> That’s why I don’t like it as a consumer. If they keep producing M1 and M2 I’d assume we can get better prices because the total quantity would be much larger.
Why would this be true? An M5 MacBook Air today costs the same as an M1 MacBook Air cost in 2020 or whenever they released it, and is substantially more performant. Your dollar per performance is already better.
If they kept selling the same old stuff, then you spread production across multiple different nodes and the pricing would be inherently worse.
Fake leather has a wide, wide range of quality. Polyurethane faux-leather used in many automobiles these days is considered to be superior to leather in terms of durability and longevity. Take a look at old examples of MB-Tex, which Mercedes has been making for ... 60-70 years by now.
Similarly, plenty of leather that will disintegrate and flake into trash or crack and peel, especially if not taken care of well.
Plenty of real leather seats that have done the same. I had a 10 year old real leather Volkswagen that did the same myself.
Meanwhile, I have a 11 year old Vinyl “fake leather” car with no issues, and a 8 year old car with PU pleather that looks nearly brand new. Ironically, the steering wheel is made of real leather and has started flaking in a few small corners.
I’m not sure how any of those anecdotes proves which is more durable or long lasting than the other.
This wouldn’t hold up in court, to my knowledge. If you have a tool that is solely designed this way for technical reasons, then there isnt trademark infringement. Just make sure to market it as the “B” screwdriver or whatever. The same thing with the Nintendo case for their logo on cartridge protection, I don’t think that ever held up in court.
> I think you meant to say, "why didn't it get more popular for _pirates_"? Because pirates are purists and prefer lossless codecs (ie, FLAC), and even when they wish to use lossy, Opus being locked to 48khz (to reduce implementation overhead for low power SoCs) kind of pisses them off, even though Opus's reference impl includes a perceptually lossless resampler (ie, equivalent to SoX VHQ, the gold standard, and better than the one in Speex).
MP3s don't (really) support higher than 48 kHz sample rates either, and MP3s are if anything more popular among that community.
> MP3s don't (really) support higher than 48 kHz sample rates
Neither does the human ear.
While there may benefits for intermediate representations during mastering/modification, for playback higher frequencies can only ever make things worse as it increases the chance of unintentional frequencies causing distortion etc.
And for those intermediate steps any lossy compression is probably a bad idea.
I agree with you, I’m just noting that this argument doesn’t hold because pirates (who listen, they don’t do mastering) basically only care about flac or mp3s. And mp3s are limited to 48k.
Arguably most MP3s are limited lower than 48k, depending on the implementation.
Like LAME uses a low pass filter unless you explicitly disable it, even on the "insane" preset it cuts off about 20khz.
But I can still understand why mp3 is still used, if only because of compatibility and intertia of keeping a collection in a consistent format. I see the worries about file size becoming less important over time, so many people I don't don't really see an advantage to a more modern codec like Opus.
And piracy has always been more about "branding" that people seem to like to admit - many video rips were labelled DivX for years after they had already moved to other mp4 encoders. And over the years the "brand power" of various pirate groups was surprisingly large.
And I suspect that mp3 and flac were the last "big" changes that made a significant difference to many end users, so newer formats just don't have quite the same improvement to promote their own branding.
This seems like you’ve never used an air fryer. They aren’t a replacement for a deep fryer, of course, but they can certainly crisp many different foods much differently from a traditional oven. The high cfm convection of an air fryer makes food behave much differently than a regular oven or a standard convection oven.
Air fryer cultists must administer lidocaine prior to eating or something, air fryers can't even get close to proper deep or shallow frying, unless you are re-warming something pre-packaged that was already deep fried prior. The "crisp" achieved from air frying is woefully inferior, and no serious chef or anyone with basic cooking experience defends them for anything other than trivial use-cases. They do not behave meaningfully different in any way from a good convection oven, countertop or otherwise, and are less versatile (and yes, cheap convection ovens do have worse circulation, but good ones do not have this problem, or even just have an air fry mode anyway).
EDIT: So to be clear, yes, there is a narrow use case for people who can't afford e.g. a good countertop convection oven (same thing as an air fryer but more versatile) or decent convection oven, and for whom cooking consists mostly of store-bought and pre-cooked small meals for 1-2 people max, and definitely for people that don't care about the dramatic textural difference from actual fried food, or that aren't attempting to emulate fried food with it.
But air frying was mentioned by GP as an alternative for restaurants in place of deep frying, which is woefully out of touch with the most basic facts of reality.
> They do not behave meaningfully different in any way from a good convection oven, countertop or otherwise, and are less versatile (and yes, cheap convection ovens do have worse circulation, but good ones do not have this problem, or even just have an air fry mode anyway).
Chris Young, of Modernist Cuisine and Chefsteps fame, disagrees with you. There’s a difference in the physical construction of actual air fryers vs just fast convection ovens. Every convection oven/air fryer combo I’ve ever seen has the fan on the side, so the behavior and performance is different.
Thanks for this video, it is an interesting one. I have a lot of respect for MC, but, unfortunately, I do not find this video convincing at all.
It isn't clear to me that it matters if a fan is on the side or below or sucks or blows, because with sufficient speed you get turbulence, and air is flowing in all sorts of directions. The claim doesn't pass a basic physics smell test, nor does the video's claim about blowing from the side "fighting the natural tendency of steam to rise", which is only relevant if your fan is seriously under-powered. Also, where does that steam go? It is just re-circulated, unless the oven is properly vented, which is the real factor here. You only get "pockets of humidity" in a really trash convection oven or if you seriously over-crowd your food, or in bad "energy-efficient" ovens that maintain efficiency by just trapping steam. Could it be that the average / cheap convection oven is poorly vented and has an underpowered fan, relative to the average air-fryer? Probably. But I remain unconvinced they are meaningfully different from a decent convection oven.
Part of the reason I don't believe the claims is that I use the technique in the video already to make very crisp oven fries that approach the ones in the video even in a non-convection, regular oven. Getting this right was an obsession for me for some time, and the trick is getting the par-cook perfect, not over-shaking, the right kind of potatoes, the stupid amounts of oil (which effectively causes the outsides to fry anyway and properly crisp), and the right oven temp. You do regularly have to also toss them in the oven, just like he regularly shakes his in the fryer. Getting all those things right is the main trick here, and is very, very hard to do right, probably about 90% of the challenge. In fact, getting the par-cook wrong can even make a deep-fried fry worse than a properly par-cooked and prepared oven fry, and knowing the importance of all these other factors, I find it incredibly implausible that the different direction of convection in an air-fryer is a significant factor.
Perhaps a regular oven can get you to only 80%, a convection to 90%, and an air-fryer to 100% of what he achieves, and perhaps this is because the air fryer makes it less work and more consistent, since you can toss them with less overall heat loss. Or perhaps if he spent just as many weeks perfecting convection oven fries they would be indistinguishable. The side-by-side comparison with a convection oven is what I need to see to be actually convinced an air-fryer is anything unique, and weak and untested arguments about air-flow direction aren't doing it for me.
EDIT: Also I originally stated "Air-fryers are just small ovens, they do not meaningfully crisp almost anything without serious modifications to the recipe and approach, and most crispy textures can only be properly achieved by deep frying", and note that this remains true. Yes, a good chef can achieve crisp in clever ways other than deep or shallow frying, and I have my own bag of tricks, but in practice it is a lot harder, less consistent, only works for a very limited number of foods, and still generally requires you use a large amount of oil.
EDIT2: If you read through the YouTube comments on that video, you also find out he is using frozen fries, which he admits are almost always par-fried in oil anyway! So the recipe was still relying on deep-frying!
Fundamentally, ethanol will always be less efficient per gallon than gasoline. It has significantly less specific energy compared to gasoline. This is a fact known by anyone that has tried e85 either for racing or for flex fuel compatible normal vehicles.
But look at figure 8. At 40%, volumetric efficiency is at its peak. It's very important to note that these results are neither monotonic nor linear, so while the public only has access to E85 and E10/E15 (at least where I've been), those are almost ends of extremes and a middle ground can synergize. Yes some metrics always get worse the more ethanol you use, but hopefully you looked at the paper and saw that isn't nearly the full story.
I'm not sure what that proves? Volumetric efficiency is just about air efficiency. Higher VE is better, yes, but you need to compensate for higher VE by adding more fuel to utilize the air, otherwise you run lean, which is bad. Turbocharging a car, for instance, directly increases VE.
None of this directly equates to fuel efficiency although it can be related, which is what the GP was asking about presumably. You still need to content with the fact that ethanol has ~30% less specific energy per gallon.
Figures 8 and 9 show that both volumetric and thermal efficiency can be improved with nonzero ethanol in the right circumstances. Increasing efficiency metrics, while combining figure 7's showing that you get more power with ethanol, means that you're getting more power and doing so with greater efficiency.
You mention fuel efficiency. Figure 6 shows that in some cases, looks like the threshold is between 60 and 80% load, the story flips such that adding ethanol to the mixture reduces sfc. In other words, less fuel is needed for the same amount of power. Meaning, if it takes X hp or kw to sustain whatever test speed you're measuring efficiency at, the amount of fuel you use is lowered. I think this is very important to understand. Figure 6 shows that if your engine is sufficiently loaded, nonzero ethanol can improve the amount of energy you get out of the same mass of fuel relative to pure gasoline, which I believe would be directly proportional to better fuel efficiency.
Now very notably, if less heavily loaded, it seems better to use 0 ethanol. The ability to choose lets it get the best of both worlds.
Running an EV off 48V would lead to a heavily, heavily compromised vehicle. There just aren’t components that can handle 5-10kA of current with a reasonable size.
Charging speed is directly related to the voltage of the pack. Even if your own vehicle had arm-thick cables to support high speed charging at 48v there is no quick charger in the world that could support it. You would be stuck in the bad old days of needing hours to recharge the battery on your EV.
No it's not, only in a practical sense. If you truly had 'arm thick cables', you could definitely charge a 48V battery just as fast. Practically speaking, though, you don't do this because every becomes so unmanageable that you can't build a charger, bus bars, etc, that would be able to match the charging speed.
The problem isn't the cables in your car, it is the cable between the DC fast charger's transformer and your car. They are already thermally limited, which is why you need higher voltages to support faster charging.
Like I said, this assumes you use ridiculous cabling and bus bars. You could design something that handles this, it would just be wildly impractically large and cost way too much money.
Also, the problem is definitely also the cables in your car. Moving to 48V would mean amperage would increase by 10-20x, which would mean cabling thickness would have to increase substantially.
Expensive PCs are also crap. My work offers Macbooks or Windows laptops (currently, Dell, but formerly Lenovo and/or HP), and these machines are all decidedly not 'cheap' PCs. Often retailing in excess of $2k.
All my coworkers who own Windows laptops do is bellyache about random issues, poor battery life, and sluggish performance.
I used to have a Windows PC for work about 3 years ago as well, and it was also a piece of crap. Battery would decide to 'die' at 50% capacity. After replacement, 90 minute battery life off charger. Fan would decide to run constantly if you did anything even moderately intensive such as a Zoom meeting.
HDT does, kind of, but that’s already covered by the load being defined for the various conditions. HDT is always defined at a specific load so it also does not change with load (since load is fixed).
Why would this be true? An M5 MacBook Air today costs the same as an M1 MacBook Air cost in 2020 or whenever they released it, and is substantially more performant. Your dollar per performance is already better.
If they kept selling the same old stuff, then you spread production across multiple different nodes and the pricing would be inherently worse.