Just tried this on iOS 27 and both blu and blue showed me bluetooth settings. I saw someone in a different thread of this discussion mention resetting dictionaries helping with autocorrect, I wonder if there is something that would apply to this situation which helps.
And expletives. If I want to say fuck, that's my business, I don't need my phone refusing to allow it. If not for how embedded I am right now in the ecosystem, this keyboard & vocabulary behavior they force on me might be enough to make me switch.
I would guess that happened a long time ago and the vast, vast majority of what looks like brick houses today are facades. Does anyone want a real brick house these days?
Are there really many parallels between a car and a house? The car is considerably more complex with dramatically less variation between builds. It is not like homes are constructed from raw materials, either, lots of the pieces are built in a factory and then brought on site to be connected.
There are enough to make meaningful comparisons vs, say, manufacturing a laptop. They're both too big to carry, and expensive enough that most people aren't able to afford more than a handful in their lives, and may possibly even just only rent one. So cars and houses are more similar in size then cellphones or a meal at a restaurant.
IIRC the cost of a stick built home is only ~15% higher than an equivalent manufactured home, but by building on site you have more flexibility for custom layouts and other choices which fit the local environment better. A modern home builder typically has a set of plans to mix and match and their build process is really dialed in -- eeking out a bit more efficiency by doing it in a factory is offset by the cost of getting the completed product on site. Plus a good chunk of the cost in a home is site prep anyway.
Also, at least in my area, the trend seems to be towards smaller lots and two story homes. There might be modular homes that could fit that niche, but currently manufactured homes are just big single story rectangles.
> The only reason I can think of that houses don’t usually have metal roofs is because they cost at least double, if not triple
Also noise, if you live somewhere with a lot of rain.
I wonder if the longevity argument really holds, too. Anecdotally, our local public housing project invested in metal roofs many years ago (less than 30, however) but a good fraction of them have been replaced since with contemporary asphalt shingles. I do not know why they failed, but the switch back to asphalt says something.
FWIW a bunch of friends of ours live in a development with metal roofs (built late 1970s) and they said it's been great. It just works, no leaks, no repairs necessary.
There's probably a bit of selection bias in both directions: metal roofs that don't work get replaced with shingles and are no longer metal roofs, while metal roofs that do work have owners that don't think about them much and don't complain about them.
To me it says that someone in the housing authority fell for a sales pitch on metal roofs. "Buy it once and never have to pay for a roof again." That person is now probably long gone, as is the salesman and likely the roofing contractor who installed it. The roof is now leaking, and the current administration looked at what they could afford and asphalt it is.
Metal roofs for SFHs are mostly beneficial in wildland / forest areas where there are wildfires. Shingles will burn (they're made of petroleum products), while a metal roof will resist far far far longer. However this only makes sense if the rest of the structure is also just as fire resistant.
Metal roofs will also last a lot longer. Their color may not, but the roof itself, as long as it was installed properly (major component here), will outlast asphalt by decades.
I agree. The sales pitch on metal roofs is that they last twice as long as shingles, but the reality has not matched that promise. If I were replacing a leaking metal roof that cost me twice what a shingle roof would have cost, and it has been less than 30 years, I would be a fool to buy another metal roof to replace it.
Some cars have gone so far on the isolation and sound damping front that they pipe back in a little bit of engine noise (but only the part that sounds sporty) via the speakers.
There's only so much you can do. A car is filled with funny angles, plastics, and a lot of glass. It's never going to be a particularly good acoustic environment even if you manage to shield 100% of the road noise.
You can't have a proper soundstage in a car no matter your setup, which kinda degrades a lot of music that wasn't designed for clubs. In a car it's basically background music when you're driving because you can't really give the music your full attention anyway (passive listening), where the lack of focus also masks a lot of details you'd hear on a proper stereo system (active listening).
Edit: to answer your question below, I like both, active and passive listening. But I wouldn't try to optimize for active criteria like details in a passive evironment like a car, so I'd spend more money on fun things like buttkickers instead of high end detail.
Obviously a car isn't a dedicated listening room. Music can be enjoyed by just listening to it and not focusing on all the nuances. Or are you one of those hardcore audiophiles who can't listen to music without a ultra high end sound system?
Also soundstage can be greatly improved by placing speakers on non factory locations because manufacturers usually prioritize packaging above all else. A tweeter placed at the bottom of the A-pillar near the windshield is the worst possible location and sounds like it was put in a tin can.
Background noise in a car also has a solution, turning up the volume. Plus getting quiet tires.
Sure is for bass. It's a sealed box that you're in, with shapes that stop anything from acting like a simple room shape, and surfaces that can soak up highs, and so small that this absorption is a huge percentage of surface area.
There's a reason mix engineers have always done 'check the mix in a car'. It might be way more revealing of what's happening in the bass, even when the speakers are relatively weak. Once you get anything decent, watch out. It's a bit like having your whole body inside headphones.
Whenever I think about light speed being fast, I imagine myself standing at the edge of the solar system and watching a hypothetical photon travel from the Sun to the Earth and taking 8 minutes. Suddenly it doesn't feel like light is really all that fast except at human scales. 5 km/h would be fascinating though.
The speed of light is unbelievably slow, not even as a cosmic scale, but on earth.
We cannot play competitive multiplayer games globally, without 300ms ping. I dream of a world playing Black Ops 2 on a original PS3 in 2026 getting into a lobby because latency is low.
Still not as unbelievably slow as signals in our body. If you hook up a fiber connection from a button to an LED, then stub your toe on the button, the fiber can be thousands of kilometers long and you'll still (via the LED) see that you've stubbed your toe before you feel it.
This is of course assuming instant activation, a direct connection and no additional latency from network hardware.
The LED will display it first, but will the signal reach your visual centers first? And how about the time for your brain to process that signal and make you consciously aware of the visual vs. the way the pain signal is forwarded to conscious processes?
Fair issues, but none of them impact the fundamental point. I'm not trying to make a point on touch vs. visual sensing or with regard to consciousness (time shifting of visual input is a thing, which could be impactful here, see "chronostasis").
The point is to quickly and accessibly convey an intuitive understanding of the propagation speed of information in biological circuits vs. the max speed of information in our universe (to our current knowledge at least) and in our technology.
light is 186k miles per second, the other side of the globe is 12.5k miles away - so 67 ms / 130ms+ round trip in optimum conditions. Add more for network hops and consider that fiber is not quite as fast as vacuum.
300ms feels extremely optimistic coming from my perspective of someone living on an island in SE Asia
I wish the guy who created this included a 'your perceived velocity relative to [some fixed point]'. The speedometer shows what an at rest observer would perceive your velocity as, not what you would perceive it is. The 'magic' of relativity is that the speed of light is not really a speed limit. You can travel endlessly far ahead of it. Distance and time then begin to distort, and you effectively travel into the future, but you can go arbitrarily faster than it.
If we ever reach the technology to enable relativistic starships (basically able to accelerate at 1g or so for years at a time), then the universe is going to get seriously weird. Not only for us, but also for people in the distant future who will regularly have ancient relics from the past traveling into their time, when they will likely scarcely resemble us, and going 'Hello fellow... humans?' That'd be some next level archaeology opportunities though.
It'll also be socially odd as the elite and powerful travel off into the future seeking immortality, unable to ever return, at least so far as we currently understand.
> The 'magic' of relativity is that the speed of light is not really a speed limit. You can travel endlessly far ahead of it. Distance and time then begin to distort, and you effectively travel into the future, but you can go arbitrarily faster than it.
You cannot. The speed of light limits you, even as you approach it, by changing distance itself.
There is no absolute distance between two points; all astronomical distances are calculated in a non-relativistic framework. This is perfectly acceptable, since we all live in that framework relative to each other, and even if we were talking to multi-generational "friends" on Alpha Centauri, it would still hold true for both sides (to within an imperceptible error).
This is why it is sometimes suggested that photons don't "travel" at all; because they move at c, every spot they go to is the same spot to them. A divide-by-zero non-error.
You cannot what? Everything I said is completely accurate. As is your conclusion - with the speed of particles being infinite, from their perspective.
This is also why it's 100% possible for a human to travel to Alpha Centauri, or even the edge of the known universe all within a single human lifetime, from his own perspective. Of course for an at rest observer, billions of years would have passed, but for him - mere decades.
Again, relativistic speeds change distance (from what we experience at non-relativistic speeds). At no point do you travel faster than light - the world you are leaving will appear redshifted. If you were going faster than light, the background would simply disappear, as its photons would not reach you (yet).
Ah I see what you're arguing! Yes you're certainly correct, that you will not measurably perceive yourself traveling faster than light as the universe will contort itself endlessly to ensure that doesn't happen. I'm imprecisely speaking of your distance/time relative to a fixed point at rest if you yourself were at rest as well.
On the other hand think of the wavelength of light and how absurdly fast the oscillation frequency is to provide a wavelength of a few hundred nm at the speed of light. 8 minutes is a lot of cycles, and 150M km is a lot of wavelengths!
But light is not really even light except at human inference level. Like yes if you were a god like being looking at this and understanding light in a proton level way, it wouldn't be very impressive but I would say that is not the right way to think about physcial phenomena. How can you even be sure time has any definite meaning outside human's concept of it? In that sense what do words faster or slower or minutes even mean
reply