Really. Especially taken with the "toy" statement that follows, this reads to me like "this isn't perfect but we had a good crack at it and are happy with how good it came out for our purposes".
I’m sorry but I fail to see how this quote you’ve provided isn’t suggesting that the model is good. Your message is clearly positive.
What I’m saying is that this is almost certainly completely untested and entirely reliant on the fun game mechanics used to simplify the experience of playing Cities: Skylines. Like, iirc, the game does not implement any sort of rush hour logic.
The gameplay is focused on logistics, so those aspects have a lot more control. I particularly enjoy that in conjunction with the model railway aesthetics.
- You build roads and railways, and stations for passengers and cargo (road/rail/air/sea)
- You set up 'lines' to connect various stations, and you can specify what and how much gets loaded/unloaded at every station (or whether vehicles on that line stop there at all), and how long vehicles should wait for their cargo
- You buy each vehicle and assign it to a line, and in the case of trains you also buy each component e.g. locomotives, passenger cars, stake cars, hoppers depending on what your line needs to transport
The cities grow by themselves based on the passenger transport links with other cities and the level of goods supply. There's no zoning, building water pipes, schools, or anything like that. Just the minutiae of getting things from A to B via C to pick up some more things destined for Y and Z.
I think questioning the money is just as important. There is so much conflicted money pushing the "climate change isn't real" narrative that it should raise more suspicion in skeptics.
Allegedly, Klaus Schwab. In reality it was a writer for the WEF that wrote an article about how bugs can be a more sustainable source of protein when compared to meat. The owning nothing part was another article looking at trends when Uber was taking off that imagined a future where everything could be rented through an app.
I thought ultra sonic was defined as being above the sonic range of humans. Genuine question: why would an ultrasonic noise generator create sound audible frequencies? Can it not provide enough power without doing so?
Ultrasonicators for the purpose of cavitation research are insanely powerful and non linear material response cause all sorts of vibrational modes to boom.
The ultrasonic tub, (Vevor LOL, like everyone else gets for their bike parts), speeds up the process, specially oak shards.
For comparison, I also have a Soxhlet apparatus. As the extraction is boiled in the bottom with the recycling solvent it does not make the best flavours but it's the fastest way to get stuff like cinnamon.
Between a longer time, soxhlet and ultrasonic, the ultrasonic gives flavours as smooth as a longer time without the wait. (The ultrasonic bath heating up is still a problem so I have to cycle it).
Time beats both.
I think a short path soxhlet maybe be as good. My setup is a bit fragile for a good vacuum though.
Although you are entirely correct in a technical sense, and it's common to serve hot brewed coffee cold, the opposite is so rarely desired that it will be considered 'weird' (in the sense of 'unusual') 9 out of 10 times.
Every extra process involved in making a coffee is going to add complexity and time to the workflow, which many cafes will elect to charge extra for.
There is some consternation in Australia about paying more for iced coffees compared to hot ones too:
I know, I know. You’re right. But… even if it is weird, it is so easy! It’s not really the default assumption that’s frustrating, it’s when I get push-back for a request that is normal and default for other espresso drinks, something trivially doable, something every barista does dozens and dozens of times a day.
