In other news today...
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
Understand that we live in an imperfect world and fight against the injustice as best we can.
I do know that. Hence my confusion about the insistence on arbitrary numbers which may or may not make sense for the individual case.
Because we set out that everyone is equal under the law. If we decide that a time limit on certain crimes should exist, that limit must apply to everyone.
But we also decide that each and every crime must be considered on an individual basis and also award differing amounts of punishment. I mean, pretty much any crime has an "up to x years" component to it, sometimes with a lower bound as well.
The "equal under the law" only means that you should not be able to pull strings and that everyone is subject to the same rules. It does not mean that the rules can't change. Only that if they do change said change will be applied to everybody equally from that point on.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden A trial based on accusations with no evidence, where the trial moves forward rather than being laughed out of court, is very much a kangaroo court.
How do you know that there'll be no evidence?
Because what evidence of sexual assault remains after 20 years? (Or even 1 year for that matter?)
It's not good, it's not just... but it's true, and there's not much anyone can do to alter the basic reality of that, so the best we can do is to not make it even worse.
Is that "true"? Or do you merely want it to be so? Last time I looked, witness statements are valid evidence, for example.
Because "attempted shoplifting" usually also doesn't leave much physical evidence (in the absence of cameras, of course!)
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden A trial based on accusations with no evidence, where the trial moves forward rather than being laughed out of court, is very much a kangaroo court.
How do you know that there'll be no evidence?
Because what evidence of sexual assault remains after 20 years? (Or even 1 year for that matter?)
It's not good, it's not just... but it's true, and there's not much anyone can do to alter the basic reality of that, so the best we can do is to not make it even worse.
Is that "true"? Or do you merely want it to be so?
Oh, very much the opposite. I'd love it if abuse left highly visible bruises that were hard to ignore or hide and never went away until justice was done; it would mean a whole lot less people escaping justice for doing awful things to people! But unfortunately that's not the way reality works.
Last time I looked, witness statements are valid evidence, for example.
There's valid evidence and then there's valid evidence. It's a well-accepted truism that any lawyer worth his salt can tie an "eyewitness" in knots. Also, what if your side has a witness that says Bob assaulted your daughter, and Bob's side has a witness that says he was in another town at the time the alleged crime took place? Whose witness do we listen to?
Objective evidence is a lot harder to screw with than eyewitness testimony. And unfortunately, it's all too common for people to not report crimes of abuse until long after there's no objective evidence left to back them up.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
Understand that we live in an imperfect world and fight against the injustice as best we can.
I do know that. Hence my confusion about the insistence on arbitrary numbers which may or may not make sense for the individual case.
Because we set out that everyone is equal under the law. If we decide that a time limit on certain crimes should exist, that limit must apply to everyone.
But we also decide that each and every crime must be considered on an individual basis and also award differing amounts of punishment. I mean, pretty much any crime has an "up to x years" component to it, sometimes with a lower bound as well.
Are you arguing that because we can have different sentences for different people that we can have different standards for conviction for different people? Because that is how I am reading that "But ...".
The "equal under the law" only means that you should not be able to pull strings and that everyone is subject to the same rules. It does not mean that the rules can't change. Only that if they do change said change will be applied to everybody equally from that point on.
Yes, that is how it works. We live in an imperfect world and the strings do get pulled and it is up to all of us to fight back against that and do what we can to keep equal. I never purported that they can't change. Merely that once set they apply to everyone equally.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
I wasn't aware that kangaroo courts were an option in the US?
They're more an Australian thing.
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
Understand that we live in an imperfect world and fight against the injustice as best we can.
I do know that. Hence my confusion about the insistence on arbitrary numbers which may or may not make sense for the individual case.
Because we set out that everyone is equal under the law. If we decide that a time limit on certain crimes should exist, that limit must apply to everyone.
But we also decide that each and every crime must be considered on an individual basis and also award differing amounts of punishment. I mean, pretty much any crime has an "up to x years" component to it, sometimes with a lower bound as well.
Are you arguing that because we can have different sentences for different people that we can have different standards for conviction for different people? Because that is how I am reading that "But ...".
No, you're merely equating things which are not equatable. You're the one who stated that "rules are not allowed to change". Because that is what
If we decide that a time limit on certain crimes should exist, that limit must apply to everyone.
actually means: Criminal law is set in stone forever.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden A trial based on accusations with no evidence, where the trial moves forward rather than being laughed out of court, is very much a kangaroo court.
How do you know that there'll be no evidence?
Because what evidence of sexual assault remains after 20 years? (Or even 1 year for that matter?)
It's not good, it's not just... but it's true, and there's not much anyone can do to alter the basic reality of that, so the best we can do is to not make it even worse.
Is that "true"? Or do you merely want it to be so?
Oh, very much the opposite. I'd love it if abuse left highly visible bruises that were hard to ignore or hide and never went away until justice was done; it would mean a whole lot less people escaping justice for doing awful things to people! But unfortunately that's not the way reality works.
Last time I looked, witness statements are valid evidence, for example.
There's valid evidence and then there's valid evidence. It's a well-accepted truism that any lawyer worth his salt can tie an "eyewitness" in knots. Also, what if your side has a witness that says Bob assaulted your daughter, and Bob's side has a witness that says he was in another town at the time the alleged crime took place? Whose witness do we listen to?
Objective evidence is a lot harder to screw with than eyewitness testimony. And unfortunately, it's all too common for people to not report crimes of abuse until long after there's no objective evidence left to back them up.
Strangely enough, you don't get to decide what is valid evidence. A court does. Which flies a bit in the face of your whining about kangaroo courts - which was actually a rather absurd misrepresentation of how the system works.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden A trial based on accusations with no evidence, where the trial moves forward rather than being laughed out of court, is very much a kangaroo court.
How do you know that there'll be no evidence?
Because what evidence of sexual assault remains after 20 years? (Or even 1 year for that matter?)
It's not good, it's not just... but it's true, and there's not much anyone can do to alter the basic reality of that, so the best we can do is to not make it even worse.
Is that "true"? Or do you merely want it to be so?
Oh, very much the opposite. I'd love it if abuse left highly visible bruises that were hard to ignore or hide and never went away until justice was done; it would mean a whole lot less people escaping justice for doing awful things to people! But unfortunately that's not the way reality works.
Last time I looked, witness statements are valid evidence, for example.
There's valid evidence and then there's valid evidence. It's a well-accepted truism that any lawyer worth his salt can tie an "eyewitness" in knots. Also, what if your side has a witness that says Bob assaulted your daughter, and Bob's side has a witness that says he was in another town at the time the alleged crime took place? Whose witness do we listen to?
Objective evidence is a lot harder to screw with than eyewitness testimony. And unfortunately, it's all too common for people to not report crimes of abuse until long after there's no objective evidence left to back them up.
Strangely enough, you don't get to decide what is valid evidence. A court does. Which flies a bit in the fac of your whining about kangaroo courts.
Not strangely at all, it seems like you're ignoring all the reasons why statutes of limitation exist (some of which are what @Mason_Wheeler has been describing) and the real difficulties in prosecuting old cases and being able to weigh the pros and cons of doing so on the chance that some cases might still be able to get a correct conviction.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden A trial based on accusations with no evidence, where the trial moves forward rather than being laughed out of court, is very much a kangaroo court.
How do you know that there'll be no evidence?
Because what evidence of sexual assault remains after 20 years? (Or even 1 year for that matter?)
It's not good, it's not just... but it's true, and there's not much anyone can do to alter the basic reality of that, so the best we can do is to not make it even worse.
Is that "true"? Or do you merely want it to be so?
Oh, very much the opposite. I'd love it if abuse left highly visible bruises that were hard to ignore or hide and never went away until justice was done; it would mean a whole lot less people escaping justice for doing awful things to people! But unfortunately that's not the way reality works.
Last time I looked, witness statements are valid evidence, for example.
There's valid evidence and then there's valid evidence. It's a well-accepted truism that any lawyer worth his salt can tie an "eyewitness" in knots. Also, what if your side has a witness that says Bob assaulted your daughter, and Bob's side has a witness that says he was in another town at the time the alleged crime took place? Whose witness do we listen to?
Objective evidence is a lot harder to screw with than eyewitness testimony. And unfortunately, it's all too common for people to not report crimes of abuse until long after there's no objective evidence left to back them up.
Strangely enough, you don't get to decide what is valid evidence. A court does. Which flies a bit in the fac of your whining about kangaroo courts.
Not strangely at all, it seems like you're ignoring all the reasons why statutes of limitation exist (some of which are what @Mason_Wheeler has been describing) and the real difficulties in prosecuting old cases and being able to weigh the pros and cons of doing so on the chance that some cases might still be able to get a correct conviction.
I'm not ignoring that. I'm (again!) pointing out that the number is arbitrary. It's pulled from someone's ass. It has been decided by a throw of the dice.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
We already know why, though. (And it's two very different answers for the two different industries you mentioned here.)
Do we? In the case of healthcare, I've seen multiple answers to the question:
- Some say it's greed on the part of healthcare providers and/or insurance companies.
- Some say it's scarcity of resources since healthcare is a specialized field that requires a lot of training.
- Some say it's because most people don't pay for healthcare directly so they are insulated from the costs and have no incentive to keep costs down.
- Some say it's because health insurance companies are engaged in massive (and illegal) price-fixing and the relevant regulatory agencies are allowing it for reasons.
- Some say it's because the US population is aging, and people need more healthcare as they get older.
Here's a relevant data point in the form of a hospital that manages to do surgeries for a fraction of the price of other hospitals:
Oklahoma City hospital posts surgery prices online; creates bidding war
OKLAHOMA CITY – An Oklahoma City surgery center is offering a new kind of price transparency, posting guaranteed all-inclusive surgery prices online. The move is revolutionizing medical billi…
I'm not close enough to the industry to tell you which of the above theories is The Answer™, if any, but at least one hospital has been able to improve things, so there must be an answer.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden A trial based on accusations with no evidence, where the trial moves forward rather than being laughed out of court, is very much a kangaroo court.
How do you know that there'll be no evidence?
Because what evidence of sexual assault remains after 20 years? (Or even 1 year for that matter?)
It's not good, it's not just... but it's true, and there's not much anyone can do to alter the basic reality of that, so the best we can do is to not make it even worse.
Is that "true"? Or do you merely want it to be so?
Oh, very much the opposite. I'd love it if abuse left highly visible bruises that were hard to ignore or hide and never went away until justice was done; it would mean a whole lot less people escaping justice for doing awful things to people! But unfortunately that's not the way reality works.
Last time I looked, witness statements are valid evidence, for example.
There's valid evidence and then there's valid evidence. It's a well-accepted truism that any lawyer worth his salt can tie an "eyewitness" in knots. Also, what if your side has a witness that says Bob assaulted your daughter, and Bob's side has a witness that says he was in another town at the time the alleged crime took place? Whose witness do we listen to?
Objective evidence is a lot harder to screw with than eyewitness testimony. And unfortunately, it's all too common for people to not report crimes of abuse until long after there's no objective evidence left to back them up.
Strangely enough, you don't get to decide what is valid evidence. A court does. Which flies a bit in the fac of your whining about kangaroo courts.
Not strangely at all, it seems like you're ignoring all the reasons why statutes of limitation exist (some of which are what @Mason_Wheeler has been describing) and the real difficulties in prosecuting old cases and being able to weigh the pros and cons of doing so on the chance that some cases might still be able to get a correct conviction.
I'm not ignoring that.
Maybe not in your head, but that's how your posts read.
I'm (again!) pointing out that the number is arbitrary. It's pulled from someone's ass. It has been decided by a throw of the dice.
Citation needed.
-
@boomzilla Prove me the opposite. I can play that game too.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
Criminal law is set in stone forever.
No, but what was legal at a particular point in time should be exactly those things that were actually generally known to be legal at that point; both retroactive laws and secret laws are utterly evil tools of repression that have no place in civilised society anywhere. Retroactive changes to what the correct punishment for an act is (provided the fact of whether the act is legal or not is not altered) are a thing though, and in many places.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla Prove me the opposite. I can play that game too.
The fact that more serious crimes have no limit does just fine, I think.
-
@Rhywden All (legal) numbers are arbitrary. That doesn't make them immoral.
-
@antiquarian said in In other news today...:
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
We already know why, though. (And it's two very different answers for the two different industries you mentioned here.)
Do we? In the case of healthcare, I've seen multiple answers to the question:
- Some say it's greed on the part of healthcare providers and/or insurance companies.
- Some say it's because most people don't pay for healthcare directly so they are insulated from the costs and have no incentive to keep costs down.
- Some say it's because health insurance companies are engaged in massive (and illegal) price-fixing and the relevant regulatory agencies are allowing it for reasons.
These are three different ways of saying the same thing: the insurance companies are driving prices up, and doing so knowingly. And that's the biggest contributor to the issue, by far.
- Some say it's scarcity of resources since healthcare is a specialized field that requires a lot of training.
This sounds reasonable at first glance, but it doesn't account for observed phenomena such as getting charged $20 for a bandage when you can buy a whole box full of that same type of bandage for a fraction of that cost at any local drugstore or supermarket.
- Some say it's because the US population is aging, and people need more healthcare as they get older.
There is probably some truth to this, but it's not nearly as significant a factor as you'd expect. Per the law of supply and demand, increased demand drives prices higher, and if we just stop there... well, it still doesn't explain what we've seen, with costs rising well out of proportion to the increased demand. But it might look like it explains it at first glance. Thing is, it doesn't stop there; increased demand leads to higher prices, which leads to competitors looking to cash in, which leads to greater efficiency and higher competition, which lead to lower prices again. Given that that part clearly hasn't happened, we have no choice but to conclude that the laws of free-market economics do not apply to the current realities of medical service pricing, and therefore can't be invoked to explain it.
What does explain what we've seen are the laws of monopoly economics: with no competition to drive prices down, insurance companies are free to drive prices to stratospheric highs, bounded only by the ability of customers to pay. And to the surprise of no one who understands monopoly economics, that's precisely what they've done.
Here's a relevant data point in the form of a hospital that manages to do surgeries for a fraction of the price of other hospitals:
Oklahoma City hospital posts surgery prices online; creates bidding war
OKLAHOMA CITY – An Oklahoma City surgery center is offering a new kind of price transparency, posting guaranteed all-inclusive surgery prices online. The move is revolutionizing medical billi…
I'm not close enough to the industry to tell you which of the above theories is The Answer™, if any, but at least one hospital has been able to improve things, so there must be an answer.
Yes, they did it by choosing to buck the trend and actually compete on price. Again, this is exactly what basic economics predicts: real competitors entering a monopoly marketplace are able to offer a comparable good or service at a fraction of the price of the monopolists.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden All (legal) numbers are arbitrary. That doesn't make them immoral.
What about illegal numbers?
-
@Benjamin-Hall It's about balancing the harm from failing to prosecute against the harm from allowing events from long ago to be dragged up again. Where the balance should be is something that people change their minds about from time to time, but obviously where the crime is more serious it is reasonable to allow longer for a prosecution to be brought due to the relatively greater harm from failing to do so.
I've no idea if similar things apply to civil disputes.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
No, you're merely equating things which are not equatable. You're the one who stated that "rules are not allowed to change". Because that is what
If we decide that a time limit on certain crimes should exist, that limit must apply to everyone.
actually means: Criminal law is set in stone forever.
No, that doesn't mean that. It only means that we can't cater the law for any person/company/party/etc..., not that it can never change.
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
@Benjamin-Hall It's about balancing the harm from failing to prosecute against the harm from allowing events from long ago to be dragged up again. Where the balance should be is something that people change their minds about from time to time, but obviously where the crime is more serious it is reasonable to allow longer for a prosecution to be brought due to the relatively greater harm from failing to do so.
I've no idea if similar things apply to civil disputes.
Right. And I have no problem with statutes of limitation (in fact, I think we should apply them to moral issues [1] as well rather than just legal ones). I was pushing back against the "it's arbitrary (ergo wrong)" argument. It's arbitrary in the same sense that saying electrons are negative/protons are positive is arbitrary. It's a convention based on choice, not mandated by anything physical. Same with "age of adulthood" lines. All bright-line rules are, at some level, arbitrary. You can always ask "why there, not somewhere else?" And people will always disagree about the details. But there needs to be a line.
[1] ie just let some things go. Sure, they were wrong. Sure, the person did something wrong (morally, not legally in this case) a while ago. But bringing that up again now, when there hasn't been a pattern of behavior? That's just vindictive and petty.
-
From a few days ago, but still an interesting read.
Nuclear Fusion Power Without Regular Tokamaks Or Stellarators
When it comes to nuclear fusion, the most well-known reactor type today is no doubt the tokamak, due to its relatively straight-forward concept of plasma containment. That’s not to say that t…
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in In other news today...:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden All (legal) numbers are arbitrary. That doesn't make them immoral.
What about illegal numbers?
They are universal constants
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
From a few days ago, but still an interesting read.
Plasma physics is hard. Very very very hard. Fortunately, people who aren't up to the maths involved can go off and do easier things… like cosmology.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden All (legal) numbers are arbitrary. That doesn't make them immoral.
Not what I said.
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
No, you're merely equating things which are not equatable. You're the one who stated that "rules are not allowed to change". Because that is what
If we decide that a time limit on certain crimes should exist, that limit must apply to everyone.
actually means: Criminal law is set in stone forever.
No, that doesn't mean that. It only means that we can't cater the law for any person/company/party/etc..., not that it can never change.
Yes, what you stated DOES mean that. Because you just argued that we can't change that time limit.
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
Criminal law is set in stone forever.
No, but what was legal at a particular point in time should be exactly those things that were actually generally known to be legal at that point; both retroactive laws and secret laws are utterly evil tools of repression that have no place in civilised society anywhere. Retroactive changes to what the correct punishment for an act is (provided the fact of whether the act is legal or not is not altered) are a thing though, and in many places.
And weirdly enough, no one changed the legality of child molestation.
-
Status: I KNEW this should have been in the garage. Curse my
-
Status
Does anyone else smell something burning?
-
@Vixen
No, mother, it's just the Northern Lights
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
Yes, what you stated DOES mean that. Because you just argued that we can't change that time limit.
Where does this: "Because we set out that everyone is equal under the law. If we decide that a time limit on certain crimes should exist, that limit must apply to everyone." imply that things can never change?
edit: I suppose you are playing off of the "must apply to everyone" bit. However, the changing of a statute of limitations is not something that would fall under ex post facto.
-
At this time of year, in this part of the country, located entirely within your kitchen?
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
No, but what was legal at a particular point in time should be exactly those things that were actually generally known to be legal at that point; both retroactive laws and secret laws are utterly evil
Of course, legalizing something and either making that retroactive or simply choosing not to prosecute for previous violations is ok.
Be careful, though; this is a situation in which ex post facto laws have been judged constitutional. I don't remember the details, but there was some tax-related law that required X. The law had a sunset clause and was allowed to expire. A man made financial decisions based on X no longer being required. A year or two later, Congress reinstated the requirement X retroactively. The IRS said he owed a gazillion dollars in taxes because he hadn't done X. The court said that he should have anticipated that X might be reinstated and should have made his decisions based on a law that might maybe be enacted in the future rather than the actual law in effect at the time.
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
Surprising no-one, Samsung's "flexible glass" in their foldable phone is not glass at all:
And in the comments on the GSMarena article about this, are a lot of people who are hardcore into this idea that it's a brand new, foldable type of glass, and it's not Samsung that's lying to you, it's your own lying eyes
Samsung Galaxy Z Flip's durability tested, display scratches like plastic
The UTG display has a plastic protective layer on top just like the Galaxy Fold. The Galaxy Z Flip is a landmark product in Samsung’s portfolio. One of its...
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
I KNEW this should have been in the garage.
We have a thread for that.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
I KNEW this should have been in the garage.
We have a thread for that.
Hence my digital remorse.
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
Plasma physics is hard. Very very very hard. Fortunately, people who aren't up to the maths involved can go off and do easier things… like cosmology.
Until the cosmologists start having to do plasma physics. Apparently space contains a lot of (very thin) plasma.
-
Rare ice volcanoes captured erupting on Lake Michigan beach but may not stick around
National Weather Service meteorologist Ernie Ostuno was able to capture some amazing photos of erupting ice volcanoes at Oval Beach in Saugatuck Sunday.
-
@boomzilla Almost
-
@cvi said in In other news today...:
Until the cosmologists start having to do plasma physics. Apparently space contains a lot of (very thin) plasma.
It most certainly does. The extent to which this makes things complicated is very uncertain. Most plasma effects aren't that large, being no more than around a solar system in scope, but some of the magnetic ones are huge. And of course this is all turbulent. With long-range coupling and polarity. And complicated effects in deep gravity wells that I know I don't understand.
Cosmology tends to just retreat to general relativity and associated theories…
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
Cosmology tends to just retreat to general relativity and associated theories…
I worked with some plasma physicists and back then they were starting cooperating with a bunch of cosmologists to bring and apply models/simulation techniques from plasma physics (think nuclear fusion) to clouds. I don't remember the exact scale, but I think it was media in volumes of ~star clusters. (The amazing thing was that their simulations were kinda able to cover both despite the vast differences in scales.)
I'm also fairly sure that one a simulation codes originally targeted at simulating fusion plasmas has been repurposed and used in cosmology.
Some of the cosmology people did some really neat stuff with MHD as well. (I have to admit that what I remember from those particular people is more how they managed to figure out ways extract all sorts of information from the tiny bits of light that we can observe, way beyond just studying absorption/emission spectra.)
-
Ontario's New License Plates Have A Problem: You Can't Read Them
Some people were already grumbling about the redesign, but drivers soon noticed a bigger problem: The new license plates can be hard to read at night.
Edit:
some police departments reported that their handheld scanners weren't able to read the new plates.
I love the new design
-
-
@TimeBandit That level of incompetence is off the charts. This problem (readability and reflections) was detected, solved and codified in many standards at least half a century ago.
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
Samsung's "flexible glass" in their foldable phone is not glass at all
How would that even work? Glass doesn't bend. Flexible glass can't exist. Unless you did some weird nanotechnology thing with tiny glass "strips" that would just bend relative to each other or something.
-
@anonymous234 said in In other news today...:
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
Samsung's "flexible glass" in their foldable phone is not glass at all
How would that even work? Glass doesn't bend. Flexible glass can't exist. Unless you did some weird nanotechnology thing with tiny glass "strips" that would just bend relative to each other or something.
-
@anonymous234 said in In other news today...:
Glass doesn't bend. Flexible glass can't exist.
Glass can bend if it is thin enough. That's why (optically special) glass is used for fiberoptics.
The Enlightened ones a probably just using plastic though.
-
@anonymous234 Apparently there is some ultra thin glass substrate underneath; JerryRigEverything did a full teardown and demonstrated that there's something there that cracks like glass. But it seems like it's kind of useless if it's not at the surface, since the main reason for using glass over plastic in modern smartphones in the first place was scratch resistance.
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
@anonymous234 Apparently there is some ultra thin glass substrate underneath; JerryRigEverything did a full teardown and demonstrated that there's something there that cracks like glass. But it seems like it's kind of useless if it's not at the surface, since the main reason for using glass over plastic in modern smartphones in the first place was scratch resistance.
They installed it backwards?
-
@dcon said in In other news today...:
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
@anonymous234 Apparently there is some ultra thin glass substrate underneath; JerryRigEverything did a full teardown and demonstrated that there's something there that cracks like glass. But it seems like it's kind of useless if it's not at the surface, since the main reason for using glass over plastic in modern smartphones in the first place was scratch resistance.
They installed it backwards?
@dkf said in In other news today...:
The Enlightened ones
-
Violinist has brain surgery, fiddles throughout
Professional musician Roger Frisch played his violin during brain surgery to correct hand tremors so that surgeons could gauge its efficacy.
