El Tue, 27 Feb 2024 21:04:05 +0100, Ace escribió:

> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:07:26 +0000, YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 27/02/2024 13:37, Mark Olson wrote:
>>> Tim <nobody@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't mention cups. Who thought that the idea of a cup was a unit of
>>>> measurement? Oh yeah, the "customary" cup is one sixteenth of a US
>>>> gallon. This doesn't do much for my cooking skills :)
>>>
>>> Cups are at least as reasonable a unit of measure as are three
>>> barleycorns laid side by side.
>>
>>Nope, sorry, London buses is the only measurement I will accept.
>
> You need to get a bit more up to date. These days everything is measured
> in bananas, didn't you know?

Olympic swimming pools, shirley?

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es

On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 08:16:19 -0000 (UTC), Higgins
<the.best.names.are.gone@gmail.com> wrote:

>Mark Olson <olsonm@tiny.invalid> wrote:

>>and can the brakes (already under
>> some stress due to the vehicle's above average weight) handle the
>> extra weight of an unbraked trailer?

>My understanding is quite the reverse, that the brakes are hardly stressed
>at all due to regenerative braking.

I've got some real-world personal experience of this.

On my Nissan Leaf [1], I hardly ever have to touch the brakes, even
going down some fairly steep hills.

The sensation of seeing the amount of 'fuel' in your 'tank; go up when
you're just driving downhill hasn't paled yet :-)

[1] 2017, bought 3~4 months ago
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 15:33:37 -0000 (UTC), Ben Blaney
<benblaney@gmail.invalid> wrote:

>On Feb 23, 2024 at 10:54:31 AM EST, "Mike Fleming" <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
>>> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking
>>> about the weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of
>>> pounds rather than tonnes.
>>
>> And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the inability to
>> use the metric system.

>https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqng9hbq2ps761.png

Not a statistically significant sample size

--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

On 27/02/2024 20:04, Ace wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 18:07:26 +0000, YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 27/02/2024 13:37, Mark Olson wrote:
>>> Tim <nobody@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't mention cups. Who thought that the idea of a cup was a unit of
>>>> measurement? Oh yeah, the "customary" cup is one sixteenth of a US
>>>> gallon. This doesn't do much for my cooking skills :)
>>>
>>> Cups are at least as reasonable a unit of measure as are three
>>> barleycorns laid side by side.
>>
>> Nope, sorry, London buses is the only measurement I will accept.
>
> You need to get a bit more up to date. These days everything is
> measured in bananas, didn't you know?

Only if you use the EU straight ones

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 2/27/2024 5:36 PM, Mike Fleming wrote:
> On 23/02/2024 16:45, chrisnd @ukrm wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 15:54, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>> On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
>>>> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking about the
>>>> weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of pounds
>>>> rather than tonnes.
>>>
>>> And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the inability
>>> to use the metric system.
>>
>> While it seems there are still many people in the UK who need a
>> calculator to convert between (eg) millimeters, centimeters and
>> meters, I am alarmed to suspect not many people anywhere have grasped
>> the metric system!
>> <exasperated mode ON>
>> If you're going to use a calculator anyway, the metric system is
>> somewhat 'devalued'.
>> <em OFF>
>
> I was referring to things such as
> http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/ and
> https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-06-20-mn-9972-story.html
>
Seriously? You're using one piece of data that's over 50 years old? (In
metric years, that is.)

--
The erstwhile Thomas
FJR1300, R1200GS & ST1100 (in memoriam)

On 29/02/2024 04:06, Turby wrote:
> On 2/27/2024 5:36 PM, Mike Fleming wrote:
>> On 23/02/2024 16:45, chrisnd @ukrm wrote:
>>> On 23/02/2024 15:54, Mike Fleming wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
>>>>> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking about the
>>>>> weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of pounds
>>>>> rather than tonnes.
>>>>
>>>> And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the
>>>> inability to use the metric system.
>>>
>>> While it seems there are still many people in the UK who need a
>>> calculator to convert between (eg) millimeters, centimeters and
>>> meters, I am alarmed to suspect not many people anywhere have grasped
>>> the metric system!
>>> <exasperated mode ON>
>>> If you're going to use a calculator anyway, the metric system is
>>> somewhat 'devalued'.
>>> <em OFF>
>>
>> I was referring to things such as
>> http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/space/9909/30/mars.metric.02/ and
>> https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-06-20-mn-9972-story.html
>>
> Seriously? You're using one piece of data that's over 50 years old? (In
> metric years, that is.)

Also it was a mix up between feet and nautical miles. A mix up between
Imperial and SI is understandable but a mix up with nautical
measurements is unfathomable.

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

Bruce Horrocks wrote:

> Also it was a mix up between feet and nautical miles. A mix up
> between Imperial and SI is understandable but a mix up with nautical
> measurements is unfathomable.

*applause*

--
Chris

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 14:32:42 -0000 (UTC), "CT" <me@christrollen.co.uk>
wrote:

>Bruce Horrocks wrote:
>
>> Also it was a mix up between feet and nautical miles. A mix up
>> between Imperial and SI is understandable but a mix up with nautical
>> measurements is unfathomable.
>
>*applause*

Plumbing the depths with that one.
--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

On 29/02/2024 14:32, CT wrote:
> Bruce Horrocks wrote:
>
>> Also it was a mix up between feet and nautical miles. A mix up
>> between Imperial and SI is understandable but a mix up with nautical
>> measurements is unfathomable.
>
> *applause*
>
*standing*

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On 28 Feb 2024 12:08:11 GMT, Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>>>> Don't mention cups. Who thought that the idea of a cup was a unit of
>>>>> measurement? Oh yeah, the "customary" cup is one sixteenth of a US
>>>>> gallon. This doesn't do much for my cooking skills :)
>>>>
>>>> Cups are at least as reasonable a unit of measure as are three
>>>> barleycorns laid side by side.
>>>
>>>Nope, sorry, London buses is the only measurement I will accept.
>>
>> You need to get a bit more up to date. These days everything is measured
>> in bananas, didn't you know?

>Olympic swimming pools, shirley?

Of course, El Reg has done this to death over the years:

https://www.theregister.com/Design/page/reg-standards-converter.html

The standard unit of area is the nanoWales
--
Champ
neal at champ dot org dot uk

I don't know, but I been told
You never slow down, you never grow old

On 29/02/2024 15:02, Champ wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2024 12:08:11 GMT, Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Don't mention cups. Who thought that the idea of a cup was a unit of
>>>>>> measurement? Oh yeah, the "customary" cup is one sixteenth of a US
>>>>>> gallon. This doesn't do much for my cooking skills :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cups are at least as reasonable a unit of measure as are three
>>>>> barleycorns laid side by side.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, sorry, London buses is the only measurement I will accept.
>>>
>>> You need to get a bit more up to date. These days everything is measured
>>> in bananas, didn't you know?
>
>> Olympic swimming pools, shirley?
>
> Of course, El Reg has done this to death over the years:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/Design/page/reg-standards-converter.html
>
> The standard unit of area is the nanoWales

Brilliant!

Chris
--
The Deuchars BBB#40 COFF#14
Yamaha XV750SE & Suzuki GS550t
http://www.Deuchars.org.uk

YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/02/2024 13:37, Mark Olson wrote:
>> Tim <nobody@home.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Don't mention cups. Who thought that the idea of a cup was a unit of
>>> measurement? Oh yeah, the "customary" cup is one sixteenth of a US
>>> gallon. This doesn't do much for my cooking skills :)
>>
>> Cups are at least as reasonable a unit of measure as are three
>> barleycorns laid side by side.
>
> Nope, sorry, London buses is the only measurement I will accept.

You are at odds with the arbiter of all that is right and logical.

El Reg

https://www.theregister.com/Design/page/reg-standards-converter.html

Champ <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2024 12:08:11 GMT, Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Don't mention cups. Who thought that the idea of a cup was a unit of
>>>>>> measurement? Oh yeah, the "customary" cup is one sixteenth of a US
>>>>>> gallon. This doesn't do much for my cooking skills :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cups are at least as reasonable a unit of measure as are three
>>>>> barleycorns laid side by side.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, sorry, London buses is the only measurement I will accept.
>>>
>>> You need to get a bit more up to date. These days everything is measured
>>> in bananas, didn't you know?
>
>>Olympic swimming pools, shirley?
>
> Of course, El Reg has done this to death over the years:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/Design/page/reg-standards-converter.html
>
> The standard unit of area is the nanoWales

Drat. Ginge'd by C.

On 29/02/2024 15:02, Champ wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2024 12:08:11 GMT, Paul Carmichael <wibbleypants@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Don't mention cups. Who thought that the idea of a cup was a unit of
>>>>>> measurement? Oh yeah, the "customary" cup is one sixteenth of a US
>>>>>> gallon. This doesn't do much for my cooking skills :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cups are at least as reasonable a unit of measure as are three
>>>>> barleycorns laid side by side.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, sorry, London buses is the only measurement I will accept.
>>>
>>> You need to get a bit more up to date. These days everything is measured
>>> in bananas, didn't you know?
>
>> Olympic swimming pools, shirley?
>
> Of course, El Reg has done this to death over the years:
>
> https://www.theregister.com/Design/page/reg-standards-converter.html
>
> The standard unit of area is the nanoWales

Ah, of course, the "linguine"

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

On Feb 26, 2024 at 3:16:19 AM EST, "Higgins"
<the.best.names.are.gone@gmail.com> wrote:

> My understanding is quite the reverse, that the brakes are hardly stressed
> at all due to regenerative braking.

We just put the first set of replacement brake pads in our Tesla. It's done
70,000 miles.

On Feb 28, 2024 at 7:20:25 AM EST, "Champ" <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 15:33:37 -0000 (UTC), Ben Blaney
> <benblaney@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 23, 2024 at 10:54:31 AM EST, "Mike Fleming" <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
>>>> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking
>>>> about the weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of
>>>> pounds rather than tonnes.
>>>
>>> And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the inability to
>>> use the metric system.
>
>> https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqng9hbq2ps761.png
>
> Not a statistically significant sample size

If sample size is "all", by definition it is statistically signficant.

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 01:20:07 -0000 (UTC), Ben Blaney
<benblaney@gmail.invalid> wrote:

>On Feb 28, 2024 at 7:20:25 AM EST, "Champ" <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 15:33:37 -0000 (UTC), Ben Blaney
>> <benblaney@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 23, 2024 at 10:54:31 AM EST, "Mike Fleming" <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
>>>>> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking
>>>>> about the weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of
>>>>> pounds rather than tonnes.
>>>>
>>>> And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the inability to
>>>> use the metric system.
>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqng9hbq2ps761.png
>>
>> Not a statistically significant sample size
>
>If sample size is "all", by definition it is statistically signficant.

Err, no Ben, that's not how it works. "Significance" is, loosely
explained, a measure of how likely an observed event is to have
occured by chance, compared with how likely it is to be a result of
any given factor. In this case you'd need to have lots of moon-landing
countries and lots of non-metric countries to be able to be confident
that there's some link between the two things.

Adie would be able to explain it better than me.
--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

On 02/03/2024 20:10, Ace wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 01:20:07 -0000 (UTC), Ben Blaney
> <benblaney@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 28, 2024 at 7:20:25 AM EST, "Champ" <neal@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2024 15:33:37 -0000 (UTC), Ben Blaney
>>> <benblaney@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Feb 23, 2024 at 10:54:31 AM EST, "Mike Fleming" <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23/02/2024 10:24, Tim wrote:
>>>>>> Watching a NASA broadcast yesterday they were talking
>>>>>> about the weights of space vehicles in the hundreds of thousands of
>>>>>> pounds rather than tonnes.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's why several things have gone wrong for them, the inability to
>>>>> use the metric system.
>>>
>>>> https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqng9hbq2ps761.png
>>>
>>> Not a statistically significant sample size
>>
>> If sample size is "all", by definition it is statistically signficant.
>
> Err, no Ben, that's not how it works. "Significance" is, loosely
> explained, a measure of how likely an observed event is to have
> occured by chance, compared with how likely it is to be a result of
> any given factor. In this case you'd need to have lots of moon-landing
> countries and lots of non-metric countries to be able to be confident
> that there's some link between the two things.
>
> Adie would be able to explain it better than me.

Ben is right because "population" and "sample" have specific meanings in
statistics. <https://www.statology.org/population-vs-sample/>

The diagram shows all countries and therefore is the full population not
a sample.

The reason it's hokum is because the conclusion the viewer is being
asked to draw ignores confounding variables.
<https://www.statology.org/confounding-variable/>

As always, XKCD has a concise explanation:
<https://xkcd.com/552/>

--
Bruce Horrocks
FJR1300AS

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 22:03:23 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
<07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:

>
>On 02/03/2024 20:10, Ace wrote:

>>>> Not a statistically significant sample size
>>>
>>> If sample size is "all", by definition it is statistically signficant.
>>
>> Err, no Ben, that's not how it works. "Significance" is, loosely
>> explained, a measure of how likely an observed event is to have
>> occured by chance, compared with how likely it is to be a result of
>> any given factor. In this case you'd need to have lots of moon-landing
>> countries and lots of non-metric countries to be able to be confident
>> that there's some link between the two things.
>>
>> Adie would be able to explain it better than me.
>
>Ben is right because "population" and "sample" have specific meanings in
>statistics. <https://www.statology.org/population-vs-sample/>

Thank you, Mr Murray.

Should I have mentioned that both Adie and myself worked, at times
together, in statistical analyss, for many years? And she still does,
was always more stats-y than me, hence the reference.
--
Ace
http://www.chaletbeauroc.com/

Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 22:03:23 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
> <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 02/03/2024 20:10, Ace wrote:
>
>>>>> Not a statistically significant sample size
>>>>
>>>> If sample size is "all", by definition it is statistically signficant.
>>>
>>> Err, no Ben, that's not how it works. "Significance" is, loosely
>>> explained, a measure of how likely an observed event is to have
>>> occured by chance, compared with how likely it is to be a result of
>>> any given factor. In this case you'd need to have lots of moon-landing
>>> countries and lots of non-metric countries to be able to be confident
>>> that there's some link between the two things.
>>>
>>> Adie would be able to explain it better than me.
>>
>> Ben is right because "population" and "sample" have specific meanings in
>> statistics. <https://www.statology.org/population-vs-sample/>
>
> Thank you, Mr Murray.
>
> Should I have mentioned that both Adie and myself worked, at times
> together, in statistical analyss, for many years? And she still does,
> was always more stats-y than me, hence the reference.

It’s a long time since I was statsy. For more manager of managers these
days.

--
Adie
(Who has finally re-bought a connection to the German server following the
demise of GG)

On 03/03/2024 14:55, Adrienne M Bonwick wrote:
> Ace <Ace@ch.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Mar 2024 22:03:23 +0000, Bruce Horrocks
>> <07.013@scorecrow.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 02/03/2024 20:10, Ace wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Not a statistically significant sample size
>>>>>
>>>>> If sample size is "all", by definition it is statistically signficant.
>>>>
>>>> Err, no Ben, that's not how it works. "Significance" is, loosely
>>>> explained, a measure of how likely an observed event is to have
>>>> occured by chance, compared with how likely it is to be a result of
>>>> any given factor. In this case you'd need to have lots of moon-landing
>>>> countries and lots of non-metric countries to be able to be confident
>>>> that there's some link between the two things.
>>>>
>>>> Adie would be able to explain it better than me.
>>>
>>> Ben is right because "population" and "sample" have specific meanings in
>>> statistics. <https://www.statology.org/population-vs-sample/>
>>
>> Thank you, Mr Murray.
>>
>> Should I have mentioned that both Adie and myself worked, at times
>> together, in statistical analyss, for many years? And she still does,
>> was always more stats-y than me, hence the reference.
>
> It’s a long time since I was statsy. For more manager of managers these
> days.
>

Been just as long since you popped in here :-)

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/

YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote:

>
> Been just as long since you popped in here :-)
>

Very true. Used to browse on GG occasionally but that going made me pay for
the German server. Just need to remember to open it now!

--
Adie

On 11/03/2024 00:21, Adrienne M Bonwick wrote:
> YTC#1 <ytc1@ytc1.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> Been just as long since you popped in here :-)
>>
>
>
> Very true. Used to browse on GG occasionally but that going made me pay for
> the German server. Just need to remember to open it now!
>

I never got on with GG. And use have continued to use ES (with Tbird)
for years... and years ... and years.

--
Bruce Porter
"The internet is a huge and diverse community but mainly friendly"
http://ytc1.blogspot.co.uk/
There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/