u/glasket_

Tl;dr: It probably doesn't matter on most machines now, but it could still be relevant on legacy hardware or for more niche compilers.

The bigger issue is likely to be compilers tbh. The exact optimizations can get finicky, and a reverse stride could probably screw with a "good" compiler in some edge cases, while the more niche platforms might have compilers that just don't even think about reverse stride.

For pretty much any modern x86 or ARM CPU I think it's likely to be negligible at the hardware level, if any asymmetry is even present at all. I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure modern Intel and AMD chips allocate prefetch streams independent of direction. Before ~2010 they still allocated them differently, usually around 3:1 (e.g. 12 forward, 4 reverse), but since then I believe they just prefetch based on access patterns regardless of direction and the number of them has only kept increasing.

On simpler architectures without prefetching and caching the hardware matters even less; you might have a cycle difference depending on how the stride traversal is handled, but otherwise it mostly comes down to whether or not the compiler understands reverse stride the same as forward stride and can produce optimal code for both cases.

Regarding int foo(), the behavior is removed in C23. foo() is now equivalent to foo(void). The correct way to handle arbitrary arguments now is foo(...) and the stdargs.h macros.

As for the failing to return a value, that's just UB. A function that returns a value but fails to do so isn't valid, hence GCC having differing behavior depending on optimizations. So not strictly a quirk of the language, but just something that the language doesn't consider as a valid program.

It's 3000°F. It's not as durable as dedicated foundry cements, but it can still work for awhile. OP just didn't cure it properly; it has to be fired at low heat and slowly increased over time to reach full cure.

The impact essentially fractures some of the rust and helps to dislodge the grit. Same idea as to why impact guns work on rusted fasteners. Impulse is the key thing; a large amount of force over a short period of time can overcome the friction of the oxide that's expanded and jammed the mechanism, and once it fractures and breaks it's able to be worked out of the joint.

Still, lubricating them semi-frequently helps prevent that from happening in the first place. Preventive maintenance is better than percussive maintenance.

The vuln was known but the way to actually exploit it wasn't. AI found the way to exploit the vulnerability, so it forced the maintainers to actually take it seriously and fix it rather than just letting it sit because they personally didn't think it could be exploited during the prior reports.

WD-40 isn't oil, but it still contains oil. It's a penetrant, it can provide some lubrication but only for short-term use.

Soaking in WD is a bad practice because it relies on dispersion of the oil in the solvent to actually work, while soaking will tend to cause the solvent and oil to separate (this is why you should always shake WD-40 or any other penetrating fluid that isn't a true solution). 3-in-1 wouldn't be as directly useful in this case because you do need decent penetration and flow from the solvent for removing any rust or grit that's trapped in the joint (another reason why soaking isn't strictly helpful, the pressure from a spray helps here), and then once unseized you can rinse with a pure solvent to remove the relatively thin oil film that's left behind from the WD and oil it with a proper service lubricant.

WD gets a lot of undue criticism now because the older correct criticism of "don't use WD-40 as a regular lubricant" has gradually turned into "WD-40 doesn't lubricate at all", but it still has lubricants present in the mixture which is useful specifically for these kinds of things. I personally prefer DuPont Release-It for when I actually need a "good" penetrant, but WD is specifically useful because it's cheap and you can absolutely flood things with a sprayer and use less than a $1 of fluid in the process.

It goes to a reclamation center usually, which processes it and handles crediting the company that it came from, and then they'll typically send it to scrap. It'd be kind of nonsensical to trash them rather than selling to a recycler; these places process such large quantities that they aren't deciding between throwing away or recycling one hammer but throwing away or recycling literal tons of scrap.

Similar thing with machine shops where chips, cutters, etc. are usually recycled simply because it gets some money back. People tend to forget that metal has a cash incentive associated with recycling that other things don't.

Edit: Not sure why a couple people apparently chose to downvote, but I'm assuming they think I'm defending OP simply because I'm pointing out that it's extremely likely to be recycled rather than thrown away. OP's warrantying is still ridiculous and part of why lifetime warranties are gradually turning into hassles with a ton of nitpicky clauses and conditions, but it's hardly some sort of environmental nightmare to warranty a tool.

I'd rather people actually criticize this for the obvious abuse of good faith that these warranties operate on rather than treating it as a moment to ride an environmental high horse over a couple pounds of steel. Your average person does far more to put metal into landfills by dumping appliances and throwing out old electronics. At the very least these will be properly sorted and reused, even if they shouldn't be going to a melting pot quite this soon.

You can setup snippets in editors to store unicode characters and use the prefix for the text representation, like typing lambda would let you replace it with a λ snippet. Plus there are usually extensions for editors that give you access to unicode patterns, or even tools like character pickers (Windows binds one to Win + .) that let you do the same thing.

Personally, I'm fond of Linux's compose system since you can define any sequence you want to generate a unicode symbol and you just hold the compose key (typically right Alt) while typing it, so you can do Compose + \ and get λ.

The fact it's recommending FHP belts when the machine runs at 1.5HP is insane.

Are you just running a free plan or something, because that's an absolutely awful response.

Measure the width of the pulley at the the outside edge of the groove to get the belt series, probably an A series (1/2") while B series is 21/32". Edit: Adding a link to the Engineer's Edge page on V-belts for reference on how to measure them

To get the lengths you can either route rope or string like mentioned by others, or you can measure the center to center distance for each pair of pulleys and the diameters of any of the pairs, then plug them into a calculator like this one.

Yeah, as others have stated, electric motors work differently. The vanes are specifically there because of fluid (air) motion. In electric tools, the rotor (aka armature) and stator work off of magnetism. The rotor has wires that carry current, and that current causes it to rotate due to the magnetic field.

It gets a bit more complicated due to switching and how brushed vs brushless works (plus AC induction motors work using a different mechanism), but that's the basic gist.

Everything past the rotor tends to be similar though. Gearboxes, anvils, clutches, etc. are the same aside from any power differences in the tools themselves; only the actual power generation part differs

Basically a rotary vane pump, if you know what that is. A cylinder with fins that can move and are preloaded to push back out. This way the air only flows one direction because the rotor basically seals itself against part of the housing.

https://preview.redd.it/chujpyy5m6wh1.jpeg?width=560&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=810ee43b7836415c8cb634db610235e5bac0343d

There are also spotting drills and special-purpose pilots specifically made for it with extra short flutes and point angles just above the standard point angles so that the actual drill centers in the divot.

Regular WD-40 is closer to a penetrant. It's an oil-solvent mixture and not just a pure solvent.

Those mini lathes are effectively standardized by Chinese companies at this point. They're all based on Sieg lathes, so the HF one isn't really any different, although it'll probably be a worse value than just buying one from one of the Chinese manufacturers.

The Hercules saw blades are great in my experience. The 40T woodworking blade basically lives in my tablesaw.

I use mine for woodworking and haven't had a problem. The Bauer paper always tended to immediately clog, but I haven't had much of an issue with the Hercules paper. Also haven't used their wet/dry paper though, so it could be an entirely different situation there.

I have a similar set with 1/8 BSP on the metric side just like that.

This isn't useful for purity because contaminants can cancel out, plus defects like voids can alter the density of the bar without actually changing the purity.

XRF can give ballpark results but not reliable.

XRF is more than ballpark when used properly, it just requires knowing the limitations and understanding how to use and maintain metrology equipment. With a good model you should be able to hit at least ±0.5%, and the best ones can get down to ±0.01%.

It absolutely has to be calibrated using reference materials before testing. It's only "bad" at detecting certain trace elements, thick plating, or for rockhounds who think you can blip a rock you just dug up and know exactly what's in it (largely non-homogeneous material and minerals are not what XRF is really meant for unless you just want a rough idea of what's present and don't care about the exact percentages).

Plus a lot of places just don't bother taking the steps necessary to calibrate and adjust; you need to keep known purity references, calibrate for the material being tested, make adjustments if needed (which then requires additional calibrations on other references and adjustment if the results were way off), wipe down the machine, test the piece, wipe down the machine again, test the reference again to ensure it's still reading within tolerance, and only then can you say with some certainty that the material is X%.

Scrap yards aren't the place to go for accurate readings; they're more interested in just knowing approximately what the metal is for sorting, so they don't really care if the machine has gone way out of calibration so long as they know something is mainly copper, or this other thing is mostly aluminum and zinc. It's the difference between getting a part thickness measurement from a QA inspection lab vs a woodworker; even if they both use micrometers, the former is way more likely to get you an accurate reading across the whole part compare to the latter. Doesn't mean that mics suck or that woodworkers are bad at using them, it's just two different people who use them for different purposes.

In fairness ({...}) (statement expressions) does the same thing in GNU C. The do-while form is more portable though.

Even for small craft uses it's probably easier to just buy threaded fittings and attach them to whatever you're making. Maybe it'd be useful if you have a lot of spare unthreaded PVC lying around or if you find a good deal on scrap pieces or something, but I've never really needed to thread a plastic fitting for anything.

Kind of pointless imo. If you need threads on PVC it makes more sense to just buy a threaded fitting. Pipe taps and dies are a thing, but I don't really understand this recent trend of products aimed specifically at threading PVC.

The pedantry isn't even correct; calibration just refers to the comparison to a standard. You verify based on the calibration, and you can adjust as needed if possible. Both NIST and ISO Guide 99 (VIM) define it that way. The ISO guide even includes this note:

Calibration should not be confused with adjustment of a measuring system, often mistakenly called “self-calibration”, nor with verification of calibra­tion.

Probably Foremost, an old Taiwanese Italian brand. All of the Ford scissors were bent handle upholstery shears afaik, while OP's looks like dressmaker's scissors.

Edit: Foremost being so close to Formosa must've screwed with my brain and made me think about Taiwan.