100% tariff on the MM/DD/YY date format.

@wendinoakland @Natasha_Jay @stux I like it! It makes it more fun to mix. Heck same in the states! 2 liter of coke, gallon of milk, running a 5K, bike riding a 20 miler.

Life’s short, variety is the spice of life!

@renwillis @Natasha_Jay @stux I lived overseas for a while, so I cook in metrics, but it’s always a mix!

@wendinoakland @Natasha_Jay @stux samsies, lived in Hong Kong for a stretch and have been lucky to travel a lot and it’s always fun to see how locals roll.

@Natasha_Jay and the imperial system!

@Natasha_Jay 20% auf alles, ausser ISO-Date.

@Natasha_Jay I eagerly await the positive impacts this tariff would have in the computer firmware industry

https://mementomori.social/@njsg/114658795110049642

@wendinoakland @renwillis @Natasha_Jay @stux

NASA lost the Mars Climate Orbiter in 1999 due to a fatal mix-up between English (feet, pounds) and metric (meters, Newtons) units, where contractor software used English measurements for thruster force while NASA expected metric, causing the orbiter to enter Mars' atmosphere too low and burn up, a classic example of unit conversion error.

https://science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-climate-orbiter/

$327.6 million

@amiserabilist @renwillis @Natasha_Jay @stux Wasn’t that a critical error with the Hubble Telescope lens? (I’m suggesting you do the research…)

@Natasha_Jay if we used date format like jan/19/2026 it wouldn't be an issue

@amiserabilist @wendinoakland @Natasha_Jay @stux Hey, I said be fluid, not stupid!

@aaronmccollum @Natasha_Jay

@mitsunee @Natasha_Jay

And what do you with "DD/MM/YYYY"?

@wendinoakland @amiserabilist @renwillis @Natasha_Jay @stux I happen to know an extremely skilled optical engineer
cc: @felix_t_fois

@wendinoakland The Hubble Telescope uses a large, 2.4-meter (8-foot) primary mirror, not a lens

@amiserabilist @renwillis @Natasha_Jay

@stux @amiserabilist @renwillis @Natasha_Jay Maybe it was the mirror…? There was some metric/imperial measurement error on a critical Hubble element

@wendinoakland @amiserabilist @renwillis @Natasha_Jay I'm gonan do some checks Those are veeeery expensive errors woahh

@stux @amiserabilist @renwillis @Natasha_Jay Indeed! I remember, long ago, hearing about it and being truly shocked. Yeah, engineers communicating incompletely.

@stux @amiserabilist @renwillis @Natasha_Jay Okay, looking around Wikipedia it seems it was a flaw in the mirror grinding position tolerances, where a mm is as big as a mile (!) and the contractor ground the mirror to the WRONG SHAPE! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope?wprov=sfti1#Origin_of_the_problem

@wendinoakland @glasspusher

>the primary cause of the failure with the Hubble Space Telescope's mirror was spherical aberration caused by a miscalibrated, faulty testing device during manufacturing.

Here are the key details regarding the failure as discussed by users:

The Root Cause (The "Why"): The primary mirror was ground and polished by Perkin-Elmer to the wrong shape because a device called a "null corrector"—used to measure the mirror's surface during polishing—was assembled incorrectly.

The Specific Error: A spacing error of 1.3 millimeters in the null corrector (caused by a missing cap on a rod) led to the mirror being polished too flat at the edges by roughly 2.2 microns (1/50th the width of a human hair).

Ignoring Data: Users noted that a second, independent testing device actually indicated the mirror was flawed, but this data was ignored because the, albeit faulty, "new" null corrector was trusted more.

The Fix: Because the mirror was ground so accurately (just wrongly), scientists knew exactly how to fix it. The 1993 servicing mission (STS-61) installed COSTAR (Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement), which acted as "glasses" to correct the aberration.

>One report explained it this way;

If you took a finely polished mirror and enlarged it to the size of the Gulf of Mexico, you'd have a surface with +/- 80 foot swells.

If you enlarged the Hubble mirror to the same scale, you'd have a surface with +/- 3 inch swells.

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/cjw5az/til_that_after_almost_20_years_of_battling_for_a/

>Imagine you are trying to make a perfectly shaped, giant, curved mirror for a space telescope (like Hubble). Because it’s so large, you need to check if you are grinding the glass into the exact right shape.

The Problem: The mirror is a weird shape (aspheric). If you shine a light on it to check the shape, the light bounces back looking crazy and blurry. You can’t tell if the mirror is wrong, or if it just looks that way because of the weird curve.

The Solution (The Null Corrector): You put a special lens or mirror between your eye (or camera) and the giant mirror. This device takes the messy, distorted light and "fixes" it.

"Null" Means Zero Error: If the giant mirror is ground perfectly, the null corrector makes the reflected light look completely flat (or "null" of errors).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_corrector

>Why an Aspheric Shape is Needed

Spherical mirrors (like a perfect bowl) focus light from distant objects to different points depending on where the light hits the mirror, causing blur.

Aspheric mirrors, with a more complex curve, can focus all light rays to a single, sharp focal point, producing clearer images. Hubble's design used this superior shape.

http://astro.vaporia.com/start/asphericmirror.html

@renwillis @Natasha_Jay @stux

@WTL @Natasha_Jay @renchap I’ve never understood the U.S. obsession with getting it wrong. It’s not even simple to sort by date.