I was confused as well. Perhaps they're referring to the actual title of the article on nytimes.com which is "Meet the Beauty Queens of Al Dhafra". I like the HN title better too.
I use WD-40 for my bike chain specifically because it's not an oil and because it dries out fast. This helps prevent gunk build up and makes cleaning the drive train a lot easier. I clean and reapply after/before every ride.
Will consider switching to a more environmentally friendly alternative though after reading this thread.
Thanks for elaborating on this. I guess the confusion also stems from the word "heat" which we usually associate with something that's warmer than some human day-to-day reference. Heat in the physical sense though just refers to the kinetic energy of a number of particles, which can be harvested (per the post above) provided there are differences in kinetic energy throughout space.
It's also interesting to play the "Follow the Energy" game to it's logical conclusion, namely that nearly all of the energy in the Universe (including that which you expend typing on your keyboard) originates from the gravitational potential created in the Big Bang (whatever that is, by the way). This begs the question; how was the entropy of the early Universe to low, that it could increase by such an enormous amount, to produce intelligent beings such as ourselves, typing things on a keyboard while we should be working?
It's really one of the most fundamental questions in cosmology, and one of the (many) reasons why I love physics.
Actually, the heat death is when all potential energy in the universe has been converted to heat. So converting an excess of stored chemical energy in their laptop battery to heat by compiling a load of Haskell would be a fine way of increasing the entropy of the Universe. Thus moving ever so slightly closer to the inevitable heat death.
This. I couldn't imagine driving in South East Asia without the horn.
Scary story: My cousin almost killed a cyclist once after moving back to Europe after living in Asia for years. She used the horn as a friendly message (or so she thought) before passing. The cyclist, not being used to ever hearing horns on the road, got scared, looked over their shoulder and swerved out in front of the car.
Car horns seem to be calibrated to be heard by someone wrapped in a car, and are too loud for unprotected listening. Bicycle bells are closer to that range. No wonder the cyclist got freaked out.
The Ineos Grenadier 4x4 has a button specifically for this purpose (& because it's made by a cycling team & makes for good PR). I don't know how useable it really would be.
I don't think I'd ever use my horn to let a cyclist know I'm there. It's hard to do a friendly, quick double-toot consistently and, as you said, it's just too loud. It's more likely to cause an accident than just waiting longer to overtake. Horns are usually a rude thing, so they're scary to hear.
Similarly, on a bike, I don't really use the bell to go around pedestrians on shared paths. Pedestrians aren't usually in the mindset of being aware of what's behind them, so the bell just makes them jump. You also can't express the difference between a friendly warning and a request to move with just a bell. Again, it's easier and more consistent to slow down and take responsibility for moving around them.
As a cyclist, I find it hard. I tend to avoid using the bell for the reason you've stated (i.e. it tends to just make them jump), but equally I've found not using it gets responses along the lines of "Use your f**ing bell".
I've found most everyone responds well to "on your left!" Many will wave and thank you, largely because most bicyclists provide no alert at all and instead just fly by (which is dangerous and rude).
Perhaps I'm biased, but I find navigating application menus on MacOS infinitely easier due to the fact that it's location is constant and dictated by Apple. On Windows (or even Linux) I have to go searching for the menu items for each new application I'm using, and some feature (like quitting) seems to often be purposefully hidden away. Infuriating if you ask me.
I sympathize with this argument, but it has several problems: Rights and wrongs are inherently social constructs. The is no (currently) discovered moral potential in the laws of the universe, nor is there a well defined, clearly bounded, definition of life.
I would argue that relativism is in fact the fundamental construct, and that societies only arise in the unstable balances between extremes.
That's not to say that fundamental rights cannot be instrumental in strengthening society, but since they arise from within society, they will need to be updated as society inevitably changes in time.
> Rights and wrongs are inherently social constructs.
This is an assumption, and not on supported by debates in ethics. Once you start questioning everything, you'll see that some moral propositions appear to be unassailable, in that, no argument can simultaneously question the truth of the proposition without also descending into logical incoherency. The categorical imperative would be one such approach, although not the only one.
There are good reasons why most philosophers are moral realists.
> I would argue that relativism is in fact the fundamental construct
Then you pretty much agree with any practice that is currently-bad-but-wasn't-in-the-past? After all, it was relatively ok at the time, and can be again.
Thank you for writing this out. Very interesting read! I very much agree with you that writing textbooks, digesting and refactoring other authors work, is often as important as the original work itself. Indeed, what is the value of a good idea if you cannot explain it to anyone?
