Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 609 posts

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#551

Post by xxs »

kragen wrote: post #486
xxs wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that low voltage is guaranteed not to shock, can burn of course. High voltage is inherently dangerous.

High voltage is not inherently dangerous. In a dry climate you can easily develop ten thousand volts by lying down in a bed without bedsprings with a long acrylic blanket and pulling the blanket over your head hair with your feet. You can get multiple-centimeter-long branching sparks of static electricity from your finger. The only danger of the activity (to you) is that you might produce enough ozone to irritate you…

electronics die off ESD w/o the xray. I didn't mentioned ESD on purpose as indeed what really matters is energy/joules. If you have a source capable of high power but for too short time it won't be that dangerous either.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#552

Post by Nextgrid »

compiler-guy wrote: post #407
mypalmike wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious what theoretical mechanism might there be for an airpods case to be findable?

AirPod cases have Bluetooth and report battery levels to the paired iPhone. From there, one could imagine it working like any other Bluetooth tracker.

I'm not sure cases have Bluetooth - I think they use either of the inserted AirPods as a proxy to communicate its status to the phone (the power pins must have a minimal communication protocol to allow the case to talk to the pods).

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#553

Post by elif »

throwaway9870 wrote: post #62
elif wrote: post #2

It's terrible how little basic electronic safety is practiced in virtually all of these videos. When we handled high amps in university, we had 3 hours of lecture first simply explaining safety precautions and how to handle accidents. Not to mention, the burnt wood looks so gaudy and uninteresting. I would hardly call it fractal as it only goes 2-3 levels usually, and artistically doesn't usually make sense on furnit…

It probably should have been more than 3 hours given that you likely mean "voltage" not "amps". Before everyone jumps on me, "it is the amps that kill you, not voltage", I understand electricity quite well and in this context, saying something like "handling high amps in a university" is almost certainly not what was taught.

lmao you couldnt figure out how to turn off your tv... spoilers, hold the power button for 2 seconds.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#554

Post by m-p-3 »

samizdis wrote: post #56
logifail wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Before people realize that they can't really make a 3-layer cake in a toaster Our 12-year-old recently tried to make himself "cheese on toast" by putting both cheese and uncooked bread into the (almost brand new, upright) toaster. Aaargh! Cue the house full of smoke, a stern reprimand, then a couple of hours of my time wasted on removing every last piece of burnt greasy cheese from inside the toaster, followed by s…

At the risk of sounding like a salesperson, I'd like to mention a feature of basic/classic Dualit toasters - namely, the optional and elegantly simple sandwich cage. [1] The cage is designed to take two slices of bread with a filling (in my usage, always heavy on the cheese). You put this into the toaster slot, which is vertical, and safely make cheese/whatever toasties. So, your 12-year-old had the right idea, but n…

Even with the cage I'd be worried that the content could still slip into the toaster.

I'll keep using my toaster-oven for that.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#555

Post by xxs »

elif wrote: post #516
throwaway9870 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably should have been more than 3 hours given that you likely mean "voltage" not "amps". Before everyone jumps on me, "it is the amps that kill you, not voltage", I understand electricity quite well and in this context, saying something like "handling high amps in a university" is almost certainly not what was taught.

It's also possible for low voltage shocks to cause your hand muscles to seize the hazard and be unable to release it. In fact, my TENS unit, specifically designed to cause muscle contraction, runs on 9V. Edit: ah... I see a throwaway account was used, so you will never have to confront your mistake. I wish these were banned.

I cant see how 9v dc can shock you aside touching the leads with tongue... or using any step up electronics.

As a kid we used to test batteries voltage with the tongue, 9V had a distinctive bite, compared to 4.5V. Even today I can tell the output voltage of a multimeter (in its ohm mode)

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#556

Post by SECProto »

henryfjordan wrote: post #542
SECProto wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toaster ovens and toasters are at most 1800W appliances. Typical electric oven elements are in the 3000-3500W range. If you're broiling, toaster ovens are much more efficient. Ovens I've used take roughly 15minutes to warm to 400F (200C), regardless of if they are electric or gas.

How many times can you run that oven before you spent the energy required to produce the toaster oven? I'd bet it's in the thousands.

If you apply the same anti-consumption calculation to everything in life I applaud you wholeheartedly.

That said, you can buy a toaster oven for $30 from Walmart, and that cost covers the energy, material, transportation, and labour, plus markups at each stage. If you assume a $0.10/kWh energy cost, you might have at absolute most 100kWh of energy used in manufacture. That puts the oven/toasteroven breakeven point from an energy perspective at no more than about 60 hours of heating element usage.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#557

Post by Nextgrid »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #342
fendy3002 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hdd or ssd are hot swappable? thats cool, thanks for sharing. as for ram I have tried it once and it freeze the pc, I forgot if I have another plugged in or not though.

Sata is hotswappable. IDE was not. And I believe m.2 would be if the connector was designed a little different, because that’s all u.2 is. Compact Flash Express is, but again, that’s NVMe and splitting hairs between u.2. Typically on hot swappable devices it’s been common to make the ground pins a little longer than the rest, ensuring that those will make contact first. The issue with hot swappable devices aside from…

> no data transfer will happen until you reboot

I think this is something the OS can override. If I remember correctly I could discover a hotplugged SATA device in Windows by using "Scan for new hardware" in the Device Manager.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#558

Post by Nextgrid »

hedora wrote: post #397
pessimizer wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imperfect moderation is inevitable at the massive scale of social media companies. If social media companies can't function well at that scale, what's the reason for having social media companies at that scale? We should set and enforce expectations, and when companies get to the scale where they can't meet those expectations, fine them until they "rightsize."

I'm a fan of removing legal carve outs for social media companies. If it's hosted on your domain, then you are liable, just as a book publisher would be. If people want to publish stuff, they can buy a raspberry pi or an s3 bucket. If people want to moderate content, they can hire an editorial staff (like magazines and podcasts do). I'm not sure how to handle Wikipedia. It's a net positive for society, and this propo…

> I'm not sure how to handle Wikipedia. It's a net positive for society, and this proposal would effectively ban it.

The rule could only apply when you profit from impressions from the content. Platforms that rely on ad revenue tied to views would be covered (as the forbidden content is directly driving their revenue), platforms that are either free or use an alternative monetization model not dependent on impressions (flat monthly fee regardless of which content was consumed or how many times) would be exempt.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#559

Post by Nextgrid »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #442
hedora wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money. Lots of dislikes imply lots of ad views.

I've worked in advertising on the creative/client facing side, no one cares if their ad gets disliked. Engagement is engagement. Don't think that's the reason.

He could've meant that dislikes are a signal to people to not watch the video and those represent a lot of lost engagement.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#560

Post by pastacacioepepe »

DangitBobby wrote: post #149
pastacacioepepe wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people die. Is that an acceptable cost? Does your solution make any considerations for ongoing harm? You talk as if this isn't exactly what happened in the current framework of private censorship. Even if abolishing private censorship would cause the scenario you outlined, that wouldn't be worse than the current situation and at least you'd solve the problem of pointless censorship.

If the video goes down and fewer people see it, fewer people die. How was the censorship pointless? You didn't "solve" any problems, you just ignored the actual complexity of the real world to uphold your ideals.

> If the video goes down and fewer people see it, fewer people die.

Isn't it the case that the dangerous video was left up while the criticism was removed?

> How was the censorship pointless?

I'm talking specifically about private censorship.

Post reply on HN