Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: central limit theorem
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 14:25:27 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 97
Message-ID: <v0h64j$3tl4g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <662bf69c$0$8484$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
 <v0gu6u$3ruka$2@dont-email.me> <662bffdf$0$8488$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 23:25:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1aa2c60e5cf1d049d4501fcaa3605751";
	logging-data="4117648"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19SukVAggqABJqtfKhCaSMd"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:DPL1NlbAmgXVYWFfoHSSK7t0eC4=
In-Reply-To: <662bffdf$0$8488$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5835

On 4/26/2024 12:26 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 4/26/2024 3:10 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 4/26/2024 11:46 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>> I have one of these inexpensive Ikea bookshelves for storing some of my
>>> electronics books:
>>>
>>> <https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/laiva-bookcase-black-brown-40178591/>
>>>
>>> I noticed the center shelf was starting to sag a few degrees. :( The 
>>> assembly manual specifies a weight limit of 33 lbs evenly distributed which 
>>> seemed like an oddly specific number. So I weighed the books on the shelves, 
>>> which aren't particularly well organized other than to fully fill the 
>>> available space widthwise on each shelf.
>>>
>>> A random assortment of hardbacks and paperbacks, some are tall and skinny, 
>>> some are short and fat. And each shelf was clocking in at 33 lbs +/- 2 lbs.
>>>
>>> So I guess a heuristic for filling these shelves is just fill 'em up then 
>>> remove the heaviest book, and de-rate the center shelf by maybe 5- 10 lbs 
>>> because it's unsupported by a backing.
>>
>> Smarter move is to buy all of your texts in electronic form, before you
>> end up with a shitload of dead trees!
>>
>> When I moved here (~30 yrs), I had some 80 "Xerox Paper" cartons full
>> of paperbacks -- not counting "text books".  (I read ~500pp/wk)  Take
>> a moment to think of that volume (let alone MASS!).
>>
>> I eventually scanned everything with a Perfect Binding and now fit those
>> same books on a single microSD card (in a Nook; PDFs on a 12" tablet).
> 
> PDFs are a dreadful format! Maybe there's a high-end e-ink that processes them 
> effectively but they look like shit on the cheaper ones like most of the 
> Kindles with e-ink displays.

PDFs make sense for content where presentation needs to be controlled.
E.g., technical papers, reference books, etc.

Other "reflowable" formats (epub, mobi, etc.) are better suited for
content whose presentation is unimportant -- novels.

Novels can, thus, be viewed on smaller screens as you can reflow
the content to fit the smaller screen regardless of typeface size, etc.

PDFs need larger presentations; you want to mimic the "sheet of paper"
on which it was "laid out".  Hence the 12" tablet (14" would be better)

> I hate reading on an LCD I stare into an LCD half the live long day anyway, blech.

I used to hate the non-book feel of ebooks.  But, now prefer the increased
(and adjustable!) contrast that an ereader offers.  Along with the ability
to adjust the size of the type, create bookmarks, search for content, etc.
Thumbing through pages is *SO* 1960's...

>> The "hard back" texts are a lot harder to "process" but are suffering the
>> same fate.  I wouldn't wish the task of MOVING (or disposing!) the
>> dead tree collection on my worst enemy...
> 
> Gotta enforce a one book in, one book out rule man.

And, how *many* books before that rule kicks in?  Do you rely on your
memory to retain the information that was contained in those discarded
books?  Or, do you reacquire them (and discard some OTHER content to
accommodate them)?

> I've never lived on my own 
> in a residence spacious enough that I had the luxury of just stockpiling tons 
> of stuff in case it might come in handy someday. I don't have an attic, garage, 
> or basement!

You decide what is important to you.  I can fit my "wardrobe" in a single
suitcase.  And, as travel is somewhere down with "going to the dentist"
in terms of desirability, I only *own* one suitcase!  No closet full of
"travel boxes" to store in case I might want to go somewhere (I've never
needed more than a large briefcase to hold my clothing AND "work"
while traveling)

My music is on microSD cards (save for a few dozen boots that I have yet to
transcode) in a few different "players".  Likewise, my books.  These are
*references*, you expect to "consult them" -- yet can't predict WHEN you
will want to do so.  I listened to "Billy, the Mountain", yesterday.
Had I discarded it after hearing it ONCE, I would have had to reacquire
it each of the times that I've subsequently listened to it.

We (re)watch several movies, many times (RED, 9, Flushed Away, etc.).
Should I spend time trying to locate a new copy of each WHEN we want
to rewatch it (and pay for immediately delivery)?

Should I buy a new set of crow-foot wrenches each time I need one?
(Imagine how much longer it would take to make repairs!)

And, buy paper for the printer one *sheet* at a time?

"Stockpiling" is a physical cache of items that YOU decide are
worth having "on-hand" -- to save the time of re-acquiring them,
WHEN NEEDED.