u/grimtooth

or 88000… probably even more obscure than 68K

Yeah I wonder, maybe it's a strange sport!

Oh I believe, I've spent the morning researching citrus variety

I think I'm in a 10-A, temperate California zone. This is not what I know as a kumquat, that's a sweet fruit and typically not in this perfect globular orange shape.

Definitely not

A sort of mandarin I guess? Thin peel, almost pithless, one or two large seeds per fruit. Very sour, like a lemon but orange flavor. I'm going to candy a few of them — I wonder if there are other particular culinary uses.

Well it's back to usual now, no changes on my part. Doesn't help my old-redditor anxiety though.

This reminds me of some old Survival Research Labs stuff. They loved a jet engine

Yeah, I eventually drilled mine out with a 5/32" (just under 4mm) that was actually able to bite into the collet shank and pull it out. Using a flex shaft kind of worked when I could get the drive shaft collar jammed into the collet remnant but it would always come loose after a bit.

I got the flex shaft in a package with a cheap Wen that's not cordless but otherwise pretty decent that I just used as a replacement for a while. It was I think around $30, great at the price. And now I have an extra, always handy for avoiding tool changes.

Aha! Much more sense, thanks

I am totally ignorant of weaving and looms and so on. This is a great comment, I'm fascinated — thanks. Surprising education is why I check in to whatisthisthing

Thanks!

Great post! What did you use for pseudo-code? LaTeX?

I spent several minutes going line by line trying to make sense of the field names and work out the practical result of the calculation, all thinking about issues like integer promotions, over- and under- flow etc… then I saw the last line.

Not to criticize anyone for missing it, I certainly might have if not primed to be looking closely.

People are quite right to say that static analysis tools, even just compiler warnings, would easily tip you off here. I wonder, though, if it would be useful to have a compiler flag something like strict-typedef-conversion causing typedef names to be treated as distinct rather than simple aliases. So

typedef unsigned A;
typedef unsigned Z;
Z fn(void) { A result=0xDEADBEEF; return result; }

would be an error. It would require explicit casting between structurally compatible typedefs. It'd be Pascal- or Ada- ish like 'this kind of nunber is not the same as that'. In this case you'd just typedef uint64 PhSize, etc.

Pretty simple in principle. I've never checked out the guts of clang or gcc though.

I don't upvote things often but this deserves it.

And include 'No Silver Bullet'

The little information I've seen so far suggests this at least a Sonoma-vintage problem but I skipped that one so for me it's a Sequoia issue. In Image Capture, the histogram display for manual image correction gets drawn over the whole sidebar control space — but the controls are still there! They respond to mouse etc activity, you just can't see them.

There's been no change in Image Capture version information for some years now so I presume it's either a long-standing bug in IC now exposed, or a subtle shift in underlying UI toolkit implmentation, rendering system etc that's broken an old guarantee.

Anyone dealt with this?

Oh speaking of problems it would sure be nice if reddit could search within a big convo like this

I haven't even started to listen but Stroustrup has explained every wretched thing: "That obligation would have caused significant time, space, and C compatibility overheads on C++ implementations."

Tap set? Good idea, I have some random ones I'll see if any fit

But the flex itself attaches to the outer thread of the motor shaft, right? It provides a new collet holding element and ignores the existing jammed up one.

Hm, maybe I'll try that… I basically want the flex shaft anyway tho, just trying to know if it works like I think it does.