hilbert42

No doubt a potential worry for currency producers. Inkjets that have control over the physical build up of ink structure would pose an even greater threat of counterfeiting.

No doubt mints can introduce countermeasures to detect such threats but I'd suggest this tech (if perfected) will likely be too good for humans to detect a forgery at a glance. Reckon machine readers will become the order of the day, that's if physical paper/plastic currency continues to exist.

In the meantime, I'll continue to rely on the physical movement of full atoms for my braking. Electrons without an accompanying nucleus tend to be more fickle.

If developers want to experiment with various UI configs then let them but keep a CUA in the background that can be called upon by machines and humans alike. (Unfortunately, ergonomics has never been a strong point for developers.)

When a kid of about four I found a pair of WWII headphones and took them to my father who pulled out the iron diaphragm and showed me magnetism at work—somehow some magical force was pulling the diaphragm back into the headphone with seemingly nothing in between. Absolutely fascinated, I wanted to know what this invisible 'magic' was. Many decades later every time I look at my fridge magnets I still ask the same question and I don't believe I'm much closer to the truth!

Sure, there are the simple answers everyone's taught, then there's QFT but even that doesn't tell me exactly what's going on. And why does alpha have the value it does, and why exactly does c = 1/(μ0ε0)^1/2? Not knowing and not being able to figure these questions out is, at times, infuriating.

For me, solace of sorts can be found in engineering—I can build an electronic circuit and end up with a tangible working device. On the way I'll curse my electrons for making so much noise that they sound like ball bearings rattling around in an empty oil drum but I'll eventually calm down and apply Johnson–Nyquist to shut them up (well, a little bit anyway).

If you've read my other comments here you'll realize I'm concerned that these days EE training doesn't place a strong enough emphasis on shielding, ground loops, decoupling and such that it ought to. For any electrical/electronic engineer these are critical concepts.

By way of stressing that I'd like to take a sojourn into history and refer you to probably the greatest set of electronic engineering books ever produced: the MIT Radiation Laboratory Series — a massive 28 volume set written nearly 80 years ago to document electronics and microwave/radar research done during WWII.

Anyone seriously interested in electronics should be aware of this series. Yes, it's dated, heavily weighted towards vacuum tube technology (although klystrons and magnetrons are still current), and it lacks modern semiconductor tech, however this truly remarkable set contains a huge amount of information that's still very relevant today. Moreover, whilst it covers the topics in depth it does so at a level that can be easily understood by undergraduates (explanations are more general than today's very specialized textbooks).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Radiation_Laboratory_Serie...

Here you'll find links to the Internet Archive where the volumes can be downloaded. Specifically, I would refer you to Volume 23 - Microwave Receivers, — Chapter 6 Intermediate Frequency Amplifiers p155. Now turn to p182 and read 6-10 Practical Considerations.

Here's the PDF of V23:https://archive.org/download/mit-rad-lab-series-version-3/23...

This section on decoupling, shielding etc. is just as applicable to today's high speed digital circuits as it was back in WWII. Sure it needs updating but the fundamentals of screening and decoupling have not changed. What's important here is that these physical (analog) effects are set by the fundamental laws of physics, and circuits that do not take them into account will fail to work correctly.

What's not taught properly these days is that ALL electronics is analog at the physical/circuit level.

For you digital types that's OSI Model Layer 1 — Physical layer (look it up on Wiki). Nothing in electronics works unless that's working properly—ICs, tunnel diodes, transistors, inductors, resistors, capacitors, cables and antennas are all analog devices at that level. That includes the heart of the most advanced digital ICs. For example, the upper clock speeds in processors are limited by transit times/electron mobility, inter-electrode and stray capacitances, unwanted inductance, etc.—all of which are analog effects and they must be accounted for.

Like it or not, the physical analog world is alive and well! The Noughts & Ones Brigade unfortunately seems to have forgotten that fact.

I recall some years later a young graduate engineer coming into my office with a rather involved circuit consisting of 30/40 TTL ICs and complaining that he'd double checked the circuit and it still didn't work. I took one look at his device then went to the draws of capacitors and handed him a handful of 0.1uF ceramic caps and told him to put them between the ICs' PS rail pins to ground which he did and to his amazement the circuit worked immediately.

He stood in amazement that I should have such insight so as to fix the problem at first glance.

How such critical knowledge can get lost in university training these days just amazes me.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, the Vioxx scandal is every bit as big as the Purdue one. Check this Wiki (lawsuits): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib

If you've time watch this YouTube video on Merck and the Vioxx scam (if you weren't aware of the facts you'd think you were in Palermo/Mafia territory): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K0GrFnOpJoU

Why? Because Celebrex (celecoxib) is a dangerous drug which can cause irreparable harm (heart attacks and related) if taken for long periods. In fact, its sister drug Vioxx (rofecoxib) was banned and Merck had to pay billions in damages. There's more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47835635#47862704

Whilst Celebrex is safer than Vioxx it still has the same side effects profile as the latter.

I'd also recommended you watch the YouTube video in the link on Vioxx, it demonstrates the dangers of COX-2 drugs shouldn't be underestimated.

Where I am (Australia), most doctor's prescriptions that have to be taken long-term are issued as the first script plus five repeats. Not so with Celebrex, a script can only be dispensed three times (3 x pk of 30 200mg capsules — one per day, for 90 days max) and scripts can only be dispensed every 21 days. Reason: Celebrex is only recommended for short-term use because it's considered a dangerous drug with possible irreversible side effects if taken for too long.

This was not news to me even before taking Celebrex, way back in the 1990s I was prescribed its sister drug called Vioxx (rofecoxib) for back pain and it was much more effective than Celebrex (at least it was for me).

Anyway, sometime around 2000 I read an article in the journal Science about a significant statistical increase in deaths by heart attack, stroke etc. by those talking rofecoxib. At the time I said to myself it won't be long before Vioxx is banned. It took another three to four years for that to happen as Merck Pharmaceuticals fought the decision every inch of the way. It's worth reading the Wiki about this (when it's between a drug company and millions of dollars profit patients come off second best):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib

What's relevant here is that the related drug Celebrex survived because its side effects—whilst manifestly similar—aren't quite as bad as Vioxx. In short, Celebrex's COX-2 selectivity versus other less selective NSAIDs like aspirin (which target both COX-1 and COX-2) was deemed sufficiently beneficial despite its potential serious side effects.

Note: I'm not offering medical advice here and you should always take that from your medical practitioner. I mention this because only several days ago I had a discussion with two younger doctors who'd never heard of Vioxx let alone the Vioxx/Celebrex controversy.

You may be interested in this YouTube video on Vioxx. Unfortunately it's over hyped and designed to alarm but it's essentially factually correct: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=K0GrFnOpJoU

Don't let them off that quickly. We've been making electrical connectors for well over a hundred years. There are books on high reliability connectors many hundreds of pages long. Connectors for aerospace, the military and industry have made connector technology highly advanced and connections very reliable.

Fact is USB connectors are shitty because they've been made as cheaply as possible—cheap manufacturing takes precedence over reliability and user ergonomics.

The trend of mass producing rock-bottom cheap connectors started in the early 1950s with that abominable super cheap RCA audio connector and it's continued ever since with consumer products. There's no end of crappy designs, the F coaxial connector for antennas, the DIN audio connector, the Belling Lee coax and so on.

Trouble is too many consumers are prepared to tolerate the crap without complaining so it continues.

Why? There have been few new features in recent years and new phones have restrictions not wanted by many. Google is closing the Android ecosystem and making it more proprietary so I'll keep my phone as long as I'm able.

The non-replaceable battery has to be one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on consumers. It's great that it's about to be broken.

I did not say that. I'm sick of being misquoted (at least twice to this story).

I well know that methanol only appears in trace amounts in drinking spirits (also naturally in trace amounts in one's gut/body sans drinking—it's even in fruit juice). That is not what I was talking about. What I said was:

"Many ways exist for methanol to enter the food chain both accidentally and through deliberate substitution for ethanol…"

In that paragraph I made no mention of homebrew spirits and it's clear I was referring to methanol manufactured in industry on an industrial scale. Industrially-manufactured methanol has found its way into the food chain and has killed people.

You should read my reply to reisse where I make it clear how methanol could enter the food chain (right, I also mentioned it earlier).

It's pretty obvious to me that if a large cultural rush/sudden fad to homebrew spirits were to happen (assuming the decision is upheld) then things will in all probability go wrong unless there's a broad reeducation about the potential for methanol substitution coupled with regulations covering sales especially through third parties.

I'm specifically referring to the US here, the entrepreneurial nature of business being what it is this decision will be seen by some (and a few is too many) to run amok and start trading HB spirits in ways traditional homebrewers would never (or very rarely) do

It's also worth reading the link on methanol poisoning in my reply to pessimizer.

More info in link in my later reply to pessimizer.

In Poland and other European countries where home distillation has been practiced for centuries nothing would happen but an instant cultural shift in the US with a major uptake in homebrewing certainly will. Ratbags and carpetbaggers will find ways to get in on the act and that's when the trouble will start.

I did not say or infer that ethanol should not be used in the treatment of methanol poisoning.

Giving ethanol to counteract methanol poisoning is not a simple fix like giving naloxone for a herion OD (which works effectively in minutes), it's more complicated and often involves multiple procedures such as hemodialysis and strict monitoring of ethanol levels (assuming one knows what that level should be, ipso facto, how much methanol was consumed and whether it was coconsumed with ethanol—facts often not readily available in an emergency department).

I suggest you read this, especially point 7 'Treatment': https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/12/12/924

The almost flippant assumption that ethanol is a fix all panacea for methanol poisoning by many who've posted here is just irresponsible. Fact is methanol OD is a major medical emergency and in no way should it be played down.

If I have to be the bringer of unwelcome truths then so be it. Shooting the messenger generally makes things worse.

This is what happens when a country is run by accountants and lawyers who are under the thumb of Big Business, especially mining companies—they even get to set their own taxation rates (if they're impeded in any way they'll change the government).

The other factor is an ultra conservative and timid population obsessed with sport, entertainment, celebrity and trivia and where the word "mañana" is embedded in its psyche.

Lack of refineries is just one instance, we can't even get our huge gas reserves to the eastern states leading to shortages and energy price hikes (no trouble exporting gas to the rest of the world mind you).

We've killed off self sufficiency—no strategic manufacturing left, we export ores without first refining them (iron ore for example). Anything we invent is developed by other countries, and so on, and so on. One could write a book!

There's a saying one's beginning to here amongst some locals these days "things won't change for the better until the Chinese take over". When you start hearing stuff like that you know things are bad.

It's very depressing living here, I just wish I had an easy means of escape.

Right, normal commercial ethanol production is 95% EtOH, 5% H2O (the constant boiling mixture/azeotrope). That's good enough for most uses but not all. The only problem the average person would ever likely encounter from the residual H2O would be in the application of alcohol-based coatings such as shellac where it can cause whitish discoloration. Painters will occasionally use 99% EtOH which is substantially more expensive (removing that residual H2O requires an altogether different proxess).

Ethanol can be used as a temporary measure in methanol poisoning as it temporarily outcompetes methanol in the metabolic process. So it's only useful until proper medical help arrives when better alternatives such as fomepizole are administered. Even then there is no guarantee of success.

Methanol is still metabolized to dangerous formaldehyde and formic acid by the liver's alcohol dehydrogenase. The logic of giving ethanol or fomepizole is to slow down the rate of production methanol's dangerous metabolic byproducts so less damage is done, nevertheless those dangerous metabolites are still produced.

Ethanol's first-pass metabolite is acetaldehyde and it is still toxic but not to the same degree as those of methanol.

It is incorrect to say ethanol is an antidote for methanol poisoning. Using ethanol is a last-ditch stand to try and take some minor control of an otherwise out of control situation. There's nothing subtle about it—it's a blunderbuss approach that often doesn't work well because replacing one poison with a less toxic one is a pretty hit-and-miss process.

Antidotes counteract poisons, that's not what happens when you give ethanol in methanol poisonings.

Unfortunately, that has happened enough times with people dying for it to be a problem. Seems some societies are more susceptible to these extremely dangerous ripoffs than others.