• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 16th, 2023

help-circle




  • It’s all marketing. You likely only know that Dominos had the system patented because it slaps a big patent number right on the tracker. The fact that you’re discussing it is essentially free advertising and increases brand awareness. So, this post suggests that the investment in patent lawyers was likely worthwhile for the company.

    Largely, consumers seem to derive the below listed perceptions when they recognize that a product is protected by a patent:

    1. When a message about a product being protected by a patent is conveyed, the company as a whole is perceived to be innovative
    1. The patented product is perceived to be superior
    1. The patented product is perceived to be unique, as no one else can copy the patented product

    from https://www.invntree.com/blogs/using-patents-marketing-tool-good-bad-and-ugly

    (this is not a defense of any of these practices; simply indicating what is going on here)


  • Answer: 45 and cloudy will melt snow faster in most cases. Snow is pretty reflective, so the heat transfer is more efficient when it comes from the air than straight from the sun, especially when there is wind to move and replace cooled air.

    Since snow-melting is a thermodynamic process the investigation pertained largely to a consideration of the various factors influencing the transmission of heat to the snow-mantle. Of these factors, it was found that for high melting rates the heat contributed by convection and condensation of moisture through turbulent diffusion of warm moist air are the important heat-sources. The problem is, then, largely a consideration of the upper limit values of air-temperature, humidity, and wind-velocity compatible with an adequate snow-cover, and the relationship of these values to the rate of snow-melt. Light, 1941



  • uncomfortable with this being the headline and seems like without further research this could just be one of those confirmation bias things. seems to make some assumptions that we don’t know empirically such as:

    • teachers in the 1980s were a good judge of character, fairly identifying who bullies whom
    • that this aggressive behavior at 10 years old continues meaningfully into later life

    not denying the scientific accuracy of the study, but the journalist integrity of making this the headline.

    edit: you can read the original article here, and yeah the actual text of the summary vindicates my judgment of the Guardian article. the original authors frame it as an analysis of “socio-emotional skills,” not agression per se, because again, these kids are ten, not even in high school yet.