Today I learned (TIL)........

TIL another bit of my laptop has broken off.

So far I've replaced the keyboard, bluray drive, battery, and keep supergluing the bits of plastic together. This time it's the bit that holds the screen. Everytime you lift the lid it cracks a bit more.

I should buy a new one but I love my laptop and can't be bothered setting a new one up but I am starting to think its days are finally numbered.


Feel your pain, my MacBook Pro which is 11 years old, extra Ram, ssd and a new battery later is still going strong but I’ll need to ditch soon as Apple are no longer offering updates for it anymore . I can’t stick the last iOS on it now so it’s day are numbered.
 
Feel your pain, my MacBook Pro which is 11 years old, extra Ram, ssd and a new battery later is still going strong but I’ll need to ditch soon as Apple are no longer offering updates for it anymore . I can’t stick the last iOS on it now so it’s day are numbered.
Don’t worry I can’t install iOS on my MacBook either. :cool:
 
The bottom corner also lifts up, I think a screw fell out of that bit as well. One of the reasons I like it is it has 4 USB sockets and can output video to both HDMI and D-Sub so connects to old and new projectors. Even the missus said I need a new one and I was saying it was fine, while I was fixing it again.
 
TIL.... That not only was there a second John Wick film but there us also a third.
I recently watched the first and thought that Hollywood had reached new heights of absolute tosh, very little story and stupidly impossible fight scenes. I thought this was just a one off, just another example lack if originality coming out of the Ametjcan film industry but no, someone decided it was worthy of not one but two and possibly more sequels.

But it's Keanu Reeves man!
 
I have no idea why he punishes himself so much, if I'm not interested in a franchise or TV coverage, I ignore it. Reminds me of FZR :D
 
The bottom corner also lifts up, I think a screw fell out of that bit as well. One of the reasons I like it is it has 4 USB sockets and can output video to both HDMI and D-Sub so connects to old and new projectors. Even the missus said I need a new one and I was saying it was fine, while I was fixing it again.
Is it the same age as you in laptop years? Just wondering.
 
As another note, Keanu/John Wick spent a lot of time learning to move his gun in the balletic moves. Even if you aren't keen on his acting he has put a lot of effort in it. Most of the stuntwork is him. Also a lot of the films like this tend to overuse "Shaky-cam" now. The John Wick filming doesn't. You are meant to appreciate the choreography.

The C.A.R. system of gun fighting

It has black comedy moments. Everyone knows who John Wick is, there's a complaint about noise, a policeman turns up at the door, sees a corpse, is happy to learn "it's just John sorting out problems" and doesn't want to get involved and leaves.
Damn you @Sonic67 !! - it looks like I’ll have to watch the first two and the the new one after all..... it sounds ok :)
 
Pension age for most laptops.
 
Fixed it again, I've taken a screw from elsewhere on the laptop and used it to fix the hinged corner where you pivot the screen. It makes a cracking sound as there's some metal broken inside, but the lid does open and close again. It's good for a bit longer.
 
Fixed it again, I've taken a screw from elsewhere on the laptop and used it to fix the hinged corner where you pivot the screen. It makes a cracking sound as there's some metal broken inside, but the lid does open and close again. It's good for a bit longer.
Yeah but what was the other screw holding in place?:)
 
Fixed it again, I've taken a screw from elsewhere on the laptop and used it to fix the hinged corner where you pivot the screen. It makes a cracking sound as there's some metal broken inside, but the lid does open and close again. It's good for a bit longer.

Have you ever thought of becoming a surgeon ?
 
Have you ever thought of becoming a surgeon ?


I was a gynecologist. I'm retired now but I still like to keep my hand in.
 
TIWLTL (today I would like to learn) why on landing and take off in the dark, the internal lights on a plane are dimmed.

I have heard a few reasons in pubs around rev world including minimum loads on generators and therefore maximum available for engines, or higher brightness is too much and the plane is too bright for controllers (affects night vision etc.

@The Dreamer - could you shed some light on this (pun intended:) ?)
 
TIWLTL (today I would like to learn) why on landing and take off in the dark, the internal lights on a plane are dimmed.

I have heard a few reasons in pubs around rev world including minimum loads on generators and therefore maximum available for engines, or higher brightness is too much and the plane is too bright for controllers (affects night vision etc.

@The Dreamer - could you shed some light on this (pun intended:) ?)

I was told it’s for passenger safety. Dimming the lights allows your eyes to adjust to darkness. If something happened then your vision is better for you to try and get out
 
TIWLTL (today I would like to learn) why on landing and take off in the dark, the internal lights on a plane are dimmed.

I have heard a few reasons in pubs around rev world including minimum loads on generators and therefore maximum available for engines, or higher brightness is too much and the plane is too bright for controllers (affects night vision etc.

@The Dreamer - could you shed some light on this (pun intended:) ?)

So your eyes are correctly adjusted.
 
I was told it’s for passenger safety. Dimming the lights allows your eyes to adjust to darkness. If something happened then your vision is better for you to try and get out

So your eyes are correctly adjusted.

That be the given reason, but iirc, the eyes take around 30-40 minutes to adjust to dimmed light/ dark. Turning down the lights 5 minutes before landing won't make that much of an improvement on your night vision. I think it's to have a calming effect on the passengers at a time which is most stressful for those that do get stressed when flying - based on zero evidence, I believe most people that don't like flying would claim to be most strung out during landing.
 
Upon exposure to darkness, the rhodopsin is able to regenerate and reactivate, becoming sensitive again to light and improving our night vision. But this regeneration process takes time. Cone cells take about 10 minutes to adapt to the dark. Lastly, the rod cells in our eyes are responsible for black and white vision.
 
TIWLTL (today I would like to learn) why on landing and take off in the dark, the internal lights on a plane are dimmed.

I have heard a few reasons in pubs around rev world including minimum loads on generators and therefore maximum available for engines, or higher brightness is too much and the plane is too bright for controllers (affects night vision etc.

@The Dreamer - could you shed some light on this (pun intended:) ?)

It's simply to adjust your eyes to a darker environment in case of an emergency requiring evacuation.

In the event of an emergency requiring an evacuation, the aircraft will lose all electrical power as the engines, including the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) are shutdown, and the cabin will be plunged into darkness, with just the emergency lighting available to guide you to the exits.

A rapid change from a bright environment to a very dark one, will a. be much harder to see in, and b. likely to engender even more panic from anyone in the least bit nervous about what's going on (as most probably will be).

The amount of power consumed by the lights is a fraction of other systems on board, and isn't a consideration from a performance perspective.

For your pub mates...

On some types of aircraft, the pressurisation system is switched off for the take-off run to allow the engines to generate more power, as on most jet aircraft the cabin air is pressurised using air 'bled' from the engines, which reduces their efficiency slightly.

This might be done for two reasons, one for when you are performance limited on shorter/hotter/higher runways, where you want the absolute maximum amount of power available. And at other times, by allowing the engines to 'potentially' give you more power, you can actually then 'de-rate' the take-off power by a greater percentage, and actually reduce wear and tear on the engines.

Almost every take-off we do involves 'reduced thrust', so reducing wear and tear, and also making the chance of an engine failure during that critical phase less likely - so we win all-round. The car analogy would be the difference between accelerating gently up to motorway speeds, and planting your foot hard on the accelerator.

It is why, in broad terms, if you watch airliners take off, all of the twin engine aircraft will rotate at roughly the same spot on the runway, no matter how heavy or light they are. The heavier ones will be using more thrust, and the lighter ones will have reduced their take-off thrust - so they all end up at roughly the same spot. (Note, not applicable on very long runways such as Heathrow, as there is only so much 'thrust reduction' we can do, so very light aircraft will inevitably have reached this, and still get airborne quicker than a much heavier aircraft).

There are other variations; aircraft with more engines will use more runway to get airborne, and there are variations in stopping distances etc. But generally, the idea is to reduce power to the point where the runway just about becomes performance limiting, i.e. you apply just enough power to reach the required speeds at the appropriate point on the runway, and no more (there are margins built in).

So, there you go. Probably a bit more info than you needed, and it's a very basic generalisation - but you'll be able to correct your mates at the bar! :D

HTH

edit: Oops! I just went straight for answering the original quote, and have only now just read the other replies - which of course, were all correct! Go to the top of the class fellas! :smashin:
 
Last edited:
TIL that the heat shield protecting the Space Shuttle's wings was made up of 44 individual shields, each costing $800,000 and took a month to manufacture.

This shield is what failed during Columbia's re-entry, after being struck and damaged on launch by a part of the foam from the external fuel tank.

Taken from this great blog, by a Shuttle Flight Director:

STS-121: The Hardest Launch – Part 3 Wing Leading Edge
 
So, there you go. Probably a bit more info than you needed, and it's a very basic generalisation - but you'll be able to correct your mates at the bar! :D
Thanks to you as well and very much appreciated:) I’ll be able to be the smartarse in the pub from now on :thumbsup:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom