Same story here. You described it perfectly. Mitutoyo comes next.

This may or may not help, but a nickel is very close to 5 grams. You may be able to slap something silly together with a bunch of nickels taped together :P

Nope, still need that training data to sell to self-driving car tech.

Digital Rights Management, refers to software or hardware that limits access to something unless the user has authorization/licensing.

It’s why you can’t copy someone’s game folder from steam and run it, or burn a PS2 disc and play it on an unmodded console.

I did some digging. It’s a parody finance website that makes it seem like you can invest in falcons and make a blockchain (flockchain) with them. Dig a little further, go to the linked forum, and you’ll see it’s just a community of people shitposting (mostly).

Maybe I’ve just been lucking out, but every concert venue I’ve been to recently has let me in with my vape. I usually tell the security person I have it on me, and then they tell me it’s fine and pass me through. You’re right though, it would suck to have to toss it.

I don’t agree with the “smaller” part though. Most of the disposable units I see are thicker and wider than my refillable one, since they need to be long-lasting as a value proposition. I think the main draw is probably pure convenience.

As someone who is using a nicotine vape to wean off of nicotine, I still don’t understand why people buy disposable ones.

It’s less cost-effective, less customizable, and more sketchy.

Thank you for this cursed knowledge.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Yes, I believe I implied this by suggesting that the sum of angles being 190° is absurd.

I see. I agree completely. The only place this belongs is as a thought experiment on making assumptions in geometry.

For the love of dog, you can’t solve this problem without making assumptions that fundamentally change the answer. People are too quick to spot the first error and then make assumptions that are conveniently consistent with the correction.

Unfortunately, nobody can define a true answer without making assumptions, which is a thought process shown to be faulty by the false right angles.

…what? I get that this drawing is very dysfunctional, but are you going to argue that a triangle within a plane can have a sum of angles of 190°?

You’re making the assumption that the straight line consisting of the bottom edge of both triangles is made of supplementary angles. This is not defined due to the nature of the image not being to scale.

We can’t assume that the straight line across the bottom is a straight line because the angles in the drawing are not to scale. Who’s to say that the “right angle” of the right side triangle isn’t 144°?

If the scale is not consistent with euclidian planar geometry, one could argue that the scale is consistent within itself, thus the right triangle’s “right angle” might also be 80°, which is not a supplement to the known 80° angle.

This is what I was thinking. The image is not to scale, so it is risky to say that the angles at the bottom center add up to 180, despite looking that way. If a presented angle does not represent the real angle, then presented straight lines might not represent real lines.

deleted by creator