monotremata

Yes, to an extent they do different things, but that's not what the person you were replying to was talking about. For several years there was this idea that "left-handed people are right-brain dominant, and right-handed people are left-brain dominant." And along with that went this whole astrology-tinged thing about the right brain being the creative half and the left brain being the analytic half and whatnot. It's pretty much nonsense.

The "Scunthorpe Problem" strikes again!

Not as far as I know. Practically speaking there are several disadvantages--the slots limit the light on the markings, parallax effects can mess with the reading, it requires two full surfaces sliding against each other which increases friction, etc. Plus with a regular vernier scale you can see both sides of a line, which could give you a better sense of how they line up ("vernier acuity"). But in a case like this, where precision isn't a top priority and ease of use might outrank it, I think there's an argument to be made for it.

I wouldn't have caught that the gallery link was wrong if you hadn't mentioned not knowing how the tool was used, so thank you as well!

Yeah, I think we just disagree about this. You're implying that letting this go forward would be giving in to the state acting capriciously, but that's really not what this is. The states have literally already started spending the money--hiring contractors and so forth to physically build things--based on the funds that the government had already decided to send them, but is now arbitrarily yanking back. Note that this is different from "we are accustomed to receiving funds for this"; instead it's "you made a specific commitment to provide X funds for Y purpose, and are now suddenly stiffing us on the bill." In that light, withholding a portion of the funds that the state ostensibly owes the government in order to make up that unexpected shortfall really isn't that unreasonable. You keep portraying this as them withholding money "because they disagree with federal policies," and saying "what those policies are and why is completely irrelevant," but the policy they disagree with is the sudden and arbitrary withholding of previously-committed funds to the state, and they are withholding state funds to the feds as a direct way of offsetting that deficit. That makes it feel extremely relevant.

I just don't think it absolutely has to be the slippery slope you're portraying it as. I'm getting into technicalities because we're discussing the law and precedent, and technicalities matter a whole freaking lot when you're dealing with the law. There's a reason descending into technicalities is referred to in roleplaying games as "rules lawyering".

And as for highly populous states having a larger influence on federal policy...isn't that just democracy? Power derives from the consent of the governed, and at the moment that consent is at a particularly low ebb.

In any case, yeah, I think we just disagree on this, and it's all moot in the face of the specific court in power. I'll let you get the last word if you want to reply, but I'll probably drop it at this point.

I feel like you're missing a point here. It's significant that this isn't just

they disagree with federal policies that are affecting them.

It's that the federal government has made a commitment to provide funds to the state (e.g. the broadband construction funds, funds to build EV charging stations, etc.) and the federal government is now refusing to disburse those funds because the current administration has decided it doesn't like paying the bills the previous administration incurred, at least to states Trump feels aren't adequately supportive of his policies. The proposal in this case is to withhold delivery of funds the state is supposed to give the government in order to offset the funds the government is also contractually obligated to deliver.

I agree with you that this specific supreme court would definitely rule in favor of the feds, but I definitely don't think the case is as absurdly one-sided as you seem to find it. I think a different court could probably find precedent for this kind of dispute if they were so inclined.

Yeah, it's definitely not the most precise thing. It's good to around ±1mm. I tried to measure 1.75mm filament with it, and it just reads 1, not even between 1 and 2, so for critical measurements the physical matches are definitely better.

And yeah, here the vernier effect is not giving very high precision; it's just giving a way to space the marks out enough to be printable, but indicate movements that are as small as a printed line.

Vernier calipers are absolutely ingenious, and it's a shame that more people don't know how to use them.

Sorry, just realized I also had the wrong link for the gallery that included photos of the tool in use! I edited the post, but here's the corrected version of that: https://imgur.com/gallery/moire-vernier-radius-gauge-design-3d-printing-ajy0GBg

Sorry all! I meant to post a video of the moire/vernier effect in action, which is the most eye-catching part of the whole project, as the main image for the post, but it didn't upload. And now when I try to edit in a link, or post a link to it in the comments, it's telling me "blocked URL." But there's a link on the printables page, and the version with the older version is in the imgur gallery which is linked.

It's not just Fox News. Bezo's Washington Post ran an editorial, written by "the editorial board," about how Mamdani would be "bad for New York and bad for the Democratic Party," claiming he would destroy public transit, reduce the number of grocery stores, drive away big businesses, depress low-skill employment, etc., etc., etc. Oh, and of course that this would discredit all the other young candidates across the country. The WaPo's threat earlier this year to make their editorial page aggressively pro-capitalist and anti-public-good was apparently very much in earnest.