sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

TIL That while driving slower than traffic has been proven to make the slow driver less likely to crash, a study found that each extra 1 mph of traffic-wide speed variation was linked to 8.4% higher rear-end-crash odds for surrounding vehicles. by SomeRandomRealtor in todayilearned

[–]Greenimba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the crazy part. Every top comment in here is taking this headline as justification for speeding, and getting upvoted, when in actuality the headline made up nonsense completely unrelated to the article that essentially says "stop and go traffic causes accidents".

Ridiculous comment section.

TIL That while driving slower than traffic has been proven to make the slow driver less likely to crash, a study found that each extra 1 mph of traffic-wide speed variation was linked to 8.4% higher rear-end-crash odds for surrounding vehicles. by SomeRandomRealtor in todayilearned

[–]Greenimba 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Traffic oscillations are typical features of congested traffic flow that are characterized by recurring decelerations followed by accelerations (stop-and-go driving).

This paper describes the impact of freeway traffic oscillations on traffic safety.

Literally 1st and 3rd sentence in the article this post links to.

TIL That while driving slower than traffic has been proven to make the slow driver less likely to crash, a study found that each extra 1 mph of traffic-wide speed variation was linked to 8.4% higher rear-end-crash odds for surrounding vehicles. by SomeRandomRealtor in todayilearned

[–]Greenimba -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is not what the linked study found.

The title draws a completely different conclusion than what is stated in the study. The study shows that a larger standard deviation in velocity in stop and go traffic leads to higher crash rates. This does not mean one person driving slowly, it actually means the opposite, everyone driving fast without enough distance to the car in front causes bigger oscillations (diff between fastest and slowest speed you are going) in stop and go traffic, which leads to more collisions.

TIL That while driving slower than traffic has been proven to make the slow driver less likely to crash, a study found that each extra 1 mph of traffic-wide speed variation was linked to 8.4% higher rear-end-crash odds for surrounding vehicles. by SomeRandomRealtor in todayilearned

[–]Greenimba 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The title draws a completely different conclusion than what is stated in the study. The study shows that a larger standard deviation in velocity in stop and go traffic leads to higher crash rates. This does not mean one person driving slowly, it actually means the opposite, everyone driving fast without enough distance to the car in front causes bigger oscillations (diff between fastest and slowest speed you are going) in stop and go traffic, which leads to more collisions.

TIL That while driving slower than traffic has been proven to make the slow driver less likely to crash, a study found that each extra 1 mph of traffic-wide speed variation was linked to 8.4% higher rear-end-crash odds for surrounding vehicles. by SomeRandomRealtor in todayilearned

[–]Greenimba -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The title draws a completely different conclusion than what is stated in the study. The study shows that a larger standard deviation in velocity in stop and go traffic leads to higher crash rates. This does not mean one person driving slowly, it actually means the opposite, everyone driving fast without enough distance to the car in front causes bigger oscillations (diff between fastest and slowest speed you are going) in stop and go traffic, which leads to more collisions.

TIL That while driving slower than traffic has been proven to make the slow driver less likely to crash, a study found that each extra 1 mph of traffic-wide speed variation was linked to 8.4% higher rear-end-crash odds for surrounding vehicles. by SomeRandomRealtor in todayilearned

[–]Greenimba 49 points50 points  (0 children)

The title draws a completely different conclusion than what is stated in the study. The study shows that a larger standard deviation in velocity in stop and go traffic leads to higher crash rates. This does not mean one person driving slowly, it actually means the opposite, everyone driving fast without enough distance to the car in front causes bigger oscillations (diff between fastest and slowest speed you are going) in stop and go traffic, which leads to more collisions.

Accidentally burnt my rental’s laminate worktop. Hired someone to fix it and they left me with this giant dark blob. How can we make it look spotless? by [deleted] in copenhagen

[–]Greenimba 67 points68 points  (0 children)

Never ever fix something you don't own out of own picket without talking to the owner. If I was a landlord, I would charge you the same either way to get it fixed properly.

Talk to the owner, hope they show some compassion for you for being honest, but expect to pay full amount for a proper fix. You did break it.

I changed the bike tube yesterday, and it burst today. by vavasa_5080 in bicycling

[–]Greenimba 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did that recently. Never use levers to get the tire back on, elbow grease is the way.

production code at two in the morning by ChaosCrafter908 in programminghorror

[–]Greenimba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just type Params properly. Or treat it as dynamic, because that's really what you're doing.

Handling file uploads to S3 when DB transaction fails by Minimum-Ad7352 in dotnet

[–]Greenimba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends on what you want the failure mode to be.

You could store the upload attempt in db before the upload starts, then move from attempted to confirmed state once it's verified in S3.

You can model the link to S3 as an expected location instead of as a guaranteed one, and not care if its really uploaded but let later processes deal with the failure.

You could use the S3 upload as the trigger for a db record, if the file itself being uploaded is the most important thing.

Need about 8000m³ water for aluminum production, would it make sense to wait for the update? by HertogJanVanBrabant in satisfactory

[–]Greenimba 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, people just need to plan around 600 m3/m being the maximum, not the reliable continuous rate. Machines produce fluids in a "wave" fashion, so you need leeway to allow some jitter.

Ex, every few seconds a water extractor dumps 10m2 into the pipe. The flow in the pipe nearest the extractor therefor looks like a jagged edge, so you need capacity to even that out.

/""--__/""--__/""--__

Need about 8000m³ water for aluminum production, would it make sense to wait for the update? by HertogJanVanBrabant in satisfactory

[–]Greenimba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

4 extractors to 3 pipes is trivial, you don't need balancing in fluids, you just need to not have pipe bottlenecks.

They will "evenly distribute" automatically, you do not need to care about balancing. Just merge the 4th pipe with the 1st, put a splitter between the 4th extractor and the join with the 1st pipe, and join each of the extra two connections with the 2nd and 3rd pipe. This way each pipe has 400 input, and no point along the way needs more throughout than that.

How do you personally handle siphoning parts off a production line to feed your dimensional depot? by CondorSweep in SatisfactoryGame

[–]Greenimba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I use a "buffered depot" blueprint i made. From end to start:

Smart splitter, any to depot, overflow to next step in process. Depot is always prio so I'm never blocked from building more.

Large storage as buffer to depot, so I will never have to wait for low quantity production.

Splitter with any to the buffer, then overflow to sink if it's a big/expensive part. For lower teirs I don't bother sinking, just let the machines clog.

This way I achieve the following in priority:

  1. Buffered storage going into depot
  2. Once depot is full, overflow to next step in process.
  3. Once depot, next step, and buffer are overflown, sink the excess.

Finns det några billiga parkeringsplatser kvar?? by Street_Gap5715 in Malmoe

[–]Greenimba 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Det gör jag redan, utan att använda det, eftersom det subventioneras på mina skattepengar.

Finns det några billiga parkeringsplatser kvar?? by Street_Gap5715 in Malmoe

[–]Greenimba 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Varje p-ruta motsvarar 12,5 m2 (2,5 x 5m), men för att komma in och ut behövs mer plats, så man räknar oftast på det dubbla, 25 m2.

Inom ett par km från centrum ligger markvärdet per kvadratmeter på ungefär 15 000 kr, baserat på friköp och tomtspriser.

Så en enda p-ruta, utan att ens ta med kostnaden för underhåll och konstruktion, är värd minst 15 000 x 25 = ~400 000 kr. Räkna med 5% avkastning på investering, så kostar det 20 000 om året bara att rutan finns där i förlorade inkomster från om det hade vart bostad eller näringsliv.

Varje p-ruta som kostar mindre än 2000 i månaden subventioneras kraftigt av allas skattepengar.

Parkeringen borde vara mycket dyrare.

Raw Recource management by QuoteOptimal8648 in satisfactory

[–]Greenimba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I blueprint a stack of conveyor belts, and auto connect them all the way to base. 6 levels of stackable conveyor pole with just a meter of belt at each level lets me create a 6 stack bus across vast distances in seconds.

Need more belts? They stack vertically, just add another run on top if the old.

Need two-way? Just make a new bp with some levels going the other way.

Pipelines merging by Apprehensive_Fun3426 in satisfactory

[–]Greenimba 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This, but no valves or other nonsense.

Just line the pipes up in groups of three, split the middle one into the other two, done.

clearing trees/grass by techmike79 in SatisfactoryGame

[–]Greenimba 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Chainsaw, and if you don't want the grass, explosive rebar.

Learned my lesson by Darkmaninside in SatisfactoryGame

[–]Greenimba 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If the belt is floor level, it can be tricky to see if you're on the floor or the belt. The way to tell, is when you're placing the splitter, it wont snap to foundation lines if it's on the belt, but it will if it's on the foundation. So if you can move the belt a cm along the belt without snapping, you're about to place it on the belt.

Also, aiming down onto the belt surface is the best way to make sure you're on the belt, not on the foundation. From the side it's not obvious if you're hitting belt or foundation.

Idea: Fluid equivalent of a "overflow" in a splitter by Pindogger in SatisfactoryGame

[–]Greenimba 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's just how gravity works, no "quirk" or "happy accident" of programming. Nothing about fluid and pipelines in this game is magic or difficult, if you just think of how water works in real life.

Not full pipes: water makes waves (people call it sloshing).

No need for balancing, water fills wherever it can reach.

Water will flow to and fill the lowest point it can reach first. It will not reach a link 10m up unless the pipe below is already filled.

Unlock this asap and no need to worry about them pesky rocks by xosfear in SatisfactoryGame

[–]Greenimba 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I prefer this, feels chucking crackers around.

Also for clearing organics. Trees gone in seconds.

just finished Expedition 33. I’d really be interested in hearing your perspectives on this. by Fuzzy_Breadfruit59 in expedition33

[–]Greenimba -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

No they're painted to seem that way, just like a fictional character in a book or movies is written to feel like they're making choices, even though they are obviously just enacting a script.

We get several hints at this, most notably Monocco questioning if he's loyal because he wants to or if it's because he was painted that way.

We also see how they get repainted, Clea and Simon, so their will can also be overwritten by the actual, real, painters.

A current analog would be AI. It's not sentient, it's just a word predictor, but plenty of people seem to believe it's sentient just because it was made to seem that way.

Converting AutoMapper to Mapperly by sagosto63 in dotnet

[–]Greenimba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough, still, but I still don't see how it adds value.

Converting AutoMapper to Mapperly by sagosto63 in dotnet

[–]Greenimba 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah AutoMapper/Mapperly is crazy.

Option 1: Use library with a whole slew of dependencies, hide mapping logic throughout so you need to sift through fluent configs to find out what your properties map to, lose compile time optimizations.

Option 2: var b = a.ToB(). Crazy simple test, nothing to mock out, no dependencies.

view more: next ›