I would think a two-hander is massive enough to be a blunt weapon if turned sideways, striking with the flat of the sword. But, my opinion is really uninformed.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Do you know of any actual metrics/tests done that show this clearly?

No one probably cared to design a barrel and firing mechanism just for this experiment since maybe the late 1930s. And, I’d guess that possible someone was the US military.

Honestly, no one really cares. There’s so many variables that change slightly for each cycle of the action. Variables change more for each round, assuming typical ammo. And, there’s a lot of variables that change a helluva lot between humans. After deciding usage and the appropriate round to chamber, one starts picking their pistol based on what feels good in their hand. Those are the ones they’ll shoot most accurately with.

my physics classes were a long time ago

The hardest part by far is visualizing a graph. Force is the y axis. Time is the x axis. A line represents a changing force over time called an impulse.

Impulse 1: acts with a force of 1000 Newtons for 0.01 second

Impulse 2: acts with a force of 10 Newtons for 1 seconds

The impulse magnitude is the integral, the area under the curve of the graph of force over time. The math is easy for these situations because they’re rectangles: 10 x 1 and 1000 x 0.01.

Both impulses have the same magnitude: 10 Newton x seconds. Both impulses, applied upon a mass, can do the same amount of work. Both impulses could be the equal and opposite reactions to firing the same round if fired from different pistols.

The revolver delivers a short, violent, mess of peaks and vallies along a big peak. The modern semi auto delivers a smooth increase to a lower plateau that falls off just as smoothly. The modern semi auto takes much longer deliver the same magnitude impulse.

But, a human brain and body doesn’t care much about “much longer” when it’s still “instant”. The brain and body care about the how high the peak is and how “messy” (signal noise).

I accused the other of misinformation when the article even said I was wrong. I’d be a hypocrite, an idiot, and an asshole to not make it right.

Thanks for not only recognizing but also taking the time to reinforce what we both want to see more of.

Thank you for pointing out that I’m being an idiot in such a kind manner. I apologize. I also learned more about mpox.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

There’s an incredible story behind it. But, the short form is that Proton is more expensive because they’re not harvesting your private information. In a few months the law will prevent them from doing for as long as the core fiscal law and Proton exist (at least decades).

Remember conservation of momentum. The only way the machine can absorb part of the impulse is through friction, heat, and by redirecting the existing chamber pressure after the bullet has left the barrel.

Remember the human body. Magnitude matters much more than duration. Extending the time of impulse by implementing a slide lessens magnitude, the areas under the impulse curves roughly equivalent.

I’m going to apply the above to answer your questions to say it again :)

Does the slide absorb any significant amount of energy?

For a properly functioning, modern, and typically-designed pistol and a status quo definition of “significant”, the answer is: No. That’s not what it’s designed to do. But, energy can be dissipated slightly if the pistol is compensated: a redirection of chamber pressure from near the end of the barrel, upwards, counter the torque component of the recoil impulse.

What’s the math on this, say the dissipated energy in a semi auto VS revolver using the same round?

It’s not quite a good question. The maximum force during the impulse is what a human cares about when analyzing a slide. That’s what’ll effect accuracy of the next round and how sore your hands will be in the morning.

If minimization of total impulse is what’s being analyzed then one would want to compare rifles. Rifles have larger rounds, longer barrel length thus more time to use chamber pressure to mitigate recoil.

You’ve good questions for coming into the middle. Go to the beginning: rounds and various types of actions, rifleman 101. Come back to the hard science.

Above PugJesus talks about the energy of the round being very large. There’s more to it.

The derringer design lacks any technology to absorb and extend the impulse of recoil, most importantly the slide found on any modern semi automatic.

Not only is there extreme recoil, there’s also absolutely nothing to help the shooter deal with it.

deleted by creator

I’m not actually asking for good faith answers to these questions. Asking seems the best way to illustrate the concept.

Does the programmer fully control the extents of human meaning as the computation progresses, or is the value in leveraging ignorance of what the software will choose?

Shall we replace our judges with an AI?

Does the software understand the human meaning in what it does?

The problem with the majority of the AI projects I’ve seen (in rejecting many offers) is that the stakeholders believe they’ve significantly more influence over the human meaning of the results than exists in the quality and nature of the data they’ve access to. A scope of data limits a resultant scope of information, which limits a scope of meaning. Stakeholders want to break the rules with “AI voodoo”. Then, someone comes along and sells the suckers their snake oil.

deleted by creator

We’re living in a late stage capitalistic hellhole and you’re advocating faith in the free market.

What. The. Fuck.

deleted by creator

Monopolies don’t care about the user experience, only profit. The AI doesnt understand the former, only the latter. The continued degredation of the user experience is a likely indicator of an increase in revenue as function of successful application of AI.

What’s a kumquat?

deleted by creator

Crypto would at least offer a non-zero chance of ROI.