The sunk cost fallacy is a very easy way to get stuck being miserable.

Sometimes a drastic change might be painful at the time but will be much better for you overall.

Wouldn’t shooting them into Jupiter be the easiest?

I’m sure I’ve read a few things about what an impact that big bugger has on trajectories in our solar system.

Intuitively I feel like a push towards Jupiter would be easier than a push to get all the way out of the solar system avoiding Jupiter.

Ah my old friend, the superior siege weapon.

My understanding is that current atomic clocks work on changing the state of whole atoms.

Whereas this new method changes the state of part of the nucleus of an atom.

Basically smaller is more precise. However given that current atomic clocks are one second out over something like a billion years I’ve no idea what benefit this extra preciseness will give us.

We’ll probably start noticing really weird shit when we look at time that precisely. That’s generally what’s happened when we get into the quantum scale of things.

I could be wrong but I seem to remember this is one of the reasons why the baskets have a net.

You’re not allowed to do that but if the net wasn’t there then in pre-video games the refs might not be able to spot if the ball went up through the hoop.

Think they were also to stop players reaching up through the hoop to defend as well.

So you know brioche buns should be ever so slightly sticky, but a sweet sticky, right?

Not to ruin your favourite burger place but maybe you should just buy some buns from a bakers and then see what they’re like fresh.

At the moment there are two options. You can’t quite tell the difference between brioche sticky and greasy sticky or your burger place manages to get grease all over your buns.

How good are they overall? Do you want to know the answer?

Edit: Damn it came to me just too late. At the moment you’re stuck in Heisenberg’s buns. Do you want to resolve that?

Nope it’s the latch switch. So something that is switched when the latch is closed. Not the latch itself.

Read it again. It’s deformation of the hood latch switch. Not the hood latch.

Thanks for further confirming my point that you’re not reading it correctly

And what is the next word after the bit you have quoted?

Is it by any chance switch.

The full quote is deformation of the hood latch switch. Not the hood latch.

Thanks for further confirming my point that you’re not reading it correctly.

The comments read like a lot of people don’t quite understand the issue.

The bonnet (hood if you insist) latch may not warn a driver if it isn’t secured correctly. If it is secured correctly then it is fine. So it isn’t going to suddenly open.

If the latch isn’t shut correctly and then the sensor doesn’t report this then the bonnet may open unexpectedly.

If they can use a software update to correct the reporting then that’s it fixed.

There’s no issue with the actual latching mechanism. It’s just the sensor for reporting the latching state.

It may be that it currently works on a two value system. i.e a value for correctly latched and a value for not latched. If that’s the case and isn’t just not providing the second valve correctly then a simple software change to only use the latched value would fix this. As any other value or the absence of a value will report it at unlatched.

Thou shalt spell the word “Pheonix” P-H-E-O-N-I-X, not P-H-O-E-N-I-X, regardless of what the Oxford English Dictionary tells you.