The current US government (and the millions who voted them in power despite their clear fascistic tendencies) made perfectly clear to the rest of the world that the USA is friends with nobody: we are all supposed to be either enemies or vassals.

You can't have Vance come to Europe and insult all of them and expect us to be friends with you.

Which your proposal to abolish the filibuster further proves: it would make governing even more a "winner-takes-all" game. Or ranked choice voting: you can't even stop Republicans from gerrymandering. (And no, gerrymandering is not done by "both sides". California did it as reprisal and put provisions to get back to a fair system when Republicans stop gerrymandering. And gerrymandering is the official strategy of the GOP from bottom to top.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/2026/04/artemis-moon-lau...

You are right that it is an engineering compromise. Higher frequencies mean a greater acceleration of the balance wheel. The inertia of the balance wheel is itself a compromise with the strength of the main spring. You want to have a large oscillation amplitude, but also that the watch can self-start, and not too much pressure on the escapement's contact points.

5 Hz is, surprisingly, a big engineering gap especially with regards to lubrication: only dry lubricants work, and it was figured out (at scale) only in 1969 by Zenith with their "El Primero" movement (which is still in production and is a major milestone in watchmaking for many reasons, on top of having a crazy history).

But when Rolex decided to use El Primero movements in their second version of the Cosmograph Daytona, they reverted it back to 4 Hz to avoid having to retrain all the watchmakers in their vast service network.

https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/2026/article/les-usa-detourne...

The US is not a reliable weapon supplier anymore. Contracts don't mean anything anymore.

No, it is strong evidence that I can hear the very noisy xenophobic propaganda and whistle.

Or fix inheritance. And by fix I mean tax as hell.

It depends on how frequent and how in-depth you want the exams to be. How much knowledge can you test in an oral exam that would be similar to a two-hour written exam? (Especially when I remember my own experience where I would have to sketch ideas for 3/4th of the time alloted before spending the last 1/4th writing frenetically the answer I found _in extremis_).

If I were a teacher, my experience would be to sample the students. Maybe bias the sample towards students who give wrong answers, but then it could start either a good feedback loop ("I'll study because I don't want to be interrogated again in front of the class") or a bad feedback loop ("I am being picked on, it is getting worse than I can improve, I hate this and I give up")

Next steps are bone conduction microphones, smart glasses, earrings...

And the weeding out of anyone both honest and with social anxiety.

Nothing there makes sense at any level.

But people getting fired and electricity bills skyrocketing (as well as RAM etc.) are there right now.

And you can't assert that AI is "revolutionary" and "a vague threat" at the same time. If it is the former, it can't be the latter. If it is the latter, it can't be the former.

For example, if you put a hole in a box, do you want to reference the center of the sides of the hole? And do you want to place them relative to the left side or right side, and front or back? You never say "it's x mm from the left and y mm from the right and my box is w mm wide" - because the relationship x+y=w is always here! You only define 2 out of 3. But it may happen that you picked the wrong 2 - and a parametric CAD makes it very easy to do so in a few clicks, while a programmatic CAD like OpenSCAD is a large rewrite with calculation you have to do yourself on the side.

My example is silly but start doing big designs, large assemblies, and you "chains of cotations" may need to be redone again and again - especially when tolerances begin to add up.

What.

This makes no sense. This isn't PowerPoint; your holes and cutouts are supposed to be parameterized. How are they even supposed to be at the proper position in the first place?

As a CAD user, this is like e.g. a coder seeing someone write code with global variables everywhere.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46254206

Points: 1

# Comments: 0