Recent comments in /f/explainlikeimfive

Any_Werewolf_3691 t1_ixtwo60 wrote

A lot of the pump restrictions relate to gas pump fires. In truth they didn't actually know what was causing it. Finally someone ran some statistical analysis on the events and discovered it was mostly women and in cold weather. Some observation showed women were significantly more likely to get back into the car in winter. Sliding into static covered seats in a car dried out by the heater, then sliding back out to grab the handle when tank was full. This caused static discharge.

Static discharge was the primary culprit. This is also why we switched to plastic gas cans.

1

someone76543 t1_ixtw30m wrote

First of all, JFIF is another name for JPEG, so they are the same.

Second, most image file formats have a way to identify the file format by looking at the first bit of the file. All PNGs start with the same 8 bytes. All JPEGs start with the same 3 bytes.

It is quite common for image loading code to automatically detect the type of image file and load it appropriately.

However, you should not assume this applies to other types of file - it usually doesn't.

You should not even assume that all image programs will do it (though most will).

19

Squirrels_Gone_Wild t1_ixtvjt4 wrote

Not sure why no one has mentioned the idling thing yet. It's bad for the environment and wastes gas. Multiply that by the millions of cars on the road and it adds up.

According to this article, its 6 billion gallons of gas every year (half of which are "normal" cars, the other half being heavy duty stuff) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-08-10/can-cities-finally-win-the-war-on-vehicle-idling and that's with almost no one idling at gas stations.

1

laz1b01 t1_ixtvigc wrote

You ever watch Die Hard (or similar movies) where there's a plane with a leaking fuel taking off, then Bruce Willis ignites the line of leaking gas, and you see it slowly going up in flames in a straight line towards the plane?

Yea...spoiler alert, it doesn't really happen. I learned the hard way. Gas is highly combustible, so it nearly goes up in flames in an instant, so the scene in movies is for cinematic effects.

So when you put gas in a car it goes to the gas tank. From the gas tank, goes to the engine where it's burned to make the car move. Fortunately, safety laws and design have put precautions to ensure that gas within the tank is not burned. But just because it's designed for safety, doesn't mean it's 100% full proof cause of design flaws. So you turning off your car is to ensure the burned gas in the engine doesn't reach the tank (which eventually reaches the gas pump)....because if it does reach it, it'll burn instantly.

1

Tupcek t1_ixtvi9q wrote

in almost all the countries if you brought this up to court, you would get laughed at all the way there and back and probably the rest of your life.

Don’t know what it means, either that in US you could be sued for anything, which is bad because no common sense and it only serves the lawyers who can make a lot of it, or that it’s great system that takes every matter seriously. Pick your choice

4

ScandInBei t1_ixtvd1j wrote

> Because that would mean that renaming an executable to an .jpg and having someone open it in said software, executes the file.

What? That's just wrong. That's not at all how software works.

12

Quietm02 t1_ixttml4 wrote

That may be a part of it, but it's definitely mainly safety. Even countries where people have always done their own fuel have the rule.

Car engines are hot and are obvious ignition sources. During normal operation the fuel is nicely contained and that's fine. When refuelling the fuel is not nicely contained and can spill. This is an explosion risk.

Its a very small risk admittedly, but still present.

I'm not aware of any incidents at fuelling stations (though am sure there are some) but am very aware of industrial accidents where trucks have left their engine on around hazardous materials and caused an explosion. I'm sure there was a very serious one in Texas in early 2000s.

14

Fat_IRL t1_ixtt5tu wrote

I'm just a random dude reading this and have absolutely zero expertise other than fucking around with a compound bow once, but I'll just say, anecdotally, there is no fucking way in hell the draw weight of a longbow was that high. I just googled a bit and the highest I could find was a chinese Qing Dynasty bow that was supposedly 150 pounds max.

You'd need to be like a professional strongman (think The Mountain) to draw a 270 pound bow, and even then I doubt they could do it more than a dozen times.

I'm 6 foot 4 and weigh about 300 pounds, I'm large. Ive been a brickworker and an iron worker. So I feel like I'm not weak. Two of me could not draw a 270 pound bow, with both hands.

4

wades39 t1_ixtt436 wrote

Spacecraft and astronauts can move in the vacuum of space by using propulsion from rockets/jets of gas.

Newton's second law says that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

Basically, that means if you throw something, no matter what, you'll start moving in the opposite direction.

Rockets achieve this by shooting lots of gas very quickly out their rear. By shooting that gas out the back, it's effectively "pushing" the rocket forward.

And, you are indeed correct that, once you're on a path, the only way to stop moving or change direction is to either use more fuel or to use gravity.

As for interstellar travel, even the nearest star would take on the order of decades to centuries to reach. But there are some really cool ideas out there for how we could try to get there faster.

One of them is a solar sail. It's essentially a really big, thin, and super reflective parachute that catches the momentum of light to accelerate.

1