I thought it was mostly meant to protect against rust due to moisture in the ambient air so I put it on tools in my basement. But if it's evaporating, maybe it's not so great at that.
But yea, like Coke or McDonalds, the brand is probably worth far more than the secrecy of the recipe.
There is a product called BOESHIELD T-9 which actually does, reportedly, work for this. It was suggested in some thread years ago and I got a can, it appears to work well enough keeping rust creep off my ancient drill press table.
Great to see Boeshield in this thread - so much of what's happening in this thread is the wrong product for a particular application. As you point out, Boeshield is a great product for protecting cast iron
My stepdad was a drywall finisher, those crews washed the drywall off their tools with water, then got the water off (prevented rust) with WD40.
Difference being, they applied it every day, and specifically to prevent rust because the tools were wet. But man did they love it. Went through a couple cans per week I bet.
I wonder if these vessels, convoys, etc. are going to jam drones or use some other anti-drone weapon and this NOTAM allows that by saying "we can intercept or destroy it if it comes too close". That way they don't have to identify how much of a threat each individual drone is.
Loudly broadcasting electronic signals out of something you’re trying to keep hidden seems like a tactical error, but these cats aren’t the best trained, are they?
They aren't trying to keep hidden. They are trying to avoid their murders from being filmed by drones with cameras. Jamming is perfectly compatible with this goal.
It doesn't even matter. The point is you can't just use SAAS product freely like you can use local software because they all have complex vague T&C and will ban you for whatever reason they feel like. You're force to stifle your usage and thinking to fit the most banal acceptable-seeming behavior just in case.
Maybe the problem was using automation without the API? You can do that freely with local software using software to click buttons and it's completely fine, but with a SAAS, they let you then ban you.
Do you have any evidence that your witch hunt caused him to show that? It could have simply been your pointing out that Valve's response wasn't shown in the article. No witch-hunts needed.
Stop worrying about whether articles are written by LLM or not and judge them by their content or provenance to sources that you can justifiably trust. If you weren't doing that before LLMs then you were getting fooled by humans writing incompetent or deceptive articles too. People have good reasons for using LLMs to write for them. If they wrote it themselves, it might cause you to judge them as being a teenager, uneducated, foreign, or whatever other unreliable proxies you use for trust.
Also hard to be a climate change doomer when you're gambling on it. Don't forget popular opinions can be extreme and wrong too. Prediction markets sound like a way to cut through the social media hysteria, although we already have insurance companies with money on the line about that and perhaps they're doing a good enough job of predicting the effects of climate change.
Could be solved with more free markets. What a funny phenomenon this is: "reluctance to make even basic upgrades" -- landlords don't care because they have too much market power and aren't even attempting to compete with each other.
Imagine if car makers didn't bother with fuel efficiency because buyers had almost no choice and any car is better than nothing. We'd say that market isn't functioning well. Perhaps the problem is caused by price caps so it's not worth carmakers competing, or perhaps the law limits the number of cars that can be produced so there's always a shortage. Or perhaps it's the soviet union and there's no incentive for them to improve anything because the planners haven't demanded that they do.
Saving on gas money is nice, but EVs are just generally nicer vehicles. Smoother, better acceleration. No screwing around with oil changes or filling up with gas. Etc.
My ev on the track accelerates better - but the turbo charged ice with a stick shift I test drove the same day was a lot more fun. You feel the acceleration more when the shift/power curves force it.
honestly both have far more acceleration than I use or want in the real world. But the fun factor is still there at lower acceleration in the ice.
Not talking about consumers. Car makers, as that's what my parent posited. "The market made car makers do fuel efficiency all by itself!". Yeah, no.
Which traditional car maker actually cared about EVs before Tesla came along?
(Even Toyota, which was sorta "caring about it" did not believe in going "all in" and for a very very long time would only do Hybrid and nothing more).
Every other established car maker did not invest in this until "forced" by Tesla so to speak. And then spurred on by things like the EU regulations to no longer allow any non-EV new car registrations by ... was it 2035? Which I hear they're now thinking about undoing.
>"The market made car makers do fuel efficiency all by itself!". Yeah, no.
A "market" includes consumers, almost by definition, so the statement is true. Otherwise it just becomes a meaningless statement where companies can't be said to do anything.
For a slightly less contentious example, consider gaming chairs. I think most people would assume it's something "the market" came up with, considering that there wasn't some government regulation mandating gaming chairs. Consumers demanded gaming chairs, and chair companies filled the gap. A market success story, right? Nope, according to the above definition, chair companies can't do anything. They only made gaming chairs because consumers demanded them. It's actually consumers that made (?) gaming chairs!
But "the market" (i.e. consumers) did not "do it by itself". Regulations had to force car makers to care about fuel economy. And while once Tesla came around (or a bit earlier a Prius) some consumers did buy those vehicles, they were premium vehicles. Prius owners were laughed at not imitated by the general public to an extent where both Toyota and every other car maker suddenly only made Hybrids or started making EVs. Thus my apprehension for my parent's "the market did it!" ;)
Like, let's go back to what made me reply from my parent:
Imagine if car makers didn't bother with fuel efficiency because buyers had almost no choice and any car is better than nothing
Yeah, exactly. That is exactly what car maker didn't bother with because buyers had no choice. All of the car makers made cars that didn't really care for fuel economy because (especially in the US) gas was super cheap.
Guess why in Europe smaller cars and cars with better fuel economy were and are more popular? Because gas is more expensive through regulation. "Regulation" there takes multiple forms. The earliest being simply taxes on gas, which are much higher in Europe. But also previously mentioned by me EV mandate, which is a Tesla+ era regulation. And before that the CO2 emission kind of regulations, which made me mention the "skirting". As in, manufacturer are skirting the CO2 emission rules, e.g. because some of those regulations only apply to a manufacturer entire assortment of offers. How is it the poor manufacturer's fault that people only buy their high emission models, when they have a "SMART" type choice on offer too? Essentially the market didn't work (again especially in the US with too cheap gas) with people buying SUVs and F150 type trucks over a Fiat Panda or SMART.
It might depend on what country they're selling to. Maybe petrol is too cheap in America for it to matter much but it's a big deal where I live and fuel economy is a major selling point that people look for in cars, hence the popularity of hybrids despite them costing more up front than conventional cars.
Why would a landlord care about expensive efficiency upgrade? They don't pay the utility bills. Efficiency upgrades would only justify a higher rent to cover the work. The upgrades would essentially be a "luxury" upgrade that would raise the rent in this free market scenario. Would the higher rent be offset by the utility savings? Probably not.
Assuming the work was free (it never would be but just go with it), the upgrade would save about $100/month in electricity. To a prospective tenant, that means they'd be willing to pay up to $100 more in rent to break even. Now since we live in the real world, that upgrade now has to be paid for. The work cost $4.8k and the landlord wants to pay for it over 2 years so now there's a $200/month increase. But the work will only save $100/month. The tenant is now paying an extra $100 in total living expenses. By the time the 2 years are up, the landlord isn't going to cut the rent by $200, he'll just continue to charge the same or more than what it was 2 years ago. The tenant will forever be paying that extra $100 in living expenses while the landlord gets to pocket an extra $200.
What's needed is a baseline of acceptable housing for tenants and rent controls that force the landlord to share at least some of the financial burden.
High efficiency apartments are actually kind of normal in newer more expensive rentals. Its the lower end rental properties that landlords think it doesn't make sense investing in; the rent increases that would come a long with the upgrades just wouldn't make sense for the market they are going for.
Available rentals are still priced according to their relative value.
If most landlords have newly updated units on the market for $2000/month and someone tries to rent a similar unit untouched since 1970 for $2000/month, that unrenovated unit is going to sit on the market for a very, very long time.
You're exactly right and the economics of it are pretty well studied. I know quite a few people in real estate, they're always eager to upgrade their property (read: make it more valuable) because then they can make more money. If their price is capped, though, they just don't make the investment. Rightly so, but at the end of the day, the renter is the one getting ripped off by the politician he voted for because the rent was too damn high.
Just let people create value and trade.
PS: Sad that you're getting downvotes for a thoughtful, polite comment, too. Downvotes are for hiding idiocy and meanness, not viewpoints that you disagree with.
My pet theory is that everything is fine the way it is. For example, looking at the first table, if those 260 democrat voters voted for what they wanted instead of against what they didn't want, they might get split up into, say, 160 democrat and 100 agrarian. The outcome is still the same (republican wins) so it doesn't hurt anything, but it tells the democrat party that to win those voters back next time, they should take on some of the agrarian policies that those voters want. If they win on that, then voters get what they want just with a different brand name (democrat instead of agrarian).
My concept is that the whole idea of two-parties-bad appeals to people who are more interested in parties than policies. I don't think it matters what the name of the party is if they have the same policies.
If building is easy enough, it's often OK that it's not perfect because you can just as easily fix problems as they arise if it's just for your own personal use. And making software just for your own personal use can now actually make sense wheras it would more often be a complete waste of time to do by hand.
Over 90% of desktops had Windows back then. So yea, that's everybody. Unless you're being pedantic because one guy was using IRIX on an SGI workstation, or the odd Mac.
But yea, like Coke or McDonalds, the brand is probably worth far more than the secrecy of the recipe.
reply