Reaching out

[Oldddudders]

"I'm relaxed about that." What? 

[Nearholmer]

Those of you who don’t have frequent interaction with teenagers may be surprised to learn that “I’m good” means “no”.

 

 

[BoD]

It confuses me no end (easily done) when someone issues ‘strict guidelines’.

[Peter Kazmierczak]

Is this an oxymoron? "Lessons will be learnt".

[Hibelroad]

Centered around, a centre is a point so it can only be centered on. And don’t get me started on plug sockets, it’s either a plug or a socket, in engineering they would be termed male and female parts, I bet you won’t get it wrong now. Ah here comes the nurse with my medication ... 😁

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, BachelorBoy said:

 

This really intrigues me. Why do you think it is "prototypical" if it's the wrong size? Or, why is a wrong-sized model not "uprototypical"? 

 

5 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

IMO, there are two tests:

 

1) if I look at this model, can I see straightaway what it represents, and are all the main bits there in decent proportion to one another?

 

2) is this model dimensionally to scale with what it represents in every respect, using the same scale throughout?

 

If the answer to (1) is “yes”, but the answer to (2) is “no”, it is what is often called “coarse scale”, the stuff I revel in. Hornby Dublo fits in that bracket; when you see the A4, you know it’s an A4, and until you really start peering at it, the compromises aren’t obvious - the designer was a very clever artist, let alone technician. Goodness only knows what went wrong when it came to the Not-all-that-like-a-Deltic!
 

If the answer to (2) is “yes”, it’s probably some sort of static museum-piece, or in a very large scale, because it’s pig difficult to get models to operate satisfactorily in small scales if everything is dimensionally to scale.

 

 

I would concur with Nearholmer's tests.  Models like the HD A4 and Duchess, or the Rovex Black Princess, were crude, miles off any scale dimension and in the case of the Black Princess, the valve gear was missing altogether (although TTBOMK this loco was the first 4mm model to attempt cab detail), were clearly A4s, Duchesses, and Princess Royals; you couldn't mistake them for anything else.  But it took a bit of a stretch to interpret Rovex/Triang's 6" coaches as Staniers, even if they were stamped LMS...

 

All railway models of the sort that we use, be it out of a box or scratchbuilt to insane levels of detail, are in Nearholmer's first category to varying degrees of compromise.  Without exception.

[Ozexpatriate]

1 hour ago, Peter Kazmierczak said:

Is this an oxymoron? "Lessons will be learnt".

No. "Lessons" are often ignored.

[Ozexpatriate]

1 hour ago, Hibelroad said:

plug sockets

It is a socket for an electrical plug, rather than, say for sake of argument, a hip. Properly of course it should be "electrical plug socket" and while it is not strictly tautologous, "electrical socket" is briefer, and just as clear, so a better term.

[Ozexpatriate]

3 hours ago, Kylestrome said:

Have we mentioned "use case" yet? 🙄

What is wrong with "use case"?

 

It is distinct from "test case". It has a very clear engineering meaning.

[Nearholmer]

But, like several other engineering terms, it gets dropped into conversations by people who clearly have no idea what it means.

 

Methodology. Surely, that ought to mean “the study of or selecting between methods”, but it is used to mean “method”.

 

“Form factor”, which to an electrical engineer means something very specific, but now seems to mean “size and shape”.

 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Hroth]

3 hours ago, Hibelroad said:

Centered around, a centre is a point so it can only be centered on. And don’t get me started on plug sockets, it’s either a plug or a socket, in engineering they would be termed male and female parts, I bet you won’t get it wrong now. Ah here comes the nurse with my medication ... 😁

 

Though the use of "male and female" as parts description in electrical socketry is now deprecated as sexist and should not be used.  "Mating" as an engineering description is probably frowned upon too.

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Hroth
A bit of clarification. I don't know how people do a lot of text entry on tablets...

[Nearholmer]

So, without that, how are we to get small transformers in future?

[Michael Hodgson]

 

17 hours ago, Hroth said:

A bit of clarification. I don't know how people do a lot of text entry on tablets...

 

Apparently they were doing that up Mount Sinai way back in biblical times.

[Michael Hodgson]

17 hours ago, Hroth said:

 

Though the use of "male and female" as parts description in electrical socketry is now deprecated as sexist and should not be used.  "Mating" as an engineering description is probably frowned upon too.

 

I think the Institute of Electrical Engineers would also take a dim view of putting your male part in an electrical socket.  ☠️

[BachelorBoy]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

I think the Institute of Electrical Engineers would also take a dim view of putting your male part in an electrical socket.  ☠️

I know a few engineers who'd video you doing that and then laugh about it down the pub

 

 

[Nearholmer]

As a minor matter of pedantry, the Institution (not institute) of Electrical Engineers no longer exists, having morphed into the Institution of Engineering & Technology.

[jjb1970]

20 hours ago, BoD said:

It confuses me no end (easily done) when someone issues ‘strict guidelines’.

 

Now then now them 'Guidelines' takes the cake for tying people in knots. A lot of authorities interpret guidelines as de-facto legal requirements when they are directed at the plebians, however when directed at themselves it seems they're recommendations and it's up to the relevant authorities whether or not to take any notice of them. The real issue in my view is that regulatory bodies can agree and publish guidelines with much less oversight and scrutiny than legislative amendments (because they're only guidelines......) and change them at the drop of a hat. Then there is guidance.

[Hroth]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

Apparently they were doing that up Mount Sinai way back in biblical times.

 

But all the entries were short and pithy.

And no-one got to see the mounds of broken, overcorrected rejects left on top of the mountain...

 

[MattR]

As an aside, every time I see this thread title, The Boo Radley's "Reaching Out from Here" gets stuck in my brain.

[kevinlms]

1 hour ago, MattR said:

As an aside, every time I see this thread title, The Boo Radley's "Reaching Out from Here" gets stuck in my brain.

As the man said in response to the question, 'How do I get to XYZ from here'?

'Well I wouldn't start from here'!

[The Lurker]

2 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

 

Now then now them 'Guidelines' takes the cake for tying people in knots. A lot of authorities interpret guidelines as de-facto legal requirements when they are directed at the plebians, however when directed at themselves it seems they're recommendations and it's up to the relevant authorities whether or not to take any notice of them. The real issue in my view is that regulatory bodies can agree and publish guidelines with much less oversight and scrutiny than legislative amendments (because they're only guidelines......) and change them at the drop of a hat. Then there is guidance.

HMRC have been caught out by this in the past. Now certain sections of their Notices say something like "This section of guidance has the force of law", where it is intended that taxpayers (and HMRC) are bound by it

 

note - taxpayers, NOT customers. A pet peeve

[Reorte]

On the guidelines front it makes sense that failure to follow guidelines can be evidence of insufficient care or consideration (or whatever we're talking about), without being actually against the law in and of itself. A decent amount of care should be made though to not just label something as a guideline when the reality is that it's specifically a rule.

 

The Highway Code is a good example of this. Anything that it talks about that refers to the law it says you MUST (or must not) do, and where it's essentially a guideline it uses SHOULD (or should not)  (and the Highway Code is really a guide to good practice, it is not a list of rules although for obvious reasons it mentions quite a lot of them). Since every driver's expected to know it failure to follow its guidance could result in charges like careless driving, but it would probably be supporting evidence towards that rather than a case of absolutely failing to follow it. The exact circumstances would also need consideration.

 

If you're automatically in trouble for not following something labelled a guideline then whoever wrote the guidelines has messed up. If you've got a bit of explaining to do, which might result in getting in trouble, but might not, they may have got them right.

Edited September 11, 2023 by Reorte