OK - you have the boat .. you later bought an item that far exceeded expectation ?

[Daydream believer]

Me, I prefer Encyclopaedia Britannica.
It's a cultural heritage thing.....

That explains why you are 40 years behind the times then

 

[Refueler]

Longer ago than I thought - 2005. Internet encyclopaedias go head to head - Nature

Of course, Wikipedia has tightened up its editorial policies since then, but it is still weak.

Still has possibility for idiots to edit ...

 

[Bouba]

Still has possibility for idiots to edit ...

That is the problem...I use Wikipedia a lot because of its incredible convenience....and it’s easy to start relying on it as factual....but it’s method of crowd sharing is both it’s strength and weakness

 

[AntarcticPilot]

That is the problem...I use Wikipedia a lot because of its incredible convenience....and it’s easy to start relying on it as factual....but it’s method of crowd sharing is both it’s strength and weakness

It's fine for topics where there's a wide interest; errors and malicious edits get corrected quickly. The problem can lie where it's a minority subject that few people are likely to visit. If someone were to create a page about me, a) there wouldn't be such a lot to say and b) few people would be interested, so someone who came along and said I was a demon worshipper might get away with it for quite a long time. But if someone says that (say) Joshua Slocum was abducted by a UFO it'll get noticed PDQ and fixed!

In fact, it's exactly the same problem as crowd-sourced bathymetry - it can be fine where there's plenty of craft contributing, as errors are generally self-correcting. It can be awful or dangerous when there are few tracks, and those contributed by vessels with poorly adjusted equipment. Of course, crowd-sourced bathymetry has other problems to do with unwarranted interpolation and extrapolation of data; it would be much better if they restricted the contours to those areas where the density of soundings exceeded some limiting value. But of course, that would mean that there would be lots of blank areas!

 

[Draystone]

It's also a problem if you disbelieve just because something is stated on Wikipedia.

I've been aware of gradians since I bought a TI scientific calculator around 1975 and wondered what the "Grad" button was for.

My 1950's children's encyclopaedia had a lot of good things to say about whaling. It also contained what I now consider to be highly biased commentary on British colonialism.

 

[Bouba]

It's fine for topics where there's a wide interest; errors and malicious edits get corrected quickly. The problem can lie where it's a minority subject that few people are likely to visit. If someone were to create a page about me, a) there wouldn't be such a lot to say and b) few people would be interested, so someone who came along and said I was a demon worshipper might get away with it for quite a long time. But if someone says that (say) Joshua Slocum was abducted by a UFO it'll get noticed PDQ and fixed!

In fact, it's exactly the same problem as crowd-sourced bathymetry - it can be fine where there's plenty of craft contributing, as errors are generally self-correcting. It can be awful or dangerous when there are few tracks, and those contributed by vessels with poorly adjusted equipment. Of course, crowd-sourced bathymetry has other problems to do with unwarranted interpolation and extrapolation of data; it would be much better if they restricted the contours to those areas where the density of soundings exceeded some limiting value. But of course, that would mean that there would be lots of blank areas!

That was like a Wikipedia entry...I started off agreeing with it...and ended up completely confused

 

[dgadee]

It all began with Diderot, of course. Rationalism through the Encylopedia and factual research in opposition to religion and logic (including the oddball Ramism). You would like to think that rationalism is encouraged by the internet, but there's an awful lot of evidence that the idiots are in control. Everything was in his sight:

 

[Humblebee]

Ref the fly swatter, the pop resulting from a mosquito being zapped by one of these is most satisfying

https://a.aliexpress.com/_EJFjnKh

Agreed, I've used them a lot in Korea and find they make swatting very entertaining.
Got one at home now, let's see how it copes with Scottish midges...

 

[zoidberg]

Of course I use Wikipedia, as do most of my contemporaries. That's partly because my copy of E. Britannica is on a shelf in a room on another floor.
W'pedia is at my fingertips....

As an aside and a little Fred Drif, who here ( besides me ) responds to Jimmy Wales' periodic entreaties for a little money to help keep him going?

 

[zoidberg]

Got one at home now, let's see how it copes with Scottish midges...

Hmmm. Recalls memory of trying to camp on the boggy foreshore of Loch Scavaig, in August, and needing to wear full 6mm wetsuit and TWO balaclavas - one turned the other way around.....

I learned that if I could see out, they could see in.

They won.

 

[Bouba]

Of course I use Wikipedia, as do most of my contemporaries. That's partly because my copy of E. Britannica is on a shelf in a room on another floor.
W'pedia is at my fingertips....

As an aside and a little Fred Drif, who here ( besides me ) responds to Jimmy Wales' periodic entreaties for a little money to help keep him going?

I couldn’t give money to Wiki....because of it’s sheer size...I couldn’t know if it says something I vehemently oppose

 

[dgadee]

I couldn’t give money to Wiki....because of it’s sheer size...I couldn’t know if it says something I vehemently oppose

I do. Happy to do so. Though .. it has become a bit more aggressive about building up reserves and I'm not sure why.

 

[zoidberg]

Title is basically asking what item you bought.... Then it turned out to perform or be far more than expected ??

A MilSpec handheld xenon strobe.

Earned its keep - once to chase away a Spanish trawler looking to mate with us, and once to attract a lifeboat that couldn't find us.

 

[Humblebee]

Hmmm. Recalls memory of trying to camp on the boggy foreshore of Loch Scavaig, in August, and needing to wear full 6mm wetsuit and TWO balaclavas - one turned the other way around.....

I learned that if I could see out, they could see in.

They won.

Lovely place though. One advantage of anchoring is that midges can only fly 50 metres so if you anchor 55 metres from the shore you are safe!

 

[Daydream believer]

Lovely place though. One advantage of anchoring is that midges can only fly 50 metres so if you anchor 55 metres from the shore you are safe!

Is that 50m there & 50m back? If they decide to do a kamakazi run with no return, do you double that? What if the wind is up their chuff, do they go further? Is it from their point of origin, or edge of land? What happens if the tide turns & you swing closer to land at night when a kip?
& who the hell worked that one out in the first place?

 

[zoidberg]

Lovely place though. One advantage of anchoring is that midges can only fly 50 metres so if you anchor 55 metres from the shore you are safe!

Fifty-five metres from the shore.... is about thirty-five from the other shore. And have you any idea just how deep it is there?

This is the boat we used to get to Loch Scavaig - via Eigg and Rhum and Soay - during our first 'proof of concept' of dinghy-camping among the Inner Isles.
The photo was taken about halfway up Sweden's Eastern Archipelago....

 

[Refueler]

Lovely place though. One advantage of anchoring is that midges can only fly 50 metres so if you anchor 55 metres from the shore you are safe!

Dunno about your midges ... but sailing around Baltic - have encountered odd swarms of midges well away from land - and often can tell approaching such as the birds are attacking them ..
One in particular - the boat provided a landing area !!