[deleted]

There's a whole bunch of different materials, but basically sintered (i.e. powdered metal), Kevlar / rubber, and pads which combine the previous two are most common.

[removed]

You are correct when the rim is clean and dry.

Here are some reasons to prefer disc breaks

https://cyclingtips.com/2022/06/a-complete-faq-to-disc-brakes/

Oh, i understand the point of being away. About the material, is it a metal or what? I've never changed one so I don't really know how is it from the inside

Im not familiar with the case but generally in constitutional states if a law is ruled as unconstitutional then it is treated as if the law never existed (since it has been found to be invalid) therefore all convictions based on it are considered invalid. This is different to a law being repealed (which the original post refers to)

The material is pretty similar to what you get in car disc brakes. The only real advantage of a disc brake is that it's further away from the tyre / road / track, and therefore doesn't get as wet and dirty, which in turn improves brake performance.

Because the disc rotor is an easily replaced component, there's no concern about it wearing out, so disc brake pads can use more aggressive materials to increase friction between the pad and rotor.

Is it possible for the government to retroactively charge people with crimes, or is that unconstitutional?

While /u/Aussie_Mo_Bro's answer is good, I think one piece that needs more explanation is that most programmers make money by selling their time, not by selling their code.

Very few programmers write code to sell directly to customers.

Sure, it happens sometimes. There are some indie apps and games on the app store. And some programmers sell their code. But overall that's not a great way to make money.

Instead, most software that needs to be written - including websites and apps - is a means to an end. Chipotle has an app so that people will buy burritos. Avis has an app so that you can rent a car. Chipotle and Avis each pay lots of programmers to build those apps for them. That's generally how most developers make money.

To repeat: Programmers don't make money by writing code and selling the code. They make money by people paying them to write custom code for them.

So because of that, when a programmer releases something as open-source, they didn't lose anything. The code is already written, it's not going to make them money if they keep it secret.

By itself, nothing, since they still broke the law when they committed their initial offense and were duly convicted of it. In principle, you could even prosecute and convict somebody after the legalization for an act committed before, though it seems unlikely any prosecutor would bother. Though if you bothered to legalize something, you might also want to commute the sentences of anyone previously convicted.

This is a mirror of "Ex Post Facto" - if you pass a law making some act illegal, you can't convict somebody who did that act before the law was passed because it wasn't illegal at the time. In principle, it's supposed to be possible for an individual to determine if an act they are considering performing is illegal or not, and for them to be able to rely on that determination.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Questions about a business or a group's motivation are not allowed on ELI5. These are usually either straightforward, or known only to the organisations involved, leading to speculation (Rule 2).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Washington state recently did this (Blake). Retroactively making weed convictions and everything associated with them (LFOs, points etc.) unconstitutional. Legislature is currently working on a bill to lay out how to reimburse everyone affected. (I may have over simplified some of this but basics are correct.)

Cognitive dissonance is a scenario where you have some sort of conflict in your views and beliefs. This is usually (a) a disconnect between your supposed beliefs and your actual actions, or (b) two or more conflicting beliefs.

These days it seems to be commonly used in political type debates and arguments: e.g. you passionately support party/candidate X, but then they say or do something you strongly disagree with. You are a strong believer in some sort of policy or idea, but it will disadvantage many people or cause some negative side effect. You condemn 'The Other Side' for doing something but then dismiss/downplay/whitewash 'Your Side' for doing the same thing.

The dissonance occurs because deep down, you know all this is 'wrong' on some level, which may cause you great distress, confusion, disappointment or anger.

In some cases, this may cause you to temper your beliefs and ideals "OK so this isn't as clear cut and perfect as I thought, there's all these conflicting things in there, maybe I need to think about this more". This is mostly a normal healthy response.

But it can sometimes lead people into denialism and extremism. "I believe passionately in something, this challenges my belief in this something, therefore it must all be a lie!". This is often how conspiracies and similar crazy theories can develop; people don't know or don't want to deal with their cognitive dissonance, so dive down increasingly narrow and extreme rabbit holes to keep from having their views challenged.

This is a good answer, and I'd also add that many individuals/companies thrive only because they exist in an ecosystem where everyone contributes to the advancement of software. Amazon makes a lot of money selling cloud computing resources, for example, so it benefits them to make contributions to advance and grow software development in general which then drives more demand for cloud compute.

There's two common uses of this term - in philosophy of science and in mathematics (arguably it was also a philosophical issue when first described). u/o0oo0oo0oo0ooo's answer (as well as the Stanford philosophy page) are good resources on the philosophy of science one. Edit: It seems like that answer was erroneously removed - if you were actually asking about that, let me know and I can summarize it as well.

In mathematics, incommensurability is best understood through the classical Greek conception of numbers around Archimedes' time. The fundamental entities were the whole numbers 1, 2, 3, ... . There was no decimal notation, but it was obvious that numbers could measure lengths, and that lengths between the whole numbers existed. They developed a system equivalent to fractions, but they thought of them slightly different. If some interval had length 3/2, that meant that you could break it up into 3 intervals, each of which was the result of breaking up some reference interval into 2 parts. In general, fractions were not their own numbers, but could only refer to some kind of relationship between the numerator and denominator, which were numbers. Measuring a length using fractions actually meant you were comparing the lengths of various intervals, and those intervals are called commensurable - literally, co-measurable, or having a common measure.

This was ruined with the discovery of the 45-45-90 right triangle. If this triangle had legs with length 1, then its hypotenuse has length √2. As you may have learned, √2 is an irrational number, which means it cannot be written as the ratio of two whole numbers. This fundamentally broke the previous conception of the relationship between lengths, fractions, and numbers - we had found two lengths that were incommensurable, not able to be measured relative to each other (using the only kind of number that existed at the time, whole numbers).

They had discovered that their notion of length was broader than their numerical notion of measure. This was just a feature of classical geometry (some lengths were commensurable, some were not), but nowadays we don't make that distinction as much because people are comfortable using real numbers and Cartesian geometry, where irrational lengths are just another number. Also, nowadays instead of the above, we say that commensurable means expressible as a rational number, and incommensurable means irrational. This definition is identical, though it loses some of the historical context.

Some companies will OS a subset of the features, which allows users to build around their code only later to discover they really like it and are willing to pay for the additional features.

RedHat a major linux support company OS all their code in the beginning, they made money off of support and service rather than the actual code.

In SI there's:

m for length

m^(2) for area

m^(3) for volume.

No need for L, hectares, etc. It's glorious.

Please read this entire message

Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).

Anecdotes, while allowed elsewhere in the thread, may not exist at the top level.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

A liter is a measurement of volume equal to 1000 cm^3 or .001 m^3 . It is not an SI unit because it can be derived entirely using an SI unit. There are only 7 base SI units, meter, second, kilogram, Kelvin, mole, candela, and Ampere (should be a Coulomb but I don't make the rules), if it's not made up of those it's not an SI unit. A Newton is an SI unit because it's a kg*m/s^2 , a Coulomb is an SI unit because it's an A*s

So a couple of things, it usually isn’t the outfield where they shift (well they do, but it isn’t as dramatic) and not where the ban is. The ban is for the infield. For a right handed hitter, the 2nd baseman will shift over and play on the 3rd base side of second, and the SS and 3rd baseman move over a little as well, basically saying “we know if you hit a ground ball, you will hit it to the left side of the infield and there’s no way it’s going to get through us if you do now.” For a left handed batter it’s in reverse and they all shift to the right side of the infield for the same reason.

Asking “why don’t they just hit it the other way” is sort of like saying “why can’t a pitcher who hurt his elbow on his throwing arm just pitch with his other hand then?”

First it’s not every batter they would do this for. It is only about 40% of batters, those that overwhelmingly pull the ball. These batters have hit like this their entire lives. Their entire approach at the plate with timing, movement, rhythm, muscle memory, etc is predicated on hitting that way. And remember that these are basically the best people in the world at hitting a ball with a stick. Could they learn a different swing? Maybe, but they made the major league because of their current swing.

Also, keep in mind that when the defense employs the shift, pitchers pitch a certain way as well. Batters tend to pull pitches on the inner half of the plate and push pitches on the outer half. And a batter will tend to pull off speed pitches more and push very fast fastballs (like pitches that can hit the upper 90s and triple digits). Finally higher pitches are easier to hit in the air, and lower pitches, especially those with late breaking movement tend to be hit on the ground. So a pitcher will throw primarily on the lower inner third, and will take a little off their fastball and throw off speed to get the batter to pull the ball, and will try to throw with downward or inward movement to force grounders and pop ups.

Changing their swing to try to hit the opposite way could have a drastic impact on their hitting ability in general, and ruin their ability to return to their old swing when the defense isn’t in the shift. Plus for most of those hitters, the goal isn’t to hit a ground ball anyway. The goal is to hit a home run in every at bat. The shift doesn’t matter when the batter crushes the ball. Changing their swing means they aren’t crushing the ball anymore. So most of the adjustment they are doing is swing lower since they will be expecting pitchers on the lower inner quadrant and are trying to avoid hitting a grounder.

[removed]

Please read this entire message

Your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):

• Top level comments (i.e. comments that are direct replies to the main thread) are reserved for explanations to the OP or follow up on topic questions (Rule 3).

Plagiarism is a serious offense, and is not allowed on ELI5. Although copy/pasted material and quotations are allowed as part of explanations, you are required to include the source of the material in your comment. Comments must also include at least some original explanation or summary of the material; comments that are only quoted material are not allowed.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe it was removed erroneously, explain why using this form and we will review your submission.

There's a significant incentive for programmers early in their career, which is as a resume builder. College students are often advised to put school or independent projects on github to use during interviews.

Also lets not forget other developers can add to it and work out possible problems, pretty cooperative envoirement at times.