Curly braces are a very uncommon piece of punctuation outside of math and programming. If you picked a person at random, they will find "curly brace" (and indeed, "square bracket") much clearer and less ambiguous. Doubly so when accounting for variations between British and American English.
That's not what the post you're replying to said, at all.
I'm not in a position to evaluate whether they were right, but you've presented this as if it proves them wrong when it's barely related to what they said.
They clearly do include "some random student" as the data can be shared with others from the eligible research group which are almost always university students who have zero clue about itsec.
I'm curious – in which context? I've worked on NIH-funded grants in academic medical centers, throughout the research lifecycle, and I've seen how both stringently data management plans are vetted, and how annual IRB certification drills the basics even into the oldest tech-phobic investigators.
That being said, I may be as pessmistic as you are: I don't think people right now grasp how standards for deidentification may no longer be enough, and how easy and automated deanonymization changes everything. Unfortunately, cuts to federal science agencies means that I doubt any well-informed guidance will come soon.
I'm not sure I understand your comment; OpenSCAD has functions like sphere(), cylinder(), etc. Most OpenSCAD models I have seen are built up primarily from solid primitives combined using boolean operations, just as you describe for the other tools.
OpenSCAD works natively with triangle meshes. sphere() will create a spherical triangle mesh.
These libraries on the other hand can natively represent a sphere for instance. This means that during CAD-ing you don't need to worry about resolution, that's a consideration for export only.
Do you mean that OpenScad performs boolean/other operations on triangle meshes, but these libraries don't until output? So they might instead use curved surfaces/edges etc as outputs for operations and only convert to triangles for output or export at the very end?
It isn't even necessary to create triangle meshes during export. You can export as step files. It is a commonly used brep based file format supported by almost any "proper" CAD software. Triangle mesh based modelers can't easily export good step files because they don't operate at that level of abstraction.
In professional CAD systems, geometry is not stored as triangle meshes but as mathematically defined surfaces (such as parametric and NURBS surfaces).
Triangle meshes are only generated as approximations for rendering.
This is analogous to vector graphics (SVG/EPS) versus raster images (PNG/JPG).
Any serious manufacturing will work require a STEP (or something equivalent) which stores these parametric surfaces rather than a mesh.
1. put a sphere and a torus somewhat close to each other
2. find the shortest segment between the two surfaces
3. place an infinite cylinder whose axis is aligned with the segment you just found
4. fillet the cylinder with both the torus and the sphere along its intersection curve with each surface
> The actual ingredients are literally on the safety data sheet
This is an oversimplification, in a way that is likely not obvious to a lot of people on this (software-focused) forum. An SDS does not have to list exact amounts, does not have to disclose some details of how an ingredient or mix of ingredients was processed, and (depending on jurisdiction) may not have to identify some "safe" ingredients at all. Some ingredients may be identified in relatively vague ways, that are sufficient for safety purposes but do not reveal the exact product. As the SDS you linked to says "The specific chemical identity and exact percentages are a trade secret". An SDS is certainly very helpful to reverse-engineering a product, but it doesn't tell you everything.
All that said, yes, the main strength of WD-40 is its marketing and ubiquity, and claims about its secrecy have more to do with marketing than anything practical.
> Some ingredients may be identified in relatively vague ways, that are sufficient for safety purposes but do not reveal the exact product
Where I find this can be fun is that different countries seem to have different requirements for precision. Or just straight up different formulations for the same thing.
The SDS should include all SAFETY relevant information/ingredients for whatever jurisdiction. If the local area doesn't really care if it's hexane or pentane from a safety perspective, they'll likely just be lumped together behind a generic name/cas number.
Hopefully if you sum enough of those SDS across different jurisdictions, the actual list of ingredients will come out. Though I guess it isn't that simple.
I once had a problem with the ignition lock I couldn't turn the key, my mechanic told me that that could happen on a very hot day with that model. "use a lubricant or wait till it's colder" - "Would WD-40 do?" -"Guess so" made it worse. with the help of the AAA (well, the equivalent in my country) and an oil spray I could turn the key, since then I've always an oil spray with me
Had the same problem with my moto (key not turning the lock). Fortunately, there was a car nearby and owner had a spare jug of oil. I put some oil on the key, put it in the ignition lock, waited for 5 minutes, and it started to turn again.
Although I must admin WD-40 helped me in the past opening an old door lock.
I suspect the difference is whether (as with the old door lock) there is no lubricant at all and anything is better than nothing, or whether (as with the ignition key) there is a lubricant there which was designed for the purpose but for some other reason isn't working as intended, and which the WD-40 will displace and replace with something worse. "Fails in hot weather" sounds either like some sort of thermal expansion problem or the intended grease gets too thin to properly lubricate a high-pressure contact area. Or there just isn't enough of it.
In both cases, the real issue is when the oil (eventually all do) oxidizes and ‘gums’. Tight tolerances make it cause worse problems sooner of course, but it’s the same problem eventually.
Putting new fresh oil in it often temporarily fixes it because it dissolves some (or a lot) of the old varnish. Acetone can often do the same thing too, but can also wash the varnish deeper into the mechanism where it turns into really solid ‘plastic’ when the acetone dissolves.
I was 2000 km from home (1242 miles) and I was in panic because it was pretty uninhabited place. My bike is 12 years old but I used it in very harsh conditions (dirt, mountains).
Probably should replace the lock but it is so expensive.
You can correlate microarchitecture to product SKUs using the Intel site that the article links. AMD has a similar site with similar functionality (except that AFAIK it won't let you easily get a list of products with a given uarch). These both have their faults, but I'd certainly pick them over an LLM.
But you're correct that for anything buried in the guts of CPUID, your life is pain. And Intel's product branding has been a disaster for years.
> You can correlate microarchitecture to product SKUs using the Intel site that the article links.
Intel removed most things older than SB late 2024 (a few xeons remain but afaik anything consumer was wiped with no warning). It’s virtually guaranteed that Intel will remove more stuff in the future.
reply