bike gears are numbered now? Is 1 high, or 8? I press the little button at the front to pop one gear up, and push that big thumb lever to push the chain back up the cassette, it's intuitive. If I need to check if the bike is in the right gear (not concerned exactly which one) I pedal a little. What product manager added _numbers_ to bike gears?
You can ignore the numbering if you've got no interest in which gear you're currently using. Usually the lowest number will be the "lowest" gear - the one that is easiest to pedal up-hill which will be the largest cog on the rear cassette.
I like to consult the table that explains what every program really does for any washing machines that I use :) I want relatively short, more water than minimum, medium-gentle agitation, medium RPM spin dry. It has many names.
Same query, but for my dryer. Particularly the "Jeans" program. It is explicitly stated on every pair of jeans which I own that I should never attempt this. And yet, the program exists. Did they find a workaround? Or are they selling an empty promise?
The problem with clothing labels is that they don't know the type of equipment you have. Lots of stuff that says on the label to never put in the dryer works fine in my heat-pump dryer, because it doesn't get nearly as hot as a conventional dryer.
Interesting that the tech these days is going in the opposite direction. These trends to hide technical details (e.g. files on iPhone) can get really frustrating when it doesn't work. Almost a mockery.
Apple's hate for the concept of files has me up in arms ever since I realized this is why my parents are so confused anytime anything on their iPhone doesn't work.
Younger people grown with mobile OSes don’t understand files anymore, or the concept of directories or a filesystem shared by all programs.
design design design
how I love good design
how I love designing and building things
how I love dissasembling things, and fixing and modifying things, re purposing parts
how I love wrecking yards, with the worlds guts casualy spread out and on display, and making friends with the denisins thereof, some intricate
shiny thing bieng rended for its intrinsic worth
and comments such as "ya...we get a lot of THOSE..", the whole thing bieng quite litteraly a modern archiological dig for treasure, and at $10000/ton for #2 copper, the digging is quite enthusiastic........but certain things, get reverantly.,...removed from the maw, set aside and traded back into the world, to be rebuilt
and put into service.....
The main issue I see is that the old axiom of supply, following demand has been perverted by advertising, and it is now possible to supply demand for ANYTHING, and largely face no repercussions, as the market is so large, and moving so fast, that concensus amongst end users dissatisfaction cant coaless to the point of financial penalties on the designers and pervayors
of junk. And as junk, can be made junkier, and therefor cheaper, good stuff is pushed into unprofitability......except in industrial and comercial versions of products, where there is no room for shenanigans involving durability OR useabality.
bike gears are numbered now? Is 1 high, or 8? I press the little button at the front to pop one gear up, and push that big thumb lever to push the chain back up the cassette, it's intuitive. If I need to check if the bike is in the right gear (not concerned exactly which one) I pedal a little. What product manager added _numbers_ to bike gears?
Not sure if you’re being ironic, but bikes with hub gears (usually three to seven gears) have had gear numbers in the shifter for decades.
One-based indexing is an example of this. It's always argued as being familiar, as if people learning to program couldn't deal with adding 1.
Meanwhile off-by-one errors are ludicrously common… People can learn to deal with adding 1, but it’s still a cognitive encumbrance that loads us down and makes life harder. Not that I’m advocating for one-based indexing. At this point consistency is more important than whatever the easier solution is.
Off-by-one errors are more likely with 1-based indexing because they don't have the nice properties of 0-based/right open intervals that mean you don't have to add or subtract 1 all over the place.
For example what is the index of pixel X,Y in an image buffer? X + Ystride right? Nope! It's X + (Y-1)stride.
What's the range of the Ith block of N elements? [in, in + n)? Nope! It's [(i-1)n+1, in].
I have to deal with that nonsense in Matlab all the time. Nightmare.
No, zero based indexing just is based on how arrays actually work. It has nothing to do with resources being scarce. You have an address for the beginning of the array and an offset. The first element has no offset so you use zero. Therefore you naturally end up with zero indexing.
Yeah but why wasn't that converted to human 1 based indexing at the machine code level or assembly in early machines? Maybe because they didn't want to "hide the bicycle gears"?
No, it's because it doesn't make any sense to do that. It would add a ton of complexity for no benefit.
One-based indexing is an example of this. It's always argued as being familiar, as if people learning to program couldn't deal with adding 1.
Meanwhile off-by-one errors are ludicrously common… People can learn to deal with adding 1, but it’s still a cognitive encumbrance that loads us down and makes life harder. Not that I’m advocating for one-based indexing. At this point consistency is more important than whatever the easier solution is.
One-based indexing simply has its own set of off-by-one bugs.
bike gears are numbered now? Is 1 high, or 8? I press the little button at the front to pop one gear up, and push that big thumb lever to push the chain back up the cassette, it's intuitive. If I need to check if the bike is in the right gear (not concerned exactly which one) I pedal a little. What product manager added _numbers_ to bike gears?
I don't understand the complaint. It's useful especially for people not riding every day or dozens of km on weekends. Sure, press or rotate to go up or down, but then you end up cross-chained on the largest chainring and largest cog.
I have had bikes that did not have numbers, but at least had indicators giving you an approximation where you're at. I sometimes miss that on my road bike when I'm not sure if I should change the gear on the front or not. When you ride enough you get a feel for it, but again not everyone does that.
bike gears are numbered now? Is 1 high, or 8? I press the little button at the front to pop one gear up, and push that big thumb lever to push the chain back up the cassette, it's intuitive. If I need to check if the bike is in the right gear (not concerned exactly which one) I pedal a little. What product manager added _numbers_ to bike gears?
Bike gears have had numbers for many decades. The ancient (even then) Raleigh 20 I had as a kid had gear numbers (3), though searching now I see some Raleigh 20s had names instead. Every non-road-bike I've had since has had clearly visible numbers on the gear shifters.