I agree with all of this. At the same time, I think that, in most cases, people should allow their body to adapt to heat, if they are healthy enough to do so. Most people can learn to be comfortable in higher heat than they believe, although some people have medical conditions that will make them more susceptible to heat exhaustion and heat stroke. If you can get by without it, you should. If you’re at risk by not using it, don’t feel guilty.

(FWIW, my office only has a/c because I have a very, very large printer in here, and it tends to have head strikes and scrap prints out if there’s no climate control. But since I’m not printing at the moment, the current temp in here is 82F.)

On top of that, as we experience higher temperatures, many people also crank up their air conditioners—which emit more heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

This is not correct. Air conditioning units do not ‘emit more […] greenhouse gases’. Air conditioners use a refrigerant–usually R134a–which does have a high global warming potential (GWP) compared to methane or CO2, but that refrigerant is in a closed loop; it’s not going anywhere unless the system is damaged. Most a/c failures aren’t from refrigerant leaking out of the system, and the system no longer being able to effectively transfer heat, but from the compressor motor failing. When the compressor fails, in most cases you can evacuate the refrigerant, replace the broken part, and then recharge the system. (The fact that they can be repaired doesn’t mean that they usually are repaired. Which is shitty.)

What is true is that a/c units emit heat themselves. An air conditioner moves heat from inside a space to outside of that space; in the process of doing so, the a/c unit itself is creating an additional small amount of heat from the function of the compressor motor, electronics, etc.

Beyond that, most electricity that’s used to run a/c systems–and every other electrical device–is produced from burning fossil fuels. So if there’s more demand for electricity–such as from a heat dome that has everyone running their a/c full-time–then yes, more CO2 is going to get pumped out into the atmosphere. But if your electricity is coming from sources that are largely emissions-free, like solar, wind, or hydro, then air conditioning is a negligible source of heat.

tl;dr - don’t feel bad about using your a/c when heat rises to dangerous levels; agitate at a local, state, and national level for renewable, carbon-neutral ways of generating electricity, and for more efficient use of electricity.

I dunno, when you’re talking about really specialized niches, there are still plenty of forums. Like, 600rr.net; it’s dedicated to nothing but Honda CBR600RR motorcycles. If you have a problem with a 600RR, the answer is probably there, and the forum is still ticking along because it’s just too hard to find those super-niche answers on Reddit. Want gun content with a healthy dose of homo/transphobia and christian nationalism? AR15.com has you covered. Want to talk about the minutiae of reloading and be autistically-focused on long-range accuracy? SnipersHide.com is your place. (They’re a bit fuddy though.)

Sure. If you’ve abused it in some way so that it doesn’t take or hold charge, then you might have to pay for a replacement battery. But I think there would be an implied warranty when you’re given a replacement, that the replacement was fit for service. And the company might just have to roll the cost or replacing batteries every so often into their electricity pricing models.

That’s like asking who owns a propane tanks for your grill. You own it while you have it.

When you get a new batter, you own the new one, and relinquish ownership of the previous one, paying for the electricity that’s on the new battery. AS LONG AS the battery that you’re relinquishing is substantially identical to the new battery.

I get what you’re saying, but looking at old full-sized pickups, the overall width is about the same. What’s different is the ride height and wheel/tire size. A very high weight capacity creates it’s own set of problems, namely that control is compromised when you have no load at all, because there’s no preload on the springs.

I would need to look it up for each.

A lot of the older trucks–like the early 80s F150s–were veyr small by current standards, but still had the bed size and overall hauling capacity of current gen F150 trucks. They were very clearly work trucks though, and had very few comforts that you’d expect in a car.

What’s really interesting is that the bed size on both of those trucks appears to be the same.

For myself, when I’m looking at pickup trucks–which I sometimes do, although I am unlikely to buy one any time soon–I’m looking at the ability to carry full sheets of plywood.

It’s not free; it’s included in the price. Those are entirely different things.

As for why someone would want to haul things themselves, well, there are a lot of things that you can not reasonably expect delivery on, or paying another person to haul would be unreasonably expensive for. Does that necessarily make up for the cost of a truck? Probably not by itself, in most cases.

FWIW, The Times is a center-right publication that’s somewhat more factually accurate in their reporting than the New York Times is. So it’s kind of a big deal for them to admit that there just isn’t any evidence other than extremely suspicious claims about any widespread, systematic sexual violence.

There’s actually a muzzle brake that users report is so effective that it does push the muzzle down. (More likely is that it’s so neutral in terms of muzzle climb that users are pushing the gun down unintentionally.)

I’m pretty sure you’re correct, although I believe that the part that’s capturing photons also needs to be heavily protected from the environment, and you also need something to prevent to many photons from getting to it and burning it out (e.g., almost all gen 3 NODs are autogated so that someone shining a flashlight at you won’t wreck your image intensifier tubes.)

It’s one of those things that can get pretty overwhelming to try and research as a consumer, because it gets really technical really fast.

Okay, so you’re talking about the IR that most people would refer to as thermal, rather than the IR that’s technically NIR, and is used in most image intensification. My mistake; as you say, these things get slippery because most of the time people aren’t talking about specific wavelengths and frequencies.

Yes, IR-as-in-thermal is going to be stopped by most glass. IR-as-in-NIR-for-NODs is not. The IR lasers and weapon lights that show up very well with NODs are definitely not visible to the naked human eye, so they’re outside of the visible light spectrum, and get generally labeled as IR, even if they’re outside of the spectrum of IR that’s used by most thermal optics. (It would be interesting to see if a Steiner DBAL could illuminate an area that had low IR for a FLIR camera.) And yes, for that, a red dot sight will work, because it will be set to very, very dim; too dim to be seen by the naked eye.

Tons of job listings have barely any presence outside of LinkedIn. And yeah, quite often employers will want to see some kind of professional something online.

First: I’ll believe it when I see it. Every so often pie-in-the-sky claims of this type come out, and they often end up not being feasible, even if they’re technically possible.

Second: if it is feasible, given that gen 3 night vision tubes have remained stubbornly expensive, I would not expect this to be cheap for a long time.

because regular glass is usually opaque to IR.

I’m almost 100% positive that this is not correct, because I’ve been driven around by someone wearing PVS-14 NODs with no headlights, on dirt roads, in a commercial van. (Edit - most red dot sights also work very well with NODs, and those have one or two layers of glass, depending on which type of system it is. The sights that don’t work well usually can’t dim the dot enough to avoid massive bloom.) Glass is mostly opaque to thermal though, and a lot of glass significantly reduces UV.

Likely killed by indiscriminate Israeli bombing. They don’t know where hostages are being held, so any bomb could be the one that kills hostages, and they clearly don’t care.

I dropped Instagram, and couldn’t be happier to have left that cesspool behind. No […] LinkedIn, […]

Unfortunately not having any presence on LinkedIn makes it quite challenging to find professional-type jobs. :/

In your previous comment, you were equating “Danger” to “Death Rates.” How often do you hear of a cyclist dying in an incident that doesn’t involve a car?

First: you said, and I quote, “Riding a bicycle itself isn’t all that dangerous, even without a helmet.”. That is blatantly, proveably false, especially when you say that it’s not dangerous even without a helmet. I’ve broken multiple helmet in multiple single-bicycle accidents over the 20-odd years that I was commuting regularly by bicycle; at least one of those would have very likely have been fatal without a helmet.

How many cyclists die outside of interactions with cars? In 2001, 44% of fatal bicycle accidents–377 out of 853–did not involve being hit by, or hitting, a car. So, there ya go. Damn near half of cycling fatalities aren’t involving motor vehicles. (The site mentions them as being bicycle transportation fatalities, which seems to exclude bicycle recreation fatalities, but I can’t guarantee that they aren’t including deaths from mountain biking. Per the same source, helmets appear to reduce the risk of brain trauma by about 60%.)

And if that was a car, do you think she would have survived?

If she had been in a car, and hit by another car? Yes, I think she would have been fine. Cars have airbags, set belts, and crumple zones. If she’d been hit by a car, while on a bicycle? Can’t say. Statistically? Yes.