654 karma · joined August 30, 2017
They have a 5ml teaspoon (sv: tesked) and a 15ml tablespoon (sv: matsked). Also typically a 1ml "kryddmått" (literally "spice measure"; no idea what the English equivalent would be), and an obviously-100-ml dl (decilitre). Nobody (well, hardly anyone) uses "normal" spoons.
The 28 and 48 series sat in a kind of awkward spot between pocket calculators and "real" computers. The programming language is essentially Lisp turned backwards, but for any task where you actually need that capacity, it must have been easier, even at the time, to just use a PC (in the wider sense, not just IBM PC and clones). The 48 had better communications facilities, so I imagine it might have been useful where pocket carry was actually necessary (it seems to have been popular with surveyors, for example, and I have seen them hooked up with a cable to a total station).
So we need a map projection that weighs distances by political resistance. :)
In software, there is effectively no difference between making a detailed design and actually writing the program, so it becomes a lot harder to know where to stop drawing and start building.
I guess that many of us have, at some point, thought we had come up with a good design, after spending lots of time on it, only to find that it stumbled on some detail when we actually tried to implement it. This makes it tempting to think "If I must work this out in detail anyway, I might as well do it in code. That way, if I get it right the first time around, I will be done!" Unfortunately, it also makes it tempting to stick with a design after it has proven to be a mistake, because of the sunk cost.
(edit: grammar.)
I don't claim that the level of restrictions is optimal, or that tighter restrictions would not be beneficial, but business as usual it isn't.