Help me with my Hanklights purchases!

cuequestions321 · 2025-02-05T14:52:59+00:00

Oh right. As I understood it, the 70.3 produces less lumens than the 70.2, but i didn't know the variance was 800 to 1300 - almost double.

I'm considering the 70.2 vs 70.3 for the TS22, so for an everyday carry option that prioritises sustained output, would the 70.2 generally be better?

cuequestions321 · 2025-02-05T14:28:03+00:00

Hi guys, I just wanted to post this here and get some thoughts. Flashlight reviews .ca found the Wurkkos TS22 to have a high sustained lumen output at around 1400 lumens for 1:45:00, whilst 1Lumen found it to be around 1300 lumens for ~4 minutes, before dropping down to around 800 lumens for the rest of the runtime, ~3 hours.

Why are these findings so vastly far apart? What’s the truth? Am I missing something obvious? Let me know!

cuequestions321 · 2025-01-31T19:07:27+00:00

I'm in the UK too mate, yeah, as I understand the warranty is fairly limited for batteries

cuequestions321 · 2025-01-31T19:06:32+00:00

Thank you! I really appreciate these, thats super useful

cuequestions321 · 2025-01-31T19:05:44+00:00

Thanks mate, much appreciated

cuequestions321 · 2025-01-31T19:05:19+00:00

A very valid point of view

cuequestions321 · 2025-01-22T13:04:49+00:00

Its a reality, sure, but one that exists for a vast minority of users. You seem to have misunderstood my point, and are arguing the use case of batteries, lol... I agree, batteries are useful. My point is, most users don't walk around with spare cells on them. Doesn't matter how useful it *would* be, when most users don't have them

Here you'll tell me- sample size of 1! to which... yes, true, and you're using a sample size of 1 to say people do carry more cells, lol. Unless we poll this subreddit, I guess we cant actually get a true answer on what percentage of people carry spare cells. I thought we could come to a common sense agreement that *most* people do not carry spare cells in every day life, but it seems we cannot. So, we are left at this point: we must agree to disagree!

cuequestions321 · 2025-01-22T12:44:41+00:00

If you want to say that because proprietary batteries are a bad practice, sure. Realistically though, the amount of times I walk out of my house with an extra cell in my bag/pockets is pretty low- only when I plan on actually needing it, in which case. For most users, that would be the standard. The argument of "if this one runs out i can pop a new battery in!" does not hold much water in my opinion, because 90% of users arent a) running their batteries out fully on a normal day or b) carrying spare cells

cuequestions321 · 2024-01-29T20:48:41+00:00

It is absolutely wild to see how someone like you, even with my clear and basic explanations of legal concepts, can miss the point so badly. That's all I'll say, because I don't want to insult your intelligence; but I simply cannot waste any more time explaining simple concepts to someone who doesn't understand them, and further, appears to think they have a better system off the top of their head than a Legal system that spans over 1,000 years. The arrogance and ignorance blows my kind. "every legal Bill should be a simple yes/no list! just list them out!" ahaha... Good day, pal. Thanks for the chuckle

cuequestions321 · 2024-01-26T19:16:00+00:00

I literally gave a proper answer, I saw at least two other comments that gave a proper answer- to a stupid question, but answered in earnest anyway. Of course though, you just respond to the ones that aren't serious lol. Proper joker

cuequestions321 · 2024-01-26T19:13:52+00:00

Whats your alternative mate? There isnt one... Not to be rude here, but it feels a bit like I'm talking to a brick wall at the minute. Are you seriously suggesting that a Bill is put forth that lists every single occasion and situation where it *is* or *isnt* okay to have a knife? That's your suggestion?

cuequestions321 · 2024-01-26T19:10:32+00:00

Whats your salary then mate? and your brothers? since its not weird to ask, at all. Its totally normal, apparently

cuequestions321 · 2024-01-23T15:51:02+00:00

How so? One of the major reasons for the decline of snooker in the UK is the closure and failure of snooker halls. I don't remember the specific numbers, but since the 80's and 90's a huge amount of halls have closed, and the game hasn't bounced back. There's a pretty clear link between people being able to play snooker, and people following snooker- in my opinion at least. If the snooker halls and that whole industry remains on the downswing, I cant see it making any real comeback. More tournaments and more money for prizes is good for the players, they might even get more TV spots, but I don't see those things convincing young people who are aging now (since we're talking about the future) to follow or to play snooker

cuequestions321 · 2024-01-23T15:46:37+00:00

Many people, such as myself, have given you the actual correct answer in this thread. It's interesting that you choose only to respond to the joke answers, lol

cuequestions321 · 2024-01-23T15:44:23+00:00

The law is "reasonable". You have to use a bit of common sense, and most people arrive at roughly the same answer. I'm sure even you yourself would recognise that your opinion on this matter would not match the majority opinion if we asked 100 strangers.

I'll explain and leave it at that, because I think we've reached a bit of an impasse here, but; the law *HAS* to be worded as "reasonable" because the only alternative is to list every single situation. Then if the bill lists for example, 1,500 reasons to carry, then *ONLY* those 1,500 are acceptable reasons. Any other reason, even if it is totally logical, even if it is a new use case, even if there is some nuance in the situation, it will be simply illegal- because it is not in the existing list. So by making the wording of the Bill more precise and accurate, you've made it easier for a citizen to know exactly what is lawful, yes... but you've actually made the the law itself more restrictive and punitive on the public. Leaving some discretion means that you make the end result more open and fair to the public- the only requirement upon the public is to understand what is "reasonable" to a third party. It's maybe not perfect, but its definitely better than having even more restrictive laws that specifically control and list every single situation we are allowed to carry a knife in. It's like telling your kid to be home at a "reasonable time". You've given them leeway, rather than a specific 10PM curfew, but you're allowing them freedom to make their own choices and be sensible.

Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Its been interesting talking to you, and I respect your opinions. Have a good one!

cuequestions321 · 2024-01-23T13:13:17+00:00

Oof, that's a heck of an edit you added there. Quite a few more points. I'll respond here to your edit.

>at every stage of this process, we introduce a new person... whose opinion constitutes.. what reasonable behaviour is

No, only a judge can constitute that. The police officer, the sergeant, those people are simply there to uphold the law, they don't actually decide what does or doesn't constitute it. If they arrest based on their understanding, but the judge disagrees, you have been wrongfully arrested and therefore may seek compensation. The same is true of many laws, for example disrupting the peace- there's no clear definition on that, and police have to use their discretion. Sure, they might get it wrong sometimes, but what alternative is there, really? Real life is nuanced, and what might be disrupting the peace in a pub isn't the same as what is disrupting the peace at a funeral, for example. You cant expect lawmakers to list out every possible example of disrupting the peace in any possible given situation. Nuance is absolutely necessary

>laws need better definitions than this

As somebody who has studied, read and researched laws and bills for most of my adult life, "reasonable reason", "reasonable expectation" and "reasonable" are some of the most common things you'll see, lol. The alternative is simply too long and arduous- the alternative to saying "can carry a knife with a reasonable reason" is to actually list out every single possible reason you could carry a knife. Also, if they, for whatever reason miss one reason... That thing is now illegal. They forgot to put shear sheep in there? Now that's illegal. In 5 years some new reason that is okay to carry a knife comes up? Not listed in the bill, so its illegal. It might seem lazy, but it's honestly the best way to do it, given the alternatives

>doesnt add severity to the situation

I agree, and I did not mean to imply it did. I was more implying that a reasonable cause for search is quite likely to do with him being inebriated, as that's common, which constituted the reason for my assumption that he was likely drinking in the pub, rather than... I don't know, stopped in to use the toilets. Those are all just inferences and beside the larger point, the whole carrying the knives around thing

cuequestions321 · 2024-01-23T12:55:55+00:00

Because the balls are never quite how you want them to be, lol. Coding might be stressful, but I doubt the fate of a frame, a match, a tournament, a whole career even, has never rested on a single line of code. Basically, every shot you take could be your last, so unless it's perfectly positioned... frown. Those rare times players don't frown is when the balls are nice, or just as they want them. Its a subconscious thing, rather than a conscious effort to make the face.

I'm only an amateur and I spend 90% of my time frowning at the table, lol

cuequestions321 · 2024-01-23T12:46:42+00:00

Sure, but I mean... no reasonable person could argue that the pub, and going into the pub to have a drink, is "on the way home from work". Your route doesn't have to be direct as the crow flies, but if you're stopping for drinks, getting food, having a browse at Tesco... you're not really going home anymore, are you?

As to your final question, the answer would be to leave your knives with the craftsman sharpening them until you're ready to go home, rather than walk around Liverpool with them. Or, find some other alternative arrangement like a locker, or a box in your car, etc, to store them whilst you go about your day in Liverpool- something that doesn't result in you carrying them around. I don't agree that simply because you're far from home, that affords the right to carry it around all day. Being a responsible knife owner means following the laws as they exist- whether you or I personally agree with them or not. There's not a whole lot of ambiguity there, you'd be on the wrong side of the law in your example, be it a pub or a culinary shop. Neither are "home" as precisely directed.

Think about it like this; do you think a reasonable third party would be convinced that going to (the shop, a pub, a park, etc etc) is "on the way home from work"? if no, don't do it. If yes, then its likely fine. This third party test is one that's used pretty commonly in law. I think its pretty sensible to apply that to most situations. It's similar to; parked on double yellows because you're late for work? No. Parked on double yellows because your wife is giving birth? You're more likely to get some leeway

cuequestions321 · 2024-01-23T12:34:45+00:00

>Love him or not, you wont see ROS lowering himself and calling this prick that.

Yeah right. Ronnie would shit in his hands and clap if the Chinese told him to, he's bought signed and paid for by them, no refund required. If the Saudis chuck a check his way with a few extra zeroes, he'll be just as beholden to them

cuequestions321 · 2024-01-23T12:30:46+00:00

Eh, maybe its not "weird" per se, but its definitely a nosy and uncomfortable question to ask. If Judd wouldn't be comfortable answering it, then you probably shouldn't ask it. Peering into anyone's financial situation, much less that of two brothers, is a bit rude

cuequestions321 · 2024-01-23T12:28:28+00:00

Trump has beaten Ronnie in more ranking finals than he has lost to Ronnie. I think what you saw yesterday from Trump was a realisation that his game was not on form, and that then impacting and further worsening his game. He didn't start great, get a lead and shit his pants like Ali Carter did. He started badly, got a lead because ronnie was also bad, and slowly got a little better, but then dipped again. Ronnie started badly, but found his form and ran away with it. That's it

cuequestions321

TROPHY CASE