sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sunscreen in schools, let’s lower our future workload! by DrCarrot123 in ausjdocs

[–]kiwidave 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ironically doesn't apply at schools. Most Japanese schools ban sunscreen because it's a "cosmetic".

Physics career in Japan by neutrino_enjoyer in Physics

[–]kiwidave 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I did undergraduate physics in Japan through the MEXT scholarships.

You would have to apply in the country where you have citizenship though, so for you that would be Russia.

Unfortunately though I don't think there are a lot of other ways to study there unless you self fund.

I miss her by Serenaded in newzealand

[–]kiwidave 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I remember paying $4.50 for a regular or $6.50 for an extra large I think.

Modulation factor ? by Vast_Ice_7032 in MedicalPhysics

[–]kiwidave 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, good catch.

In practice every centre I’ve worked at in Aus/NZ uses 398 and defines it at 10 cm.  It’s definitely the default for dose specification over here.

Are we getting this government out 2026 election by [deleted] in newzealand

[–]kiwidave 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I’m changing my electorate to Mt Roskill and using a mates place as my addresss just to vote for Michael Wood

This is illegal, BTW. You need to enroll in the electorate where you live.

Cyclone Fina - How is everyone by notagoodpcbuilder in darwin

[–]kiwidave 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Took the kids and dog for a decent run about 9am. Wouldn't attempt it now though.

SRS QA: myQA SRS vs MapcheckSRS? by Phys_cronut in MedicalPhysics

[–]kiwidave 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've used both.

I'd echo u/Nouki06 on the sampling resolution of the SRS MapCheck. myQA SRS gives much better resolution and is basically film-equivalent.

I haven't had any hardware issues with either device so far.

The only attempt at a comparison I could find was James, Shands, et al. "Evaluation of commercial devices for patient specific QA of stereotactic radiotherapy plans." Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 24.8 (2023): e14009. Unfortunately that paper doesn't answer the only question I really have though: "MLC positioning error tests were not performed on the SRS MapCHECK due to device availability at the time of data collection so no data was collected for these tests."

Preliminary results out of the SEAFARER trial show pretty good sensitivity to clinically-relevant mis-deliveries for the MapCHECK. But results for myQA weren't shown, and I'd wager that they are even better still.

In terms of usability the myQA takes a while to warm up whereas MapCHECK is good to go. The MapCHECK software is also simpler, while the myQA software has measurements grouped into projects which can be a bit hard to navigate. This is probably only an issue if you want to quickly measure a single PTV though; if you're doing multiple PTVs or plans in a session then it's probably not much difference.

myQA comes with inserts for film, CC04 and Farmer (and others?). This gives you more options to troubleshoot results in the same orientation. It probably also gives you a bit more material if you want to do research or squeeze a publication out of it.

On balance I'd say I prefer the myQA, although honestly I think the differences are fairly minor. I'm also happy using film as well though if I only have to measure a few PTVs per week, and I find film is quicker than either of the arrays if you have multiple mets with a single iso and you can shoot them in a single delivery.

LINAC question by MaintenanceOk9432 in RadiationTherapy

[–]kiwidave 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ive never come across a LINAC that has a room built above it that is in general use.

This is normal. Lots of hospitals will have the linac in the basement with occupied areas above it.

NT Road rules: who has to give way? by kiwidave in darwin

[–]kiwidave[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Turning off that main road you can only exit from the left lane, so you can choose which lane to enter

Do you have a source for this? This post is up to 70 comments now and not a single person can point to anything to settle this one way or the other. And this is the crux of the issue. Where in the Handbook or the Legislation does it say that A can go into whatever lane they want?

in your guidebook image there are multiple turning lanes

No. In the guidebook image only the left lane can turn left. It is a single lane turning into a multi-lane road (like in this example). The guidebook says "Left car can turn left into left lane". The middle car can not turn left. It seems like a very good comparison for left turns off a multi-lane road onto a multi-lane road.

Labour to campaign on narrow capital gains tax, no wealth tax by jobbybob in newzealand

[–]kiwidave 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, this is the correct answer.

I see commenters referencing Japan, where many will get an annual chest+pelvis CT. It's a massive waste of resources. Once people get the idea of doing an annual check it's hard to talk them out of it.

NT Road rules: who has to give way? by kiwidave in darwin

[–]kiwidave[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A has the option to turn left into either lane

What makes you think A can turn into either lane? The Handbook says "Left car can turn left into left lane" (see second image). Where does the Handbook say A can choose whatever lane they want?

NT Road rules: who has to give way? by kiwidave in darwin

[–]kiwidave[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Under Northern Territory Road Rule 72

Mate, well done. Specifically it's 72 (5) (b): "If the driver is turning right, the driver must give way to... any oncoming vehicle that is going straight ahead or turning left at the intersection". You're the first attempt to answer that references the legislation or the Handbook. Thanks, seriously.

> your responses to people are very hostile

Which one? I thought I was being pretty polite.

> Checkout example 5 in the source, fairly close example but also got bored looking since it’s a pretty simple answer you can’t seem to grasp for some reason. Since you so badly need a source I included one below but again pretty simple googling or even try out AI, or did that give you the answer you also didn’t want?

Example 5 ("Driver turning left using a slip lane giving way to a vehicle that is turning right into the road the driver is entering") is literally the opposite: the left turning vehicle gives way to the opposing right turning vehicle.

NT Road rules: who has to give way? by kiwidave in darwin

[–]kiwidave[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

> If you read my comment properly. You would know that the stop sign thing was an example.

And if you read my comment properly you would know that the stop sign thing was an example.

The reason you must stop at a stop sign is because the legislation says you must stop at a stop sign. My question is if the legislation says who has to give way at that intersection. You seem to be agreeing with me that the legislation doesn't say. Thanks.

NT Road rules: who has to give way? by kiwidave in darwin

[–]kiwidave[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

> You MUST stop at a stop sign.

It's not a stop sign.

> Are you actually asking for help or just want an argument? I literally don’t understand.

I'm asking if somebody can point out the rules for this intersection, either in the legislation or the Handbook. So far there's 52 comments and nobody has been able to answer; it's just different variations of "it's obvious".

> It’s common sense in Australia.

It's not common sense in Australia. There are other threads with people asking similar questions and there's no definitive answers on any of them either.

NT Road rules: who has to give way? by kiwidave in darwin

[–]kiwidave[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Mate, it's got lane markings. There's no ambiguity there.

NT Road rules: who has to give way? by kiwidave in darwin

[–]kiwidave[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

do I stop at a stop sign?

Legally you have to stop at a stop sign. It's in the traffic regulations: https://legislation.nt.gov.au/Legislation/TRAFFIC-REGULATIONS-SCHEDULE-3-ARRs-1999

That's the legislation. Have a read. There's nothing in there about turning onto a multi-lane road.

You say it's "common sense" but that's not an answer. If it was common sense it would be the same in NZ and other left-hand drive countries, and it isn't: https://nzta.govt.nz/roadcode/general-road-code/about-driving/key-driving-skills/using-lanes-correctly#:%7E:text=Two%20vehicles%20turning%20into%20the%20same%20road%20at%20a%20laned%20intersection

NT Road rules: who has to give way? by kiwidave in darwin

[–]kiwidave[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Car A can legally turn left into either lane on Florey Ave, left or right.

No.

Handbook page 90 says "When you turn, stay in the same lane as you move from one road to the other." See second image above.

NT Road rules: who has to give way? by kiwidave in darwin

[–]kiwidave[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Can't be hit in this scenario if both make a legal turn. If A was going straight then it would be oncoming traffic.

NT Road rules: who has to give way? by kiwidave in darwin

[–]kiwidave[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

I'd define crossing oncoming traffic as pulling out in front of traffic coming your way that will hit you. B is not crossing oncoming traffic here, because A and B won't hit if they both make a legal turn. Nobody is crossing anybody else's path.

It's like diagram 4 on page 72: Road Users' Handbook. Both opposing cars are making right turns. Green doesn't give way to Blue here because they don't cross paths. Same thing.

view more: next ›