Agreed. It's also worth pointing out that Effective C is the most current in terms of being up to date with present-day C standards.
K&R is so obsolete it's now wrong about some things. It's a pretty good read sometime down the road - when you can recognize its shortcomings - but it's not a book from which to start learning C.
>>I wish someone would do a similar study for wood plane irons/blades (including their different steel types) versus various grinding techniques,
I think you're looking for the book "Knife Deburring: Science behind the lasting razor edge" by Vadim Kralchuk. The author had a good website, but it appears no more and my cursory web search indicates that he has passed away. He has / had a YouTube channel as well.
I'm not bad at sharpening plane irons and when I set my mind to it I can make them razor sharp—certainly sharp enough to shave with but I only test them by shaving the hairs on my arm and they do that very well.
That said, most books on this subject only cover techniques and not the underlying metallurgy. The metallurgy is important but the problem that most of us encounter is that we plane users don't know what it is (as it's usually unspecified).
Even if it is, it doesn't help much. Leaving aside badly-tempered steel (sharpened to red heat on a grinder etc.), some steels are just horrible to work with, I've some block plane blades made in the 1930s that have high tungsten content and they're almost impossible to sharpen well and even when razor sharp they don't cut well and it's never been clear why. Thus my comment about wanting to know more about the subject.
A big part of the aforementioned book is the manner in which differing steels produce a burr, or even micro-burr that can be mistaken for an edge, but cuts poorly and/or deteriorates quickly. A number of deburring techniques are tested on a number of steels and it is noteworthy that there is no single best method - each category of steels responds best to a different manner of deburring. Great longevity was achieved with proper deburring (as shown in the book with a host of SEM photos.
Excellent (aftermarket) plane irons of known alloy are widely available (at least here in the U.S.). I know some woodworkers value having all original parts, but if the primary goal is paper-thin even-width shavings it's hard to beat modern metallurgy.
That's interesting, especially if it has info on ways of identifying steels where micro-burrs really aren't very controllable. One does everything correctly (I even use a lab microscope occasionally) and with some steels micro-burrs sort of flake off irrespective of the method of sharpening and or steeling them.
Some steels are just horrible and tempering and hardness are not necessarily good indicators of quality. I have a few chisels that superficially seem OK and the steel is hard and takes a good edge but five minutes later they're useless, others, sometimes even cheaper ones, turn out to be excellent.
As a techie who like playing with tech toys I thought of using a handheld x-ray fluorescence spectrometers like, say, this one: https://alloytester.com/xrf-steel-tester. There are any number of them around these days but they're expensive even to hire and I can't really justify one just to indulge my curiosity. However though, it would be really nice to go around testing everything that has an edge and logging its alloy properties against actual performance tests. Perhaps some day.
I couldn't care less about original parts (they're tools!)—so long as the tool works well (I don't for a moment consider myself a collector of old tools). That said, when making repairs I'll go to some trouble with old tools to match a tool with its 'correct' parts if possible (but ultimately it's a pragmatic decision—if I don't have the correct part I'll use wherever is to hand or what works best). By that I mean if it's possible to mate together a tool with parts from the same manufacturing source and same era then I'll do. For example, my No. 8 Stanley somehow lost it's lever cap during a move and I had access to several others that would fit but I selected one that came from the same factory and manufactured around the same time (in this instance the plane was of US manufacture/New Britain and made in 1933, so it received another lever cap from the same factory made in the same era (it was of the first generation to use the kidney-shaped slot for the cap's screw). I'm in Australia, so I had lever caps manufactured in the US, UK and here (including UK Record parts) to choose from. Nevertheless, it now has a plane iron of modern manufacture (but I've kept the original one and it's identified as belonging to said plane). There's also another reason to match parts which is that they usually fit better (leaving Bed Rock planes aside, I'm also of the opinion that the best consistent run of 'normal production' planes Stanley ever made came from its US plant and were manufactured between 1933 and about 1941 (the run came to an end when war regulations kiboshed the quality).
I do have a sense of history when it comes to these old hand-tools, my No. 8 is now 89 years old but it's not the oldest, that accolade goes to my No. 45† which dates from 1907. I'm of the opinion that we never actually own these objects, we're just their custodians for life—after all, my No. 8 is still in excellent condition (so are several others which are older), and if looked after with a little care, it'll still have several human lifetimes left in it after I'm gone. BTW, its original owner wrote his name on a piece of paper and dated it then put it in the space under the plane's tote (I'm now very curious to know who he was but I've really no idea). Anyway, that piece of paper stays with the plane (I've really no right to remove it).
Incidentally, I have a copy of Antique & Collectable Stanley Tools - A Guide to Identity & Value - 1996 edition by John Walker. You're likely already aware of it but in case you're not, it's an absolutely invaluable 880-plus page tome on the subject of Stanley tools, there's nothing else its equal. It's the ultimate bible for not only collectors but also for anyone who fixes or refurbishes these tools. There's a new edition out which I've not yet seen (it was out of print for quite some years which made secondhand copies of it much more valuable than many of the tools mentioned therein).
Back to plane irons, I use this mob from time to time for replacement irons but they're expensive here where I live. They are reasonably consistent and work reasonably well but I'm not altogether totally happy with them (it's what I now use in the No. 8, No. 4, 5 etc.): https://www.ibctools.ca/product-category/ibc-blades/. They'll also do paper-thin shavings but that's usually of secondary importance—for me, a steel that keeps a keen edge for the longest duration ranks first (these come close but I've had irons that cut somewhat better).
Thanks for your comment.
__
† Damn monstrosity of a thing it is, the only thing I can imagine that's worse would be a No. 55.
Your comment can only be truly appreciated by plumbing the bizarre depths of "high-end audio" where nitwits (errr... customers) will pay $700 for a 6' Kapton-insulated power cord for their stereo. You know, to plug into the wall where it connects to 100 ft of Romex that cost $0.20/ft...
What I don't get about this is that marketers keep getting away with pushing this BS on the audiofool public.
There is a core group of audiophile/EEs who design DACs, amps and the like and who do know what matters for sound quality, and there's a whole pile of marketers who try to jump on the train with gold-plated power cables and (apparently) expensive chunks of wood. The engineers don't seem to care to call out the marketers on their BS. Maybe they just aren't effective at it.
As a result, the public can't really tell the difference between true and false things, like how gold-plated headphone connectors are more conductive and durable than the cheap version (and thus sound better), but gold plated power cables have no effect on sound quality. If they did, there might be a lot more audiophiles since there is some semblance of authority about what is worth paying for. The engineers are sabotaging their market by refusing to educate customers.
There's stupid shit and it involves scams, like going to a record store and they say "hey maybe you're the chosen one" play a track then switch gear and say "listen to it again" and play a different track pretending to be the first, and bam, audiophile.
Then there's the blind. One of my ancestors was a blind Spanish classical guitarist, played in concerts often. So for them? They can tell you the brand of headphones you're listening to from the other side of the room. And that's nothing. They also think faster, listen to sound at a much much faster rate than ordinary speech. Like 4x? Something. Sky's the limit. And when they speak to each other they speak much faster more like the speech synthesizer.
No, if you want to have really clear audio you'd better get one of those Synergistic Research cables [1]. For a mere $10.000,- starting price (6 ft, add $1000/ft if you want a longer cable) it will be as if the musicians are sitting on your table, eating your cookies and petting your dog. It's the Quantum tunneling which does the trick, see? They kick the atoms into the right shape using a Tesla coil and, being obedient little atoms, they stay where they're told. Or something.
C'mon! Everybody knows that the Nordost Valhalla 2 Power Cord is far superior than the SRX. It's also only $10,079.99 CAD for 6ft, so it will be less than yours since yours is in USD, saving you money to to buy fridge magnets which will help dampen the magnetic field from any orphan atoms that may leak through.
Also, from the manufacturer's brochure: Unlike conventional power cables, which have propagation speeds that are less than 50% the speed of light, the Valhalla 2 Reference Power Cord has a speed of 91% the speed of light.
EDIT: On a more serious note, check out https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php for real testing, where the dollar store speaker cable performed (surprise!) as well as the fancy cables. The fancy cable company was not happy.
This discussion has been going on for a long time. Power cables are not going to fix anything. Speaker cables, I have my doubts. I use the cheap stuff, but would go for all copper if I were splurging. On the other hand, I have bought about-dollar-store-cheap interconnects with problems, so I go for the fancy Amazon Basics level stuff myself. I get the guys that buy aesthetically pleasing cables, but that's a different story. Here's Bob Pease on the subject(s):
https://www.pearl-hifi.com/06_Lit_Archive/02_PEARL_Arch/Vol_...
> Unlike conventional power cables, which have propagation speeds that are less than 50% the speed of light, the Valhalla 2 Reference Power Cord has a speed of 91% the speed of light.
Thank God somebody is making these. Imagine if we had to wait almost twice as long!
Speaking of audiofools, look no further than the Machina Dynamica store (https://www.machinadynamica.com/) that features magic rocks, CD stickers, and other items you can add to your system to improve sound. Literally the whole site reads like it's satire - but apparently people actually buy their stuff.
The magic rocks and other physical devices are old hat. For $60, you can just call Machina Dynamica's phone number, and they'll play a 20-second "series of mechanical pulses" which remotely transforms your phone onto exotic matter, thereby severing its quantum connection to the "cell phone information field" that would otherwise be degrading the quality of every audio/video device in your home.
My favorite example is the Shakti stone, no longer on Stereophile's recommended accessories list. Who knows if they work? I have done enough EMI mitigation to think "not damned likely" but I have also done enough EMI mitigation (read the patent first, and the testimonials from people who should know better) that I wouldn't bet a paycheck on it.
I read a story about hifi enthusiasts in japan who ended up getting dedicated external powerpole transformers installed for supposed cleaner power and as a bit of a status symbol.
This is a fun book. I've read the 'Early Access' e-book and I think it should appeal to both engineers and hobbyists. I particularly enjoyed that they devoted a chapter to how they went about preparing and taking the pictures.
Sounds like 60-80 hour weeks to me. However, ime, not always for nothing. Back when I was willing to work those kinds of hours I was well compensated for it.
Your employee is a good person - let's just call her 'honest'. And you are a liar. Any questions? Make all the excuses you want, your company policy is dishonesty, and I hope you fail.
You should fire the employee immediately and advertise for a liar, there are plenty of them out there.
They are the government, so clearly there is no will to do anything about it. The same cretins are re-elected (perhaps because the single, viable, alternate option is even more despicable.
If we, the electorate, are not prepared to oust those that are clearly thieves and liars, than we shall receive that which we deserve.
> because the single, viable, alternate option is even more despicable
these 2 lies continue to crack me up.
Lets look at it from the other perspective. There are people trying to provide alternative options. They are not winning because you are not voting for them. There is no excuse, there is no one to point to, it is your vote and you cast it. What others do should have no influence.
If all the voters really cant make their own decisions, if they really cant think for themselves: Then you would provide a major example by doing your own thinking and making your own choices. They would all follow like the sheep they are portrayed as by these lies.
if non of that makes sense, maybe those ignorant enough to provide alternative options deserve your support in their futile effort? it seems the honorable thing to do
> They found that 81 Democrats & 101 Republicans filed up to 3,700 trades and $100M in possible volume
Corruption should be a non-partisan concern.
But that's not the real corruption -- legalized bribery, I mean campaign contributions is the problem and will never be solved until we can collectively agree on how to do it. Which means never, unfortunately.
These are all solvable problems but not if we are squabbling amongst ourselves.
Your comment reads as a personal attack. I remain hopeful enough to consider the possibility.
I see such a divide in politics today that make me worry that "democracy" itself here is doomed. And attempts at dialog here in HN never bear fruit.
We have on record one party proclaiming that their primary goal is to let the other party succeed, e.g., party over country.
Just that comment alone will bring out the voiceless downvotes that are personally offended by it and refuse to discuss the details in a non-partisan manner.
I'd love to be proven wrong here, but I'm going with past experience and it's not encouraging.
I favor Amazon on this. No company has a "right" to sell on Amazon, so they're free to go and advertise elsewhere. If they want to use Amazon's enormous market presence a few concessions seem reasonable. Expecting Amazon to stock, advertise, and manage your product while you work to undersell them is **you** being unreasonable.
Eh it's pretty anticompetitive since you need Amazon to get any sales, while you won't be able to make money even if you go through lengths to specifically bid against a.co ads and pull a customer to your own website.
K&R is so obsolete it's now wrong about some things. It's a pretty good read sometime down the road - when you can recognize its shortcomings - but it's not a book from which to start learning C.