https://dynomight.net/air/ estimates that using an ultrasonic humidifier for one night shortens your life by 50 minutes. Getting rid of any ultrasonic humidifiers is his top tip to extend your life cheaply.
I am aware that cars are ruining millions of people's health. That car drivers are privatising the convenience and externalising the harms of driving. That car drivers are a privileged, wealthy, class of people who can literally kill others and walk away without a jail sentence using the defence "I didn't see them":
Sure. And if any particulate emitted by an ultrasonic humidifier could be dangerous enough to shorten your life by ~10% with consistent use or 50 minutes per roughly 8-hour night's sleep as this timecuber of yours appears to claim, then I should think the tire and brake dust burden anywhere near an actively used road would be not just instantly but flagrantly fatal.
I'm aware of the hundred thousand words spent justifying the idea. I will consider reading them once I've been convinced to ignore the result of this trivial - and I do use the following phrase with careful consideration aforethought - sanity check. You'll more likely give the goalpost another kick, though, I suspect.
Explain where I have given any goalposts any kick at all?
From the articles:
> A good heuristic is that an increase of 33.3 PM2.5 μg/m³ costs around 1 disability-adjusted life year. Correia et al. (2013) estimated something close to this from different counties in the US, and more recent data from many different countries confirm this. The most polluted cities in the world have levels around 100 PM2.5 μg/m³.
> When inhaled during an 8-hr exposure time, and depending on mineral water quality, humidifier aerosols can deposit up to 100s of μg minerals in the human child respiratory tract and 3–4.5 times more μg of minerals in human adult respiratory tract.
> (Yao et al., 2020)
The amount of particles people breathe in in a night of worst case ultrasonic humidifier use is 8x more than the particle level in the air of the most polluted cities in the world.
And of course every relationship is both bijective and linear from one data point over an infinite domain.
We could talk about this utter misrepresentation of https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23211349/ but why? You haven't read it. You won't. At most you will follow the examples you cite in prooftexting from it like a Southern Baptist inveighing against homosexuality. Kindly find someone else whose time so to waste.
I said, explain where I kicked any goalposts. You haven't, because I didn't. Ad-homs, against the author and against me, pre-deciding your conclusion, refusing to explain your objections, pretending "we could talk about it" while turning to insults to shut down any talking about it.
I get it, you're desperate to appear smart and superior, but arguing that lamely isn't doing it. Of course I'm not going to read your link, try and guess what misrepresentations you're coming up with, make some argument about them and their context in the wider post, only for you to ignore it and post some more nonsense in response. Or engage with you further.
The link I posted leads to a paper you cited. You've attributed a causal claim to the paper which it not only does not make, but even in its abstract very carefully avoids. If that isn't intentional falsity, then it is certainly a remarkable demonstration of intellectual negligence. In any case "desperate" is not how I would describe the simple fact that I did a better job checking your sources than you have, which by the look of the thing is to say that of the two of us I'm the only one who bothered actually investigating your argument at all.
You could not by now have done more to prove my point that you aren't bothering to actually know anything about what you present yourself able knowledgeably to discuss. Thanks for that. Feel free to embarrass yourself with further flagrant scientism if you like. Enjoy your day.
> what you present yourself able knowledgeably to discuss.
No, no, no, nope and no. None of these accusations are correct. Feel free to embarrass yourself with lacking basic reading and quoting comprehension; I am not the author of the Dynomight article.
Who chose to bring it up? Who chose to insist on its baseless conclusions? Who then demonstrated the inability to defend those conclusions for their total lack of substance?
No, you don't get to represent the source you chose as accurate only until that fails to go your way, and then turn around and try to disclaim it. The embarrassment you now feel is amply earned.
This is what it feels like to have failed to evaluate your sources, argued strenuously in support of total nonsense, and thus made a complete and negligent fool of yourself. You should draw a lesson from that for next time you consider starting a conversation like this one.
You won't; you are too deeply in love with the idea of yourself as a clever person, and you won't dismiss the offense I gave to consider the substance of my remarks. This is a level of predictability I would not be comfortable with in myself. But that, too, is no problem of mine.
You've tried moving the goalposts again, had you noticed? If I let you get away with it, we wouldn't be talking about the factual inaccuracies, facial implausibilities, and ignorant misrepresentations of research, in the source you so uncritically chose, at all...
This isn't reddit. Please kindly take your anger, ad homonims, and bad-faith arguments back over there. I'm sorry you had a bad day but nobody in this thread caused it, so take a deep breath.
Sorry, did you have something substantive to add? Your comment history says not, as does that you carefully avoid substance here, preferring to - actually, that is not obvious and makes an interesting question. What is your purpose here?
All I can figure is that with a place like, say, Starbucks, it's a consistency thing. Even their "light" roasts are pretty dark, and their medium is "burnt to a crisp", but if you want to put 25,000,000 12oz bags of coffee on shelves and for it all to be "the same" (all "Pike Place", say) then I guess burning all the character out of whatever beans you got ahold of is one way to do it, versus sourcing all the beans from the same small set of farms in the same country in a single season or whatever.
I figure it's a similar story for most of the other big national or multinational coffee roasters, which is why it's almost impossible to find those correctly-roasted, delicate, tea-like coffees from anything but tiny roasters. Those places, two of their "medium roasts" may taste wildly different and if their supply of the beans for one variety dries up, that one's gone unless they can find a way to get more of it. Dunkin or whoever just want to always be able to have a bag with the same name on it on the shelf, and for it to always taste the same, even if that same-taste is not very good.
The espresso-loving nation of Italy universally roasts their coffee way too dark. I think it’s just a holdover from when coffee was first introduced to Europe.
I prefer medium roasts over light roasts, which isn't quite the same thing as dark roasts, but it's because it tends to get rid of fruity and acidic flavours and lets the richer flavours come to the front: brown sugar, chocolate, malt, nuts, spices, etc. which I prefer in milk drinks.
No idea what the dark roast people are after, but maybe it's the same sort of thing.
> Here in Sweden, it is customary to roast and brew coffee the same color as your soul: dark and ragged.
Okay, caffeine pills it is. In fact, I take a half of one now and again to get 100mg of caffeine, especially before hard physical activity. I have never actually had a cup of coffee in my life.
> Are there any public, open, comprehensive datasets on flights?
Airlines and commercial aviation operators schedule their own flights.
That is a dynamic schedulle. So, perhaps there is no "comprehensive data set".
However, FlightAware makes publicly available scheduled and completed flight data over many routes in the USA. You can search by route and get a list of flights.
Flight information includes filed departure time, route of flight, and speed. For completed flights actual time, altitude, and route is shown. For example,
a search on the route Dallas/Fort Worth to Austin lists 45 flights.
If planning/designing a timing system like this using existing antenna,
why wouldn't you choose to use cellular base stations? The cellular
network reaches most places with overlapping coverage and carries network time. The lowest cellular frequencies are adjacent the upper broadcast TV channels.
Aren't modern cellular receivers what we call software defined radios? They
can choose which channels to receive.
The research looks detailed and interesting. However, I don't follow this summary article.
Digital circuits dissipate most of the energy charging and discharging capacitance. It must necessarily dissipate that as heat (except for a minor amount of electro-magnetic radiation). The interconnect resistance hardly matters. Of course RC relay can be a factor for some circuits. We can hope this reasearch leads to improvement there.
Power supply bus resistance can lead to voltage drops, but this research apparently studies layers much too thin for that application.
The interconnect resistance does matter as resistance is a function of cross-sectional area. It's related to the physical size of the conductor. Lower resistance conductors can be physically smaller while carrying the same amount of current.
But the real trick is if you can increase your switching speed, you lose less energy in the transistor. All the time in between 0 and 1, the transistor is burning energy as heat rather than conducting current. Lower R in your interconnect means your RC time constant goes down and your switching speed goes up. Your transistor spends less time in the linear region and wastes less energy.
But yes, these are pretty small effects on the whole. That's really just where the industry is at: incremental improvements until the Next Big Thing comes along.
Additional nit: up to 50% of the energy put into gate capacitance could be recovered. It's not necessary to waste 100%, it's just dramatically cheaper and easier. Honestly I doubt there's any practical benefit as the chip would become quite a lot larger.
> Honestly I doubt there's any practical benefit as the chip would become quite a lot larger.
There will be at some point when area becomes too small to accommodate the heating and the added complexity becomes a way to shrink the entire chip to sizes that wouldn’t be possible otherwise.
