While I am sure there are stylistic reasons for using that color, there is another common reason why you see blue-green colors in paint, especially in older industrial environments: zinc chromate/phosphate corrosion protective coatings. Zinc chromate primer is the color you see on the interior surfaces of some aircraft, to inhibit corrosion. Zinc phosphate is more of a gray in most cases, although varying paint chemistries result in a spectrum between those two, with seafoam nearly smack in the middle.
These are still available today, although the chromate version seems less popular for general use due to toxicity, especially (I assume) in the case of a fire.
I have painted quite a few bits of sheet metal with a sea-foam-ish blue-green/gray paint back in the day (30 years or so ago). I don't recall the manufacturer, but it was a zinc conversion coating in nearly exactly that seafoam color, which has probably stolen at least a few years of my life expectancy. The same company sold other paints in a sickly mustard yellow, and close to fire-engine red, all with slightly different chemistries, I assume for different base metals.
This reminding me of something my granddad demonstrated once.
He used to work on yachts a fair bit and over the years he noticed the fading patterns for different colour paints.
Yellow paint would fade, red paint would fade. But if you mixed them 50/50 into orange, it wouldn't fade. That's why they had so many orange boats in the bay. Figure that one out.
It comes down to each pigment acting as a UV shield for the other. Paint fades because specific wavelengths of light (mostly UV and high-energy visible light) break down the chemical bonds in pigment molecules. The key is that different pigments are vulnerable to different wavelengths.
Yellow pigment absorbs blue and violet light. That's what makes it look yellow, it reflects the longer wavelengths and soaks up the shorter ones. But the UV and violet radiation it's absorbing is also what gradually destroys it.
Red pigment does something similar but across a different band, it absorbs greens and shorter wavelengths, and that absorption is what degrades it over time.
When you mix them 50/50 into orange, each pigment is absorbing the wavelengths that would have destroyed the other one.
I remember reading a long time ago about why barns / shipping containers are dark red. and IIRC it's simply because it's a very similar tone to iron oxide and thus the dye was cheapest to produce.
Iron oxide is anti-microbial. So a barn painted with it as a pigment will last longer vs mold and such.
It's also why large ships all have that red paint color below the waterline. In that case it's copper oxide, which helps slow barnacle growth and similar.
Back in the age of sail they even went as far as copper sheet cladding to make the wooden hulls last longer. Copper oxide pigment emerged toward the end of the age of sail / beginning of the steamship era as a more practical alternative.
Canada shouldn't buy the F35. The Saab is a less capable plane, for sure, but it doesn't leave Canada (and it's defense) dependent on the US at a time when the president is openly floating the idea of "acquiring" Canada.
To clarify my thinking on this, I don't expect that we are going to end up in an air OR land war with the USA anytime soon (and honestly hope we won't). I do expect that Trump, for as long as he occupies office, is going to exploit anything and everything that he perceives as a source of leverage. If he can manufacture a pretext to force a renegotiation on maintenance, parts, software updates, and any/all other operational costs once we sign a delivery contract, then that's what he'll do.
The F35 also leaves Canada vulnerable to US policy, in as much as we're risking autonomy around any decision we make that isn't aligned with US interests, as long as we're dependent on their planes.
The very suggestion of Canada being able to defend itself without the United States is a laughable one. It's so patently ridiculous it's hard to tell if you're serious.
The strategic adversary their fighters are likely to encounter, Russia, flies propeller-driven subsonic bombers for the most part. Any modern fighter is adequate to the task.
(it's beyond the scope of the current conversation but Canada's more pressing problem is having enough pilots and getting them enough flight hours)
Well, they need to do something. Kind of silly to ask them to ask the US to defend them against the US. It might be a cakewalk, but at least they’ll have tried to stand up to a wanna-be dictator, which is more than we’re doing.
I am somewhat confused by this post. If the AI assistant is doing such a bad job that it lights up the linting tool, and further, is incapable of processing the lint output to fix the issues, then... maybe the AI tool is the problem?
If I hired a junior dev and had to give them explicit instructions to not break the CI/lint, and they found NEW ways to break the CI/lint again that were outside of my examples, I'd hopefully be able to just let them go before their probation period expired.
Has the probation period for AI already expired? Are we stuck with it? Am I allowed to just write code anymore?
i agree, the tool is indeed broken. its simultaneously stupid and smart in different ways. but i think there's some value in continuing to use and evaluate it
This paper runs very parallel to Dunning-Kruger, and it's surprising that nobody here has commented on it (although the paper itself DOES reference Dunning-Kruger). It's a bit sad, really. When you realize that most people that buy into this stuff are trapped by a lack of cognitive ability, rather than being rooted in malice. There's a dose of https://harmful.cat-v.org/people/basic-laws-of-human-stupidi... in there too, as even well educated, otherwise intelligent people can get trapped in these conspiracy theories.
"Conspiracy believers not only consistently overestimated their performance on numeracy and perception tests"...
Compared to:
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is defined as the tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability."
I saw that as well, it reminded me of dunning-krueger immediately. Although in this case, they assume not only that they reasoned correctly, but that their position is the median position for the population.
Although, from what I can tell, there’s a lot of new evidence that the Dunning–Kruger effect is an artifact of the experimental protocol and not some interesting fact about psychology.
That 68k/yr wage only sounds good if you're still thinking in circa year 2000 dollars. Nobody is making the mortgage on a house on 68k/year, and they're not starting a happy family if they have to do 20+hrs/week overtime in order to turn 25/hr into 68k/year. I remember earning nearly exactly that wage back in the early 2000s, and barely making ends meet in a cheap rental, so it's certainly not a great wage today.
The national average salary is $63,795 [0], so they're making about $4k more. Just because they're not earning 6 figures working in their first tech job doesn't mean that it's bad.
>I remember earning nearly exactly that wage back in the early 2000s, and barely making ends meet in a cheap rental
I made $10/hr my first job after college while living in a studio by myself in 2011 (and that was with student loan payments!), and I was barely able to get by, so how were you barely able to get by then on almost $70k a year?
> The national average salary is $63,795 [0], so they're making about $4k more. Just because they're not earning 6 figures working in their first tech job doesn't mean that it's bad.
The average rent nationally is $1860. In the Bay Area it’s $2650.
That’s not to say it’s bad. But the numbers are meaningless without some localized pricing or cost adjustment.
$68K/yr is plenty of money for a single person. And that's just an entry level salary, offered to someone in high school - you would have the opportunity to make far more as you gain more experience. By the time you're looking to start a family and buy a house I don't see why that's not a very promising career.
There is a severe shortage of homes in the United States. The problem is particularly acute in high opportunity cities where the jobs are located. Here is but one of the literally hundreds of sources describing the problem:
Depends on where you live, I was making $42,000 in 2013 in the Midwest, and was fine. If my now-spouse and I had wanted to start a family then, it could have been done--obviously more doable with both parents working.
Plenty of people get by on less than six-figure household incomes--they just live in lower-cost areas of the country.
I thought it was a VH-60 given that it was callsign PAT25 (PAT is Priority Air Transport and they use the VH-60 for those flights), but if this was a training flight, they may have still used the PAT callsign while flying a UH-60.
Both are "Black Hawk" airframes, right? The VH-60 variant is just a UH-60 that was build/configured for VIP transport vs the normal UH-60 utility variant.
IE, other than paint, they look the same to a casual observer.
The problem with LLMs as a replacement for StackOverflow (and any other peer reviewed Q/A site) is that the LLM has, shocker, no peer review. Combined with the fact that the user has insufficient expertise to adequately vet the responses (ie: they needed to ask in the first place), there is a trap where the user can end up using an incorrect response without any expert feedback to help them make an informed choice.
As the LLMs get better, I expect that this will improve, but for now, it's gonna train a lot of novices to apply bad practices.
As a comparison, here's the "Why RON" for the native RON/Rust format:
Note the following advantages of RON over JSON:
* trailing commas allowed
* single- and multi-line comments
* field names aren't quoted, so it's less verbose
* optional struct names improve readability
* enums are supported (and less verbose than their JSON representation)
I feel like they are close enough that it would be better to just use RON, which has existing uptake/tooling.
This study doesn't propose anything that can actually move the needle for food security. It requires animal based feedstock for the Pythons, which kills the efficiency claims because you need to grow an animal of mass X in order to obtain another animal of LESS than mass X. This is just a slightly more efficient method of recycling leftover biomass. It'll never be viable as a primary protein source.
If they had suggested a viable cold blooded herbivore, we might get somewhere.
one of the potential food sources is waste protein from agribusiness as per the article. That makes this a useful way to gain human edible protein from a waste product, which isn't nothing but, if you are looking for on idea to save the world, this isn't it.
Wouldn't it be more efficient to convert waste proteins into fertiliser for plants? Plus, while the article makes much of the python's ability to withstand periods of scarcity, I would think storing grains/beans would be even better... for example, properly stored grains/beans aren't vulnerable to respiratory infections..
These are still available today, although the chromate version seems less popular for general use due to toxicity, especially (I assume) in the case of a fire.
I have painted quite a few bits of sheet metal with a sea-foam-ish blue-green/gray paint back in the day (30 years or so ago). I don't recall the manufacturer, but it was a zinc conversion coating in nearly exactly that seafoam color, which has probably stolen at least a few years of my life expectancy. The same company sold other paints in a sickly mustard yellow, and close to fire-engine red, all with slightly different chemistries, I assume for different base metals.
reply