Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | qwertay's commentslogin

There needs to be some kind of legislation to prevent these privacy abuses. Workers are having their rights continually eroded


I think the usual argument is that Ti lasts longer but carbon lasts for ages if you don't crash it and the people willing to spend $10k on a bike usually welcome the chance to buy a new one every 5-10 years anyway.


I'm not sure the argument that Ti lasts longer is really valid anymore.

I have 2 carbon mountain bikes that I've put thousands of miles on. Both are about 7 years old at this point. Early carbon as a bit fragile, but newer carbon seems pretty damned solid.

Even if you do break them, they are repairable. My wife broke the frame on her bike not long ago and she wound up getting it repaired. It was surprisingly affordable and the fix is likely stronger than the original.


Yeah that seems likely, I have seen people do repairs on carbon before depending on the level of damage.

There is also the old saying "If you don't tell the rest of the group ride that your bike is titanium, it will transform in to aluminum."


The argument is not always true though. Welding of titanium is not easy, and often there is tension in the frame. Even 10 years and 50 thousand kms later it can crack. The better welding culture is in the US and Russia, but even then there are series of bicycles that earn a bad reputation for cracking.

Another argument against titanium is that mining and purifying of titanium is not so easy on the environment. If that is important to someone, it might get counted as a factor.


When 99% of modern Ti bikes have a carbon fork I don't think this argument holds up much. The advantage of Ti for me is that it is a metal bike (metal wears beautifully) without the weight penalty of steel. The downside is the cost...


Out of legitimate curiosity: what is the actual weight difference between a nice steel frame and a Ti frame? My nice road bike is 40 or 50 years old Reynolds 531 and it feels like it weighs nothing, especially compared to my mountain bike or my beater road bike.

My understanding is that with advances across the industry, it's pretty easy to build a bike under the UCI minimum weight, which suggests that you could make the frame out of whatever is best for the application.


Some of the lightest road bikes out there are steel, in the ~14lb range.

You can get stupid light in Steel, Ti, Carbon, Aluminum, but once you're in the sub 16ish lb range, you're going to be going with superlight parts all around, as there's just not that much frame left to make light.

You can make a fully equipped (steel) randonneur at 20lbs, with fenders, rack, pump, generator, and lights. It's not cheap (~10k+ is my guess), but man is it a well crafted bike. With some care, I think that style bike can be done with common components and off-the-shelf frames in the 25lb range.


I'm a big fan of steel bikes, so don't take this the wrong way, but you cannot build a steel bike as light as a carbon one for any reasonable price or robustness. The most high end steel bikes will barely be competitive with mid-level carbon weight-wise. If you are optimizing for weight, carbon is the only way to go. However, there is more to a bike than just weight :)


If you're going for stupid light, there are compromises. Money and robustness are the first two things to go.

Rodriguez is advertising production steel bikes at the 14lb level: https://www.rodbikes.com/catalog/outlaw/outlaw-main.html Yeah, they're pricey. (10k) (That's production vs custom frame, meaning that they might have one off the rack in the right measurements, if not it's a couple of hundred to do a custom geo)

But superlight Carbon is going to be up there too, and it's going to use basically the same parts, +- bottom brackets and such. And frankly, I would trust superlight steel before I'd trust superlight carbon.

There are some pretty awesome Ti bikes as well, including custom 3d printed lugs, cranks, forks, stem, etc. They are in the same weight range, and IIRC 8kUKP.

If you're looking at commercial production, probably fair that carbon is going to be lighter. But the the people pushing the edges aren't limited to that.


Assuming both have a carbon fork, the difference is a few hundred grams.


Don't even trust "private" cloud storage. I used google docs in school and randomly they locked one of my documents that I needed to work on citing "tos violation". Week later the document was unlocked but I will never trust them again.


Thats true but the license users agree to usually says they grant the platform full rights. Users still retain their rights but you would have to contact every reddit user for their permission individually.


I have to wonder if the author is not understanding the hidden complexity of rendering graphics. They make the claim that svg would take over a month to implement which sounds accurate, but then they claim that it could be replaced with a new format which could be implemented in a few days.

Surely SVG does not include months of work which is entirely useless. What features are we giving up for this simplicity?


Is it more logical to have a point tag which has the attributes x and y or have x and y as their own tags and values? Its not clear to me which makes more sense and it seems the spec writes using xml didn't know either.


since x and y are simple names, have simple values, and are unique pairs that apply only once to a point: attributes.

to use anything else means relying on an arbitrarily-complex custom schema rather than the much-simpler-and-far-more-standard schema of the language itself. similar to how we use datatypes in programming languages rather than just strings everywhere. both work! one is clearly giving up a lot, and gaining little.


XML is not an ideal format for computers.


Its good if you need dynamic charts in JS but if you just want a graphic or a logo I wouldn't use it. Its also a huge pain to maintain, they update the library once a year with breaking changes and then it takes me a day or 2 to work out how the old version worked, how the new one works and how to move all my graphics over.


I have found dyson to simply be reliable. Yes it might not be the best value for money but when you buy a dyson product you will almost never be disappointed.


They released a new version that fits the form factor of traditional dryers where you only put your hands under it without having to dangle them between 2 pieces. They work pretty well although they do make the table/floor wet since they are blowing the water off your hands rather than evaporating it.

I always found the traditional hot air ones to be useless and I would walk away with wet hands after using one.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: