Dumb Questions Thread

[RacingGrandpa]

Modern diesel engines are more thirsty before about 2k-3k km so some running in is still necessary

 

[kikie]

I broke in the new engine of my Mondeo in 2012; the first 40 km accelerate very hard through gears 2, 3, and 4 but not higher than 4,000 rpm. Stay away from 5th gear. Let go of the gas pedal, don't put the car in neutral or use the clutch and let the engine go down from 4,000 pm to around 2,000 pm and do everything all over again. So going through all the gears except 5th. Also drive normally for a few km and accelerate hard, drive normally again, let go of the gaspedal, go back to third, let go fo the gas pedal, go to second etc .... Repeat everything.

After the initial 40 à 50 km start driving normally and use the car as it should during break in. Once I almost reached 1,000 km use the engine to its full capacity potential all the way into 5th gear and drive normally.

I ran in the original engine like a grandpa, the first 600 km as it should and this engine was lazier than the second and current engine. This second engine is much more enjoyable, more torque in the lower rpm.

 

[MOPARbarrett5]

This may have been asked before given the popularity of "are _____ _____" questions, but are mittens socks? I would say yes, but I know questions like this can have reasonable arguments from both sides.

 

[UKMikey]

This may have been asked before given the popularity of "are _____ _____" questions, but are mittens socks? I would say yes, but I know questions like this can have reasonable arguments from both sides.

Given that socks are generally worn on people's feet and mittens on their hands in my experience, I would've thought the latter would have a better chance of falling into the "gloves" category than the "socks" one. This is just conjecture, mind you.

 

[TenEightyOne]

are mittens socks?

The basic construction (fabric tube closed at one end) is the same. However, socks have shaped heels while mittens have thumb gussets (I googled the name for it and wasn't disappointed). There is a specific "hand sock" which is more of a garter up to the wrist.

The etymology is vague and there's no 'manual' root to mitten, but definitions of the word back to the 18th century only ever describe it as being for the hands. So the "things" could be argued as either but the words could not.

 

[UKMikey]

mittens have thumb gussets (I googled the name for it and wasn't disappointed)

I don't doubt that searching for the origins of the muff would require some similarly deep diving.

 

[TexRex]

I don't doubt that searching for the origins of the muff would require some similarly deep diving.

Oh, you cunning linguist, you.

 

[UKMikey]

Oh, you cunning linguist, you.

The tone of this thread is definitely going down.

 

[Liquid]

Is there a distinct term for socks that contour to your toes like a glove does for fingers?

 

[TexRex]

Is there a distinct term for socks that contour to your toes like a glove does for fingers?

Ridiculous.

 

[kikie]

If I translate it to Dutch:

• Socks = sokken (feet thingy)
• Mittens = wanten or handschoenen (hand thingy)

Handschoen sounds, in Dutch, really strange.
Hand = hand
Schoen = shoe
A glove translated literally: handshoe.

 

[Joey D]

Ridiculous.

This is the correct take.

 

[UKMikey]

Is there a distinct term for socks that contour to your toes like a glove does for fingers?

Google "toe socks". I couldn't without laughing.

 

[Joey D]

Google "toe socks". I couldn't without laughing.

Do you want to see something that's cursed? Of course you do. Here's toe socks with flip flops:

This is up there with Comic Sans as one of the worst things humanity has to offer.

 

[TexRex]

Do you want to see something that's cursed? Of course you do. Here's toe socks with flip flops:

This is up there with Comic Sans as one of the worst things humanity has to offer.

 

[Joey D]

View attachment 1009514

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

 

[UKMikey]

View attachment 1009514

I admire the commitment to colour coordination but I think the aesthetic'd be better "served" by something that clashed horribly like orange and green or a paragraph about critical race theory.

 

[daan]

Here's toe socks with flip flops:

Sounds like a kids TV show.

 

[TexRex]

I admire the commitment to colour coordination...

I actually used a color picker. The blue seems a little off but it may be a result of the pixel that I clicked being slightly different from the majority.

The effort I put into that made me feel a little sick.

...or a paragraph about critical race theory.

 

[DG_Silva]

I've got a potentially dumb question: where does the money actually go with quantitative easing? It's not like the money appears in my account, and I'm not likely to have more cash in my wallet.

 

[Danoff]

I've got a potentially dumb question: where does the money actually go with quantitative easing? It's not like the money appears in my account, and I'm not likely to have more cash in my wallet.

https://medium.com/alpha-beta-blog/...ose to lend,risk of their potential borrowers.

 

[Roo]

Edit: Dont bother reading though this, suffice to say I don't understand any of it and that's blindingly obvious. Consider this edit a saving of a minute or so of your life.

So, cryptocurrencies. They seem to be a potentially easy way of making lots of money, so there must be a reason why they aren't, beyond the risk and ridiculousness, so I'm assuming there's something I'm not understanding.

For example, Elon Musk has a couple of times now got everyone all excited about one particular cryptocurrency, which has shot up in value in hours:

I honestly have no idea where to put this, but since it concerns an American (born in South Africa), a company blocked from trading in the USA (based in the Cayman Islands), and the US financial authorities... here seems fine.

So, after last year buying a load of Bitcoin secretly, then promoting Bitcoin and propelling its price upwards, then revealing his company had bought a load of Bitcoin and was selling his cars with Bitcoin, then telling people not to use Bitcoin ever again because The Environment crashing prices again (no idea if his company sold all its holdings or not, but I can guess), then promoting DogeCoin - all of which is in violation of court orders regarding his Tweets being overseen by lawyers so as not to affect markets, but apparently not enough for anyone to do anything about it - Ol' Musky is at it again.



If you don't speak Musk, the last two characters are "to the Moon", echoing his comments about DogeCoin and something something SpaceX, I don't know, whatever. The first two characters refer to... hmm... well... "CumRocket".

That's a cryptocurrency based on the Binance Smart Chain. It's themed around the... ahem... "adult entertainment industry", and there are plans to create a site for "adult entertainers" to sell their wares using the currency. There's also something about NFTs, which is a cast-iron guarantee of something being a scam.

Unpredictably, the coin has risen in value by 600% over the last 12 hours (to a massive $0.28).


*sigh*

So, say one were to keep an eye on his Twitter feed, get in early and put 1,000 of whatever real currency in:

- Cryptocurrency A sky rockets by, for the ease of maths, 1100% (I know some in the cryptocurrency thread have seen twice that). You change it all back to real currency, and now you have 11,000.

- At this point I'd take 1,000 out to replace my initial stake, so everything else is "free".

- A month or two later Musk tweets about Cryptocurrency B. You put all 10,000 in and a day later, at 1000%, you take it out again. Now you have 100,000.

- The same thing happens again with Cryptocurrency C some time later. Now you have 1,000,000.

Now, obviously that's a highly simplistic plan with some huge assumptions and risks, but it doesn't seem beyond the realms of plausibility to my simple brain. Of course you'd lose a big chunk of that million in tax, but what else am I failing to understand? Aside from pretty much all of finance, which I've never been able to comprehend. I assume if the above was reasonable, everyone would be doing it.

 

[Blitz24]

So, cryptocurrencies. They seem to be a potentially easy way of making lots of money, so there must be a reason why they aren't, beyond the risk and ridiculousness, so I'm assuming there's something I'm not understanding.

For example, Elon Musk has a couple of times now got everyone all excited about one particular cryptocurrency, which has shot up in value in hours:



So, say one were to keep an eye on his Twitter feed, get in early and put 1,000 of whatever real currency in:

- Cryptocurrency A sky rockets by, for the ease of maths, 1100% (I know some in the cryptocurrency thread have seen twice that). You change it all back to real currency, and now you have 11,000.

- At this point I'd take 1,000 out to replace my initial stake, so everything else is "free".

- A month or two later Musk tweets about Cryptocurrency B. You put all 10,000 in and a day later, at 1000%, you take it out again. Now you have 100,000.

- The same thing happens again with Cryptocurrency C some time later. Now you have 1,000,000.

Now, obviously that's a highly simplistic plan with some huge assumptions and risks, but it doesn't seem beyond the realms of plausibility to my simple brain. Of course you'd lose a big chunk of that million in tax, but what else am I failing to understand? Aside from pretty much all of finance, which I've never been able to comprehend. I assume if the above was reasonable, everyone would be doing it.

In my eyes, the people buying into it now are bandwagoning and hoping it keeps up the pace. I am still skeptical of a currency that fluctuates wildly in value, has nothing tangible about it, and is linked to multiple instances of increasing wasteful electricity usage.

 

[Joey D]

In my eyes, the people buying into it now are bandwagoning and hoping it keeps up the pace. I am still skeptical of a currency that fluctuates wildly in value, has nothing tangible about it, and is linked to multiple instances of increasing wasteful electricity usage.

That's me with crypto and the meme stocks. In the past month, I've made stupid money. In one day AMC went up like 120%. I bought it in the morning, let it go crazy, and then sold it just before the market closed. I'm close to having enough to pay off my car and with a little more goofing around, I should be able to get my wife's student loans paid off too. I typically don't invest like this, but as they say on r/wallstreetbets...YOLO.

 

[wfooshee]

My stepson gave me 60 bucks in Litecoin for my birthday last month. It's now worth $33.15.

I got 5 bucks of bitcoin for signing up on coinbase.com. That's now at 3.08.

By watching "learn about..." videos on coinbase I've picked up 10 bucks in Stellar Lumens, 3 bucks in graph tokens, 3 bucks in Polygon, 3 bucks in Ampleforth tokens, and 3 bucks in SKALE. All free, for doing nothing more than watching videos. Those are now sitting at 5.07, 2.70, 2.68, 1.86, and 1.83. All I can say is I'm glad this was all free! Total starting value: $89. Current value: $50.41.

I signed up for Coinbase when I saw bitcoin just about to break $60K. I think the crypto crash is my fault. Nothing has gone up since I signed up.

 

[Blitz24]

My stepson gave me 60 bucks in Litecoin for my birthday last month. It's now worth $33.15.

I got 5 bucks of bitcoin for signing up on coinbase.com. That's now at 3.08.

By watching "learn about..." videos on coinbase I've picked up 10 bucks in Stellar Lumens, 3 bucks in graph tokens, 3 bucks in Polygon, 3 bucks in Ampleforth tokens, and 3 bucks in SKALE. All free, for doing nothing more than watching videos. Those are now sitting at 5.07, 2.70, 2.68, 1.86, and 1.83. All I can say is I'm glad this was all free! Total starting value: $89. Current value: $50.41.

I signed up for Coinbase when I saw bitcoin just about to break $60K. I think the crypto crash is my fault. Nothing has gone up since I signed up.

So, by that logic, when you get rid of it, it should skyrocket in value? Let me know when you are going to sell.

 

[TexRex]

So, by that logic, when you get rid of it, it should skyrocket in value? Let me know when you are going to sell.

*googles SEC phone number*

 

[TexRex]

This was posted elsewhere and it reignited a curiosity of mine. Nothing to do with the thrust of the message conveyed, and everything to do with an interjection he's used therein.

"Hey ho." Or perhaps "hey-ho." Probably not "hey, ho," which seems an unflattering way of getting a woman's attention.

What is it? I've observed it in varied contexts, and having just looked it up, I've gotten conflicting definitions (even from the same source) that suggest it's used to convey weariness but also happiness.

Is it that context-dependant? Could it even convey both feelings simultaneously (this actually seems like a British thing)? What do you suppose he was conveying in using it in the context that he did?

 

[MaxAttack]

This was posted elsewhere and it reignited a curiosity of mine. Nothing to do with the thrust of the message conveyed, and everything to do with an interjection he's used therein.

"Hey ho." Or perhaps "hey-ho." Probably not "hey, ho," which seems an unflattering way of getting a woman's attention.

What is it? I've observed it in varied contexts, and having just looked it up, I've gotten conflicting definitions (even from the same source) that suggest it's used to convey weariness but also happiness.

Is it that context-dependant? Could it even convey both feelings simultaneously (this actually seems like a British thing)? What do you suppose he was conveying in using it in the context that he did?

Yeah, it's both, in the most British way possible, and no real difference in how it's said for either purpose - relying on the common sense of all involved to seperate sarcasm from seriousness.

To explain more fully, it can certainly be used as a sincere expression of happiness, but would probably feel a little dated, which probably only adds to its usefulness as a tool of dry sarcasm.

But, hey ho, it's nothing so nuanced or specific that it can't be used offhand with little consideration to whether one is "doing it right".

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Edit: Dont bother reading though this, suffice to say I don't understand any of it and that's blindingly obvious. Consider this edit a saving of a minute or so of your life.

So, cryptocurrencies. They seem to be a potentially easy way of making lots of money, so there must be a reason why they aren't, beyond the risk and ridiculousness, so I'm assuming there's something I'm not understanding.

For example, Elon Musk has a couple of times now got everyone all excited about one particular cryptocurrency, which has shot up in value in hours:



So, say one were to keep an eye on his Twitter feed, get in early and put 1,000 of whatever real currency in:

- Cryptocurrency A sky rockets by, for the ease of maths, 1100% (I know some in the cryptocurrency thread have seen twice that). You change it all back to real currency, and now you have 11,000.

- At this point I'd take 1,000 out to replace my initial stake, so everything else is "free".

- A month or two later Musk tweets about Cryptocurrency B. You put all 10,000 in and a day later, at 1000%, you take it out again. Now you have 100,000.

- The same thing happens again with Cryptocurrency C some time later. Now you have 1,000,000.

Now, obviously that's a highly simplistic plan with some huge assumptions and risks, but it doesn't seem beyond the realms of plausibility to my simple brain. Of course you'd lose a big chunk of that million in tax, but what else am I failing to understand? Aside from pretty much all of finance, which I've never been able to comprehend. I assume if the above was reasonable, everyone would be doing it.

It's not that easy timing the transactions and picking the coins. In theory that could happen, but I'm guessing the percentage of people is low compared to ones that actually don't make it work. When it comes to "investing" people are better at losing money than making money.

There is potential to make money as there is a lot of volatility from day to day.