Rivalarrival @ Rivalarrival @lemmy.today Posts 3Comments 3,570Joined 2 yr. ago
even overcoming the parasitic portion of extra energy needed during the compression cycle and the exhaust cycle against the turbocharger impeller?
Let's assume the contrary. Let's assume it can't. Let's assume the turbocharger is a net drag on the engine, and any gains are only from enabling the engine to burn more fuel. If this is all true, then the turbocharger should not be able to function without the reciprocating engine. Without the "push" from the pistons during the exhaust stroke, the turbo shouldn't be able to turn.
If we can show that the turbo can not only spin without the piston engine, but that additional energy can be harvested, we will have disproven this assumption.
So, let's get rid of the pistons. Plumb the intake manifold directly to the exhaust manifold. We have one combined intake/exhaust manifold. We stick a couple spark plugs into that manifold and turn it into a combustion chamber.
Now we have air passing through a compressor turbine, into a combustion chamber and then through an exhaust turbine. Sound familiar?
Engineers discovered that some turbos were capable of producing more power than the engines they were attached to. They discovered that the reciprocating engine was a drag on the turbo. The only reason to keep the reciprocating engine was because material science hadn't caught up. We didn't have turbos capable of directly handling the heat of combustion.
That discovery gave us the jet engine.
That's the only way a waiting period is going to survive strict scrutiny.
the simple solution is to say all purchases of a firearm have a waiting period, no exceptions
Yeah, I've addressed this. The "interest" that I accepted as "compelling" only applies to first time gun buyers, who don't have access to other guns during the waiting period.
To meet strict scrutiny, you need to demonstrate both the compelling government interest and the narrow tailoring. If you want me to accept that "no exceptions" is narrowly tailored, you're going to have to show me a compelling government interest that applies to both current gun owners and first time buyers.
Your arguments don't seem to demonstrate comprehension of "strict scrutiny". That is almost certainly going to be applied to this law. If you want to keep this law, your arguments are going to need to meet the strict scrutiny standard.
Introducing a minimal delay on the flow of weapons into the already saturated hands of the public is a pittance of a concession if it stops even a single person from go out after a drunken fight and decide to shoot someone,
This premise is the proposed "compelling state interest" I discussed in my last comment.
This law isn't going to die from lack of a "compelling state interest". This law is going to die from a lack of "narrowly tailored", because nobody has made that argument.
I am, indeed, biased. Heavily biased. But, my argument is consistent, even if we're talking about a hypothetical 72-hour waiting period before buying a hammer, or exercising our 5th amendment rights. What the heck do you need a hammer for that can't wait 72 hours? Why do you need to be arraigned within 48 hours? Why can't you just remain locked up for two weeks?
I (mostly) suppressed my bias in my argument. I accepted the premise of a cooling-off period that I do not actually believe to be necessary or appropriate.
My arguments reflect the concept of strict scrutiny. I demonstrate that even if we accept the (unfounded) premise of a "cooling off" period, this law is not the "least restrictive means" of achieving that purpose.
If you want to keep this law, you're going to have to consider someone walking into a gun store with a Remington 870 over their shoulder, an AR15 on their chest, and a Glock 17 on their hip. You're going to have to explain how society benefits by requiring this well-armed individual to wait 72 hours before picking up a bolt-action .22 plinker.
If you can make a reasonable argument for this, you have a solid case to keep the law.
The exhaust gases get pushed
The "pushing" (exhaust stroke) isn't particularly relevant.
When the valves close at the beginning of the compression stroke, the pressure in the cylinder is atmospheric: zero psig. The valves don't open until the piston has risen (compression) and fallen (power) again. Without combustion, the pressure at the time the exhaust valves open is again at atmospheric. The gasses were compressed, and re-expanded, but only reach atmospheric. These gasses need to be pushed out.
With combustion, the pressure at the bottom of the stroke is substantially higher than atmospheric: the combustion event has radically increased the pressure of those gasses. At the end of the power stroke, just before the exhaust valves open, the pressure inside the cylinder is still extremely high. When the exhaust valves open, the overwhelming majority of the energy released to the exhaust stream is from the increased pressure. The "push" from the rising piston is relatively tiny.
It is the expansion of those gasses - not the "pushing" of those gasses - that drives the turbo.
I think it might be beneficial to think about the next evolution in aircraft propulsion. The turbocharger operates by expanding gasses through a power turbine, and using that energy to drive a compressor turbine. Remove the cylinders and pistons from the path, carefully tune those turbines, and you have a turbojet.
If the pistons are "pushing" the turbocharger, the turbojet would be impossible. It is the expansion of the gasses, not the displacement of the pistons, that drives the turbocharger.
I don't want moderators to have that power. I do think that users should be able to block posts that link to domains.
filteReddit, a component of Reddit Enhancement Suite, had domain blocks. I'm eagerly awaiting an equivalent to disenshittify Lemmy of paywalled bullshit.
Police Procedural shows.
Law and Order, Criminal Minds, NCIS, CSI, Lie to Me, Dexter...
Basically, anything that makes people think that police are more effective at solving crime than they actually are.
I think shoplifting from Walmart should be considered a public service. I think minor criminals should be sentenced to 100 hours of community service, shoplifting from Walmart.
Fuck Walmart.
the Legislature has expressed as cause for the Act concern for persons who may purchase a firearm with the immediate purpose of doing harm to themselves or others.
A fundamental problem with this law is that, in most cases, it does not actually achieve its stated objective. A person can walk into a gun store with a Glock holstered on their hip, and be denied the immediate purchase of another Glock, under the theory that they need to "cool off" before purchasing an additional firearm. The law does not achieve its stated "cooling off" intention: The individual is armed for the duration of the "cooling off" period.
The law could be narrowly tailored to achieve its stated purpose without unduly impeding existing gun owners. It could apply only to first-time buyers, allowing stores to skip the waiting period if they have previously sold a gun to that buyer, or if the buyer has held a concealed carry permit or hunting license for >72 hours, or if the buyer is already armed at the time of purchase.
Because it was not narrowly tailored to its stated intention, we must assume that the actual intention is the impediment on existing gun owners. I've seen no arguments in support of waiting periods that would justify such an impediment.
Sounds like tortious interference to me.
If I'm running a business, 100% of its earnings will be paid out. Any earnings I haven't previously allocated will be paid out as bonuses. My workers and I will all have income from that business, but the business itself will never show a single penny in profit.
That's not fraud. That's not "tax avoidance". That should be the objective of every responsible business: paying out every earned cent to the people who created those earnings.
It's also pretty easy to implement: Set corporate income taxes at 100%, and the effective corporate income tax rate fall to zero. No business will hold back any profits; everything will be paid out.
Parent comment is correct: Fines cannot be a percentage of profit. They could, conceivably, be a percentage of revenue, but that's not particularly good either: Any action you take on the cashflow within the business disproportionately affects the workers and customers of the business.
Whatever actions we take must target the owners and managers. The decision makers. The people responsible for setting policy, not the people carrying out that policy. That means we don't touch the profits or the revenue. We dilute their shares. For every 19 outstanding shares, we create a new one and put it in an IRS liquidation portfolio. Now we own 5% of the company, and we auction those shares off to the general public over time. The existing shareholders lose ~5% of their value, and are incentivized to hold their management team accountable for their losses.
It would be nice if I could use (my name)@(mydomain) and just point (mydomain) at whichever public instance, without having to spool up my own instance.
Fines against publicly traded companies need to be in the form of shares, not dollars.
The people who say they don't experience intrusive thoughts are liars. They are too anxious about how the world would react if they told anyone they sometimes think about jumping off a roof, or driving into oncoming traffic.
The people who don't actually have intrusive thoughts are psychopaths. Lacking empathy, they don't even consider how such actions would affect anyone around them. They do, or do not, as they choose.
The healthiest are the people who recognize in themselves behaviors they don't observe in their peers, and they are concerned enough for everyone's safety to risk being seen as abnormal.
There is a difference between "intrusive thought" and "suicidal/homicidal ideation". Experiencing these ideas as irresistible urges to partake in the behaviors might warrant a trip to a pshrink.
Experiencing them as vivid scenes of violence and destruction, without a compulsion to actually act on them, is not unusual or concerning. They're your own private action movies; Enjoy them.
Okay I have to ask: if you don't know someone's gender, but you can't call them uh, they/them, then what in the fuck are you supposed to do exactly?
I fully support inclusivity. Rejecting singular "they/them" as generic non-gendered pronouns isn't inclusive. It's a special brand of incivility and intolerance.
Whatever your policy is on intolerant individuals, feel free to exercise it.
I stopped using cursive my sophomore year of high school. Started using smallcaps, and everyone was happier.