pressure differential that matters and that's just 3 bar.
-
@Bulb said in Internet of shit:
@MrL said in Internet of shit:
Also
Water Resistant 30 Meters / 3 Atmospheres / 3 Bar
It's 4 Atmospheres / 4 Bar at 30 meters.
Absolute yes, but it's the pressure differential that matters and that's just 3 bar.
The label is bullshit, so no it doesn't.
-
@Bulb said in Internet of shit:
@MrL said in Internet of shit:
Also
Water Resistant 30 Meters / 3 Atmospheres / 3 Bar
It's 4 Atmospheres / 4 Bar at 30 meters.
Absolute yes, but it's the pressure differential that matters and that's just 3 bar.
No, the pressure differential at 30 meters will be exactly 0.
:implosion:
See also: billionaires' submersible mouse trap.
-
@MrL said in Internet of shit:
Yeah, watch water resistancies labels are a fucking disgrace. Most amateur level underwater cameras are rated for less than 20m, yet watch producers slap "30m" on their stuff, when it actually means 'splash resistant'.
I never got that either. Why not just put the actual depth it’s designed/rated for on the casing? Not to mention that there must have been some sort of agreement between watchmakers to standardise this statement, because they all use the same values to mean the same thing.
-
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
@MrL said in Internet of shit:
Yeah, watch water resistancies labels are a fucking disgrace. Most amateur level underwater cameras are rated for less than 20m, yet watch producers slap "30m" on their stuff, when it actually means 'splash resistant'.
I never got that either. Why not just put the actual depth it’s designed/rated for on the casing?
Because 30m looks better than 'disintegrates when touches water' and most people don't know that those labels are bs, so they walk around satisfied 'hah, 30 meters resitant'. Yeah, 30 meters away from any body of water maybe.
I've also seen 10m label, which basically means 'summer rain will kill it'.
-
@Gurth The agreement is on a test protocol that is simple, but very unrealistic. For what I could find, the test does involve the denominated pressure, but the watches—or other device—is only subject to it briefly and then it is checked whether there was noticeable pressure raise inside.
-
@Gurth
From https://momentumwatch.com/blogs/momentum-blog/how-are-watches-water-pressure-testedFor water pressure testing our watches, we use the special machines that can waterproof test a watch without getting it wet. We use the Witschi ALC2000 tester. This machine uses compressed air and an extremely sensitive sensor to measure minute fluctuations in the watch’s size under high pressure, which will tell us whether a watch is water-tight.
-
@Dragoon IOW, the test is done without using any water
-
@TimeBandit Of course. They don't want to damage the watches in case they didn't tie the screws correctly!
From what I found the test might or might not be done with (a bit of) water. A sample batch is more likely to be tested in water, after repair it is more likely to be tested just with air.
-
@MrL said in Internet of shit:
@Gurth said in Internet of shit:
@MrL said in Internet of shit:
Yeah, watch water resistancies labels are a fucking disgrace. Most amateur level underwater cameras are rated for less than 20m, yet watch producers slap "30m" on their stuff, when it actually means 'splash resistant'.
I never got that either. Why not just put the actual depth it’s designed/rated for on the casing?
Because 30m looks better than 'disintegrates when touches water' and most people don't know that those labels are bs, so they walk around satisfied 'hah, 30 meters resitant'. Yeah, 30 meters away from any body od water maybe.
I've also seen 10m label, which basically means 'summer rain will kill it'.
Reminds me of the MTBF times on hard drives, which is a sort of mathematical fiction based on the components used and is only tangentially indicative of how long a drive might go before dying.
-
@Parody There's mathematics behind it? It usually looks like a suspiciously round number.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in Internet of shit:
@Parody There's mathematics behind it? It usually looks like a suspiciously round number.
Well,
round()
is usually considered a math function.
-
@Parody No fat shaming!
Better usefloor()
orceiling()
depending on purpose.
-
@TimeBandit said in Internet of shit:
@Dragoon IOW, the test is done without using any water
Seems so:
[TOOLS] - Witschi ALC-2000 WATCH Pressure Tester OVERVIEW – 06:26
— Vintage Time Australia
-
@TimeBandit said in Internet of shit:
@Dragoon IOW, the test is done without using any water
That's ludicrous. The equivalent for IT would be like, I don't know... releasing forum software without bothering testing it under real conditions with real users? Clearly, nobody would do such a thing.
-
@Zerosquare and yet.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Internet of shit:
@Parody No fat shaming!
Better usefloor()
orceiling()
depending on purpose.x = (x - floor(x) > 0.5) ? ceil(x) : floor(x)
-
@PleegWat I like the subtle rounding error introduced rounding neither half-up nor banker.
-
@PleegWat said in Internet of shit:
@BernieTheBernie said in Internet of shit:
@Parody No fat shaming!
Better usefloor()
orceiling()
depending on purpose.x = (x - floor(x) > 0.5) ? ceil(x) : floor(x)
Not bad. I prefer to use this rounding mode though:
x = (x - floor(x) > rand()) ? ceil(x) : floor(x)
Assuming
rand()
is uniformly distributed on the range [0.0,1.0)[EDIT]: This is a rounding mode where the probability of rounding up is proportional to the size of fractional part chopped off. It sounds mad, but has the best actual aggregate error rate of any rounding mode. If you're doing this in production, you probably need a hardware-assisted PRNG (it turns out that some LCPRNGs are very very cheap to do in hardware, but most HW makers don't care enough to provide an accelerator).
-
@dkf I see you and raise you
x = (x - floor(x) < rand()) ? ceil(x) : floor(x)
-
@PleegWat said in Internet of shit:
@dkf I see you and raise you
x = (x - floor(x) < rand()) ? ceil(x) : floor(x)
Aka sociopathic rounding.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in Internet of shit:
@PleegWat said in Internet of shit:
@dkf I see you and raise you
x = (x - floor(x) < rand()) ? ceil(x) : floor(x)
Aka sociopathic rounding.
Pretty sure that would be more like
x = (rand() < 0.5) ? ( (x - floor(x) < rand()) ? ceil(x) : floor(x) ) : ( (x - floor(x) >= rand()) ? ceil(x) : floor(x))
-
Forget all these comparisons, just
floor(x + rand())
-
@hungrier said in Internet of shit:
Forget all these comparisons, just
floor(x + rand())
Well, if we're still talking about hard drives, I think this is probably the best approximation:
mtbf = ceil(rand() * 10) * 100000;
-
@Parody said in Internet of shit:
Well, if we're still talking about hard drives, I think this is probably the best approximation:
It is my opinion, that we've had enough hard drives in operation under the projected time frame to re-adjust expectations.
-
@Tsaukpaetra someone has numbers for their drives.
-
@Arantor precisely.
-
-
@hungrier said in Internet of shit:
Forget all these comparisons, just
floor(x + rand())
Hey! How dare you?
That is so easy to understand!
Hence it must be calledClean Code
.
And we are here on WDTWTF!
-
-
@boomzilla I feel like if instead of giving the "friendly" full-screen message like that, if all it did was turn on the check engine light and refuse to start, people wouldn't be nearly as upset about it. Which I know is saying more about how people relate to technology then about the idea of a car update that might brick it in an inconvenient place. (From the picture alone, one can't tell if it was an automatic-over-the-air-overnight kind of update, or one that was specifically attempted to be installed, maybe even from removable media or whatnot.)
-
@pcooper correct. I consider mechanical parts breaking and the car failing to start unfortunate but nothing out of the ordinary. I consider “we updated your car software, now it’s broken, tough luck” to be completely unacceptable.
The comparison didn’t change that.
-
-
@Tsaukpaetra Yes, but that doesn't answer whether it was (1) someone who just woke up to go to work and found out their car wouldn't start because of an automatic update it tried doing overnight, or whether it was (2) someone who loaded the wrong firmware image onto a USB stick, entered the super secret debug menu, bypassed all the warnings, and tried to install it anyway.
We're assuming it's the first option, just due to the general terribleness of the current state of the industry. I'm just saying that from the picture alone, someone might still have some small shred of hope that it was the second option.
-
@pcooper said in Internet of shit:
someonea naive person might still have some small shred of hope that it was the second option.FTFY
-
@boomzilla said in Internet of shit:
Louis Rossmann has ample reason rant today, namely news of a failed software update that bricks your car.
Note: This happened on the Ford Mach-E Mustang, the ugly crossover SUV that shouldn’t be called a Mustang.
Video and bulletized summary at the link.
-
@boomzilla said in Internet of shit:
Video and bulletized summary at the link.