Thursday, November 10, 2016

Case classes in Javascript

How can you have the "case" classes like And(1,2), which contains two variables in javascript. And(val a, val b) is a Scala synthax. Case classes serve for tagging your data, particularly needed in pattern matching. So far, I used Erlang's ["&", 1, 2] style (google for "tagged tuples" and "Erlang pattern matching") in javascript. But, It looks unreliable since anybody can construct such an array by mistake so that I won't be able to distinguish it from my wrapper class .

IRC advises typescript for typechecking. There is however probably no reason to afraid since we parse results of our parser and, if it tags everything properly, we would not have data in the tag positions. 

Monday, November 7, 2016

Where does a gas-fired oven get oxygen for combustion?

The following question is banned as not asking for improvement, despite the same is highly appreciated.

Where does a gas-fired oven get oxygen for combustion? [on hold]

Where does a gas oven get oxygen for combustion? It is not a question for the burners which are located at the top of the stove. Open burners simply use the oxygen from the open air. As soon as gas touches the open air, it burns. But how can that happen in the closed environment within the oven?
The oven is isolated from the air in order to keep the temperature high within it. But, this conflicts with the possibility to have the flame there -- the oxygen is quickly consumed by combustion and the flame should go extinct. How do they manage to burn it in the isolated oven?

Sunday, November 6, 2016

A 30 day ban for appreciating the dick moderator attack on me

Here is how they darken your innocent code, openly refusing to give the evidence and, when you say that you must not object the impudent impunity of the forum owners, they suspend you.

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Cookware thermal isolation [closed]

We like to waste a lot, particularly, in the kitchen we like to wash the hot water down the tubes, literally, right into the sink. We even heat up much more water than we need: 2 leters of water to make a cup of tea or boil half of pan with just two eggs in it. We like to flush the boiling-hot water into the sink. Probably, that is the answer to my question, but I would like to ask it anyway: why do you like the cookware not to be thermally isolated from the environment?
I know some physics and chemistry to understand that, in order to cook something boiling, you need no more than to heat up the water to 100°C and leave the pan at that temperature. You should not waste more energy to maintain the temperature. It is the principle of Galileo, who taught us that you spend energy to speed up your car (raise water temperature), but, as soon as you reached your target speed (water is 100 degrees hot), you stop the acceleration. The cooking can proceed to completion, despite of zero energy inflow, because cooking is a flesh denaturation, which is driven by temperature rather than energy wasted. The only reason that you need to add some energy is the thermal leakage or friction. But, theoretically, if you reduce the thermal leakage to almost zero (nobody says that you cannot), you can cook anything for free as long as you like. Theoretically, you can even use heat pump to transfer the heat from ready cooked pan to a fresh one, exchange their temperatures and cook as many dishes as you wish with zero energy (waste).
This makes me to ask, why don't you like it? Many of you, if not most, prefer to cook without the lid (!) and nobody cares about thermal conductivity of the lid and walls, where you have the leakage even when pan is covered with lid.
I read in WP that thermal conductivity has a significant effect on the cookware items. What does that ever mean? I see that any pan is a 3D object, which means that it has 6 surfaces: top, bottom and 4 walls. Only one of 6 surfaces needs the thermal conductivity. Why don't you see that and make your cookware of homogeneous material? The energy that you supply from the bottom leaks from all other surfaces! The more conductive material you make, the higher is leakage. I would make the bottom highly thermal conductive whereas insulate the walls and the lid.
Currently, I have to drop a towel on top of the pan, but that is risky. I therefore would prefer to see the thermally-isolated cookware in the store. But you do not like it. Why? Why don't you want to travel the infinite distances at a finite drop of the energy?
It may be fine to leak the heat at winter but you do that all the year along, even during the hottest summer days. You use your cookware to heat up the rooms. I can guess that the answer is "it is irrelevant since losses are negligible contrasted with the bath/shower, for instance". But, please, confirm anyway.
shareeditdeleteflag

closed as primarily opinion-based by MóżFredTHelper May 14 at 14:41

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.
  
I do not get it. Why would you heat more water than needed in the first place? E.g. making tea, why not just heat the amount of water required? – Ghanima May 1 at 20:29
5
Welcome to the site! You raise some interesting points, but you seem to assume that I, as a reader, don't agree with you in the first place, which is largely incorrect. There are also far too many questions raised here to fit well with the clear Q&A format for this site. I suggest you separate this into independently answerable questions so that answers can be written more clearly and be more useful to everybody. I'm voting to close this in the meantime. – Highly Irregular May 2 at 0:30
1
@HighlyIrregular I have only one question. Which questions have you counhted? I assume that you do not like it because nobody does. As summarized in Wikipedia, people do not differentiate between walls/lid conductivity and bottom conductivity. I am asking like an alien from another planet, who cannot understand what is happening.– Little Alien May 2 at 6:35    
5
@LittleAlien "why do you like the cookware not to be thermally isolated from the environment?" being your one and only question? In that case,please delete some of the extraneous text as your long explanation is at best misworded (by assuming I disagree with you), rather than encouraging me to post the solutions I use to the problem you have identified. I have several, but since you have clearly identified me as not wanting or having those solutions in your question, why would waste time answering? – Ⴖuі May 2 at 7:58 
1
@LittleAlien I count 6 question marks, though some of them may have been rhetorical? – Highly Irregular May 2 at 9:05
5
Voting to close as 'opinion based'. This is a debate, not a question looking for a solution. – Jan Doggen May 2 at 14:21
  upvote
flag
Two minutes in a search engine found this interesting article on the topic which doesn't even mention the new thing I use - an induction cooker, which means it's quite safe to wrap the pot in towels or anything which saves significant energy even over just using the induction cooker. And of course the rice cookers and slow cookers that fill whole isles in shops that sell kitchen appliances. The latter makes your "no-one other than LittleAlien likes them" claim seem weak. – Móż May 4 at 4:10 
1
I think there's an objectively answerable question here, but I think it's more engineering than sustainability. And that's: "why are most pans made with sides and lid that are just as thermally conductive as the base? Wouldn't it be more efficient to have thermally insulating sides and lid?" - is that a fair summary? – EnergyNumbersMay 4 at 7:57
  
@EnergyNumbers That is a perfect summary but, as you see, we are looking at a wrong planet. In the planet that I posted the question on, the assumption, that most of the people are unaware/don't care about the heat leakage at the kitchen, was clearly dispelled by the Mσᶎ. As experienced citizen, he must be right and majority of voters join his position, as we see in the voting. So, I am sorry for researching your planet so inaccurately. – Little AlienMay 4 at 12:04   

Monday, October 10, 2016

How can one prove that US has an imperialistic plan? [on hold]

Looking at how US keeps making up the fake reasons to invade all over the world all the time, it looks like it is on the finish line to build up its empire. How can one prove that some country is becoming and empire? They say that nurse Nariah was a mistake, Kosovo genocide was fake, second invasion into Iraq was make under mistake reason, invasion into Livia was a mistake and so on. I am not asking how is it possible that superintelligent democratic regime, based of "free press" makes one war crime "mistake" after another non-stop. I want to know how to distinguish the stupidity (the western economic pressure and military interventions are explained by stupidity) from the intentional imperialism? Is it possible to prove that all these are not "mistakes" but intentional terror and bending into submission? Will it be easier to say that these all NATO interventions were not a mistake but intentional (crimes) once Russia and China (I am not talking about lesser countries like Iran, Cuba, N.Korea - they will not stand long) are squashed?

Edit: @rougon says that mistakes are not convincing because they are sudden and not intentional. He says that Empires do not make mistakes but dictate their will instead. Ok, I agree. But what is more expansive and authoritative than terrorist statement 'either you bend to our rule (join our 'leadership') or we squash you!'? How imposing your leadership by force is different from imperialism, how being exceptional, non-triable is different from being an empire? It seems that with statement The United States Must Be the World’s Policeman Only America has the material and moral greatness to stop the slide into chaos and foster peace Rasmussen pisses right into your eyes. The criminal, who was elevated to the head of NATO for making the "Iraq mistake" in 2003, openly confesses that he is fighting for the US Empire. But, you always find excuses to not agree, to avert your eyes from the Empire step. That is why I ask you: is there anything that convinces you besides the open declaration of US Empire over the mainstream media?
shareeditdeleteflag

put on hold as unclear what you're asking by Drunk CynicSam I am 17 mins ago

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.
Addition: And then there were a whole crop of liberal publications… And the charge was to criticize the empire, but never criticize it in the way it was really happening... I did a little gathering of the adjectives they used from these various books I mention… Their critiques of US empire characterize US interventionist polices as, quote…


 I want to argue, and I did argue in this book, and I think I showed it, that empire is not something that is done just because people are overambitious or misguided or inept, or they don’t have your guidance…because you’re so much smarter than all those guys are…

How is that possible that terrorists threaten EU states but not Middle East? [on hold]

I see that Western world (how do you call that superstate, controlled from the US?) is very sensitive to Islamic terrorists. Meanwhile, the West is reckless to support "moderate" jihadist "freedom fighters" in the moderately democratic states like Libya, Egypt and Syria, and also Afghanistan during the Soviet time, in the Middle East where you can easily find and recruit people crazy about Islam.
It cannot be that western superstate has a hidden agenda. So, why such blindness and outrageous double standards? Is it because they love Saudi-Quatar that much? Why don't we have the Arab Spring supported in those tyrannies?
If the western narrative is right, if Arabs did upraise against the tyrannies then why did it happen in Libya, Egypt and Syria, where you have democratically elected government but not in the absolute, west-supported Islamic tyrannies?

Edit: I have got immediate answer that people do not think about it because they are stupid. But who exactly? The most advanced intelligence service in the history is stupid? Or we are stupid if believe this excuse over and over again?
shareeditdeleteflag

put on hold as unclear what you're asking by user4012indigochildsabbahillelSam I am 8 mins ago

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit your question.