Remember to include the manufacturing energy consumed to replace it every 10 years. It is not obvious that the small efficiency increases outweigh the difference in lifespan. A belief one way or the other needs to be based on numbers, or else "efficiency" isn't being understood.
Also remember that the efficiency numbers published on the device label is just a benchmark. It doesn't compare actual loads. For example, newer machines tend to waste less power when you do really small loads. That really, really helps them in the benchmarks, because the benchmarks don't usually have full loads. So if your computer watches the energy consumed, you can waste less power in that case fairly easily. But people who only do full loads won't get any increased efficiency there. It really is just reducing the waste in some cases, not increasing efficiency across the board.
Assuming you use a washer or dryer in an efficient way, with full loads, almost all of the energy is used by the motor to do real work. Unless you're using a whole new class of motor, you're not going to see large increases in efficiency. And it is illogical to be credulous of such claims.
Measure what the old appliances use before you replace them. Then measure what the new ones use. Then you can measure what the savings are, if any. Don't just read what the label says, and decide you're "saving" money, or being more energy efficient.
No, the experiment is the free-standing truth. If you need to wave your hands about what the theory is to understand the experiment, you're going backwards.
Obviously you need to know about the hypothesis that led to the experiment if you want to increase your knowledge, but that is a process outside of any issues of truth. That is about what assumptions you already made, eg what you believe to already be the scientific consensus of various things. That is an important part of the process, but only to the human. The experimental outcomes are the same regardless of what assumptions you make about the implications of one outcome or another. The "truth" that is uncovered is NOT whatever the implication for your hypothesis is; the truth that science can uncover is the outcome itself.
"These sorts of beliefs" are just weasel words, not beliefs.;) And you won't hang them on me, if you successfully parsed my claims. I do agree it hinders progress, at least.
It can be viable as a human food source, and yet not practicable for non-biological reasons. It might be so much less efficient than some other food source that the land would be worth more than the crop, as an example.
Viable just means it can work. It doesn't mean that it will be affordable or efficient.
Just as, a seed is considered "viable" if it can germinate. That doesn't imply that you have the right conditions to get the plant to grow to maturity and reproduce.
Anyways, none of that matters here. This was:
Him: Device is to works as grain of rice is to meal. Me: No, Device is to works as grain of rice is to edible. (and a "viable human food source")
They're the same people making the false claims about what the apps do or don't do, so why would I run to them as a trusted party?
If they were actively addressing this and warning users and removing apps based on this, then there would be something for me to contribute to.
As it is now, telling them would be like a feature request; talking about something they don't care about, and trying to persuade them.
They flag git apps for having github integration with giant "promotes non-free services" ads, even if there is no actual promotion, just API support, and yet they have versions of things where the effort has been made to compile without google libs, but that still ask for device ID. For example, their version f the google sky map app, they go to the trouble to compile with certain libraries replaced, but they leave in the part where it asks for the device ID, etc. It is a totally passive app with no legit use at all for device ID. No warnings.
They only care about copyright, they do not care about privacy. Freedom to them is a legal technicality, not something affected by a real loss of user privacy. It is just a checklist.
As far as, do I upload my versions, no. Users are assholes, especially on the internet. If there was an uproar about these privacy issues, I'd probably be contributing to some repository created to serve people who care about it. But if I'm the only one making the changes, I don't benefit. In fact, as my forks get out of sync with the originals, it would just generate increasing silly tickets and package management work.
You can simply observe the responses I get here when talking about it, and it is obvious that sharing the work would be a waste of time for me.
Yes, indeed, if you build a machine and claim it produces thrust and the skeptics say, "It is just like a block of wood and won't produce thrust," and then when they measure your device it turns out to produce thrust, not only when you press the button, but even when you don't... then that would be the same as this. Clearly the device isn't a block of wood, and clearly the inventor's button doesn't start/stop the device. Everybody is wrong, except for the inventor claiming that thrust is produced.
When the experiment has already been reproduced, in the past tense, and NASA is claiming that the thrust is real, it seems worth believing. They also say they don't know the engineering implications yet, which is also worth believing. I'm not going to say you should believe something because an authority said so, but it seems hard to claim that initial skepticism without a specific claim of where the thrust came from weighs more heavily than a replicated experiment.
If the measurement device is the source of the thrust, it doesn't really change the significance of the discovery, it just moves it into a different part of the equipment. As far as, was the thrust real thrust, that is well established. If you don't think NASA knows how to measure thrust on a bench test, well, just file this with the moon landing. Both have been replicated.
PS: You probably just misread the reporting if you thought that the unexpected thrust came from a block of wood. It actually came from the same machine, just "turned off." Clearly the theory of operation is wrong, and something about the device creates thrust and doesn't rely on whatever circuit the switch operates. That, however, is not "the equivalent of a block of wood."
According to Rumsfeldian Logic there are Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns, but you'd never have a Known Unknowable because (by definition) you don't know what is in the Unknown Unknown quadrant. When you have a Known Unknown, you don't know what it isn't, and you don't know what else is in the Unknown Unknowns category.
To a Rumsfeldian, God might be a Known Known, a Known Unknown, or an Unknown Unknown, depending. If you want God to be un-knowable, you'll need to adopt some Logical Positivism instead of just Rumsfedianism.
And I can't speculate at all on what sort of person considers Dick Cheney a known known.
The truth science can know is the outcome of an experiment.
Don't get lost in the weeds worrying about that science doesn't tell us what happens in a new experiment.
You're conflating the part where we don't know why an experiment turns out the way it does, with the part where we do know what actually happened in that experiment. (Because it was replicated)
People often get lost here. The truth that they wish science would tell them is the "why." But that part is mostly speculation, even when there is a solid long-standing theory and lots of replicated experiments. We can't ever know if we're right about the "why." But we can indeed know the "what."
New theories replace old theories as understanding changes, but the truth, the outcome of an experiment, remains untouched by this process. Indeed, new understandings follow new truths; new experimental outcomes.
The utility of "why" is mostly in deciding what experiments to do, as far as the science goes. It can also uncover important engineering.
Keep in mind also, if you think I'm contradicting Feynman's definition of science, you parsed something wrong. This is very, very mainstream stuff I'm saying.
So until that is resolved, we might have braking issues. Definitely a hurdle for both the science, and actually building a spaceship, but extra thrust when you don't expect it in no way refutes the existence of the thrust.
That the initial predictions are proving to be incorrect, even while the device is indeed producing thrust, that isn't a sign that this is nothing. Rather, that is a sign that this might be bigger than we realize.
The expected success state is for the experiment to match prediction. The expected failure state was no thrust. That the predictions were wrong, and there was also thrust, that is actually what makes this such a huge thing.
That one of the device states produced unexpected thrust implies that the inventors hypothesis of why it works is incorrect, but this is already replicated and the device does produce thrust.
The failure of the prediction means that the science they were testing gave a negative result, but it does not at all refute the engineering success of having produced thrust.
A lot of F-Droid apps ask for extra permissions. Instead of just trusting them, I download the source, reduce the permissions, and then run the app. If it is trying to use those extras permissions I took out, then it will crash when it tries. Almost all the apps (on f-droid) that claim not to actually use those permissions unless some feature is turned on will actually crash without them. Then I go in and comment out the sections of code that cause the app to crash. That way I don't need to audit their source, just debug the crashes.
It is a total PITA but it is the only way to get the tracking code out; even on "free" software.
Even if they're bending spacetime, they're only doing it inside the device so it would be more of a pinch drive than a warp drive. Warp drive is a metaphor from the art of weaving, applied to the concept of a "fabric" of space and time. So "warp drive" implies a large scale folding, an effect involving the breadth of space. This device, if we give the interpretation most favorable to this line of thinking, pinches space locally without changing what is outside the device. This creates an imbalance, and some angular momentum keeps everything balanced.
You need to be able to project the imbalance outside the device in order to have any sort of "warp drive." Here the effect is contained entirely between the threads, so if you don't like "pinch drive" it could also be a "stitch drive."
It could mean anything between, "shave a few hours off a trip to Jupiter" all the way up to, "2 hours to Alpha Centauri."
What we have now is some new engineering that advanced ahead of the science. Until the science catches up and explains it, we have no way to understand or predict the actual utility of the device beyond the inconsequential amount of force the existing device directs.
Another thing to remember when thinking about it is that the speed of light is not any sort of "speed limit." Actual photons go faster or slower than that speed according to quantum theory. Since photons are faster than our fuel sources, and spewing fuel out the back of a craft requires increasing fuel as you approach light speed, it is realistic to say that as a matter of engineering it is unlikely to be possible to build a device based on spewing fuel out the back that could achieve the average speed of light.
That is the potential importance of this technology. It is creating directional force without spewing any fuel. So there is no reason to just assume that the practical limits on fuel-spewing based propulsion will apply here. What will matter is the exact details of the forces involved and their edge cases, which is not yet well established. We don't know what we don't know.
Maybe the limits will be so broad, we can start tootling around between the galaxies. Or maybe the limits will be even stricter, and this won't even be useful for short trips.
No. These tests prove that the device is real, and that it produces force.
You're just saying, it isn't proved how it works. That is true, there are different ideas, and a lot of people are skeptical of the inventor's theory of operation. However, most of those skeptics also claimed the device wouldn't work at all, and yet, it does work. So it is on them to think up new hypotheses if they don't like his.
That the device works is what was proven here. Waving your hands about how you don't know why it works, that doesn't refute that the device works.
Or to put it another way, that the device works is proven engineering. Why it works is unresolved science. But the science and engineering are not going to be in dispute; we know that in advance. The science can't refute the proven engineering, and it is silly to claim outright that it does. Especially in advance of even understanding the science! lol
If this device actually works, it means everything we think we know about physics is wrong.
No, just the non-scientific armchair claims of various things being "impossible," where actual physics doesn't even address what isn't possible, and can't claim anything to be impossible. Science is about what is known, not what isn't. Things are either know to be true in a certain set of conditions, known not to be true in a certain set of conditions, or not known. There is no way that science could, or would try to, claim what is or isn't possible in unknown conditions.
A new technology is just an example of a new context, a new set of conditions. There are basically no limits to what might be true under new conditions. Those are all unknowns.
Right, exactly, the default one is for bare minimum use. If you're hosting some modern what-the-what, then you install a full size web server. If you just need to serve up some HTML on a server that mostly does something else, then this is great.
If you are actually hosting something, using a default bare-bones httpd is a no-go. You will have to make a choice between web server packages, and install one. Probably configure it, too.
Notice the difference between, "one guy with a problem not widely reported" and "I've never heard of it so it doesn't exist?"
I mean, if you can't disagree with what I said, just make something up to disagree with, right? LOL haters gotta hate I guess
BTW, hating a company harder doesn't change what hardware they manufacture. Reviews are widely available. Your anonymous review says nasty stuff; the ones from reputable sources say other, different things.
Also, if ASUS sucked for years and then you bought their tablet after having that experience, only to be totally shocked that it was the low quality you expected, it would not lead to the review you give here. It would be a different review. Your review doesn't seem consistent with your claimed facts. It was not the cheapest tablet, so if you thought they were so bad, you wouldn't have chosen them.
There are no widespread reports of tablets just "stopping" charging. For one person to claim it happened 2 times, well, there are ways to consistently damage batteries, for example aftermarket products that claim to give you extra battery life. If if it was somebody claiming it happened to them once, that is totally believable. Some electronic devices will die earlier than expected. It is just the nature of manufacturing. But that is very different than claiming a specific manufacturing fault that repeatedly causes a very specific problem, like batteries totally dead and not charging. That sort of manufacturing fault would actually be widely reported, and show up in reviews.
We can't know what did or didn't happen in one case, but we actually can know if a particular problem is frequent and caused by poor build quality.
I dropped my N7-2012 an insane number of times. Whenever it fell out of a pocket, it did a backflip and landed flat, unharmed. Every single time. Knocking off tables was the same deal... tumble, tumble, *slap*! I did finally knock it out of a laundry basket onto a sidewalk, and it didn't have a chance to flip at that angle, because when it slides off a curved surface it can't do the backflip balance tricks. So then it finally hit direct and smashed the corner bad.
OTOH even then, since everything is accessible I could order the part and put a new touchscreen on for ~$65.
Slashdot Mirror
It says right on the packet, "For best results, thaw in refrigerator before cooking."
You just need a combination refrigerator/microwave.
Your mom is pretty good, getting the important implications wrong and the unimportant reasons right, that is way above par.
But if she wants to lower your cancer risk, tell her to install radon sensors in the basement.
That would be "a large bosom," not "large bosoms." It means the whole front part of the chest, not an individual boob.
Remember to include the manufacturing energy consumed to replace it every 10 years. It is not obvious that the small efficiency increases outweigh the difference in lifespan. A belief one way or the other needs to be based on numbers, or else "efficiency" isn't being understood.
Also remember that the efficiency numbers published on the device label is just a benchmark. It doesn't compare actual loads. For example, newer machines tend to waste less power when you do really small loads. That really, really helps them in the benchmarks, because the benchmarks don't usually have full loads. So if your computer watches the energy consumed, you can waste less power in that case fairly easily. But people who only do full loads won't get any increased efficiency there. It really is just reducing the waste in some cases, not increasing efficiency across the board.
Assuming you use a washer or dryer in an efficient way, with full loads, almost all of the energy is used by the motor to do real work. Unless you're using a whole new class of motor, you're not going to see large increases in efficiency. And it is illogical to be credulous of such claims.
Measure what the old appliances use before you replace them. Then measure what the new ones use. Then you can measure what the savings are, if any. Don't just read what the label says, and decide you're "saving" money, or being more energy efficient.
No, the experiment is the free-standing truth. If you need to wave your hands about what the theory is to understand the experiment, you're going backwards.
Obviously you need to know about the hypothesis that led to the experiment if you want to increase your knowledge, but that is a process outside of any issues of truth. That is about what assumptions you already made, eg what you believe to already be the scientific consensus of various things. That is an important part of the process, but only to the human. The experimental outcomes are the same regardless of what assumptions you make about the implications of one outcome or another. The "truth" that is uncovered is NOT whatever the implication for your hypothesis is; the truth that science can uncover is the outcome itself.
"These sorts of beliefs" are just weasel words, not beliefs. ;) And you won't hang them on me, if you successfully parsed my claims. I do agree it hinders progress, at least.
It can be viable as a human food source, and yet not practicable for non-biological reasons. It might be so much less efficient than some other food source that the land would be worth more than the crop, as an example.
Viable just means it can work. It doesn't mean that it will be affordable or efficient.
Just as, a seed is considered "viable" if it can germinate. That doesn't imply that you have the right conditions to get the plant to grow to maturity and reproduce.
Anyways, none of that matters here. This was:
Him: Device is to works as grain of rice is to meal.
Me: No, Device is to works as grain of rice is to edible. (and a "viable human food source")
They're the same people making the false claims about what the apps do or don't do, so why would I run to them as a trusted party?
If they were actively addressing this and warning users and removing apps based on this, then there would be something for me to contribute to.
As it is now, telling them would be like a feature request; talking about something they don't care about, and trying to persuade them.
They flag git apps for having github integration with giant "promotes non-free services" ads, even if there is no actual promotion, just API support, and yet they have versions of things where the effort has been made to compile without google libs, but that still ask for device ID. For example, their version f the google sky map app, they go to the trouble to compile with certain libraries replaced, but they leave in the part where it asks for the device ID, etc. It is a totally passive app with no legit use at all for device ID. No warnings.
They only care about copyright, they do not care about privacy. Freedom to them is a legal technicality, not something affected by a real loss of user privacy. It is just a checklist.
As far as, do I upload my versions, no. Users are assholes, especially on the internet. If there was an uproar about these privacy issues, I'd probably be contributing to some repository created to serve people who care about it. But if I'm the only one making the changes, I don't benefit. In fact, as my forks get out of sync with the originals, it would just generate increasing silly tickets and package management work.
You can simply observe the responses I get here when talking about it, and it is obvious that sharing the work would be a waste of time for me.
Yes, indeed, if you build a machine and claim it produces thrust and the skeptics say, "It is just like a block of wood and won't produce thrust," and then when they measure your device it turns out to produce thrust, not only when you press the button, but even when you don't... then that would be the same as this. Clearly the device isn't a block of wood, and clearly the inventor's button doesn't start/stop the device. Everybody is wrong, except for the inventor claiming that thrust is produced.
When the experiment has already been reproduced, in the past tense, and NASA is claiming that the thrust is real, it seems worth believing. They also say they don't know the engineering implications yet, which is also worth believing. I'm not going to say you should believe something because an authority said so, but it seems hard to claim that initial skepticism without a specific claim of where the thrust came from weighs more heavily than a replicated experiment.
If the measurement device is the source of the thrust, it doesn't really change the significance of the discovery, it just moves it into a different part of the equipment. As far as, was the thrust real thrust, that is well established. If you don't think NASA knows how to measure thrust on a bench test, well, just file this with the moon landing. Both have been replicated.
PS: You probably just misread the reporting if you thought that the unexpected thrust came from a block of wood. It actually came from the same machine, just "turned off." Clearly the theory of operation is wrong, and something about the device creates thrust and doesn't rely on whatever circuit the switch operates. That, however, is not "the equivalent of a block of wood."
The implication was, there was something wrong with their measuring.
It's true, that if there really is thrust at all times, it's a practical engineering success. It just seems far more likely to be a lab error.
That was the initial speculation for sure, no doubt about that.
But at this point, this is a replicated experiment.
According to Rumsfeldian Logic there are Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns, but you'd never have a Known Unknowable because (by definition) you don't know what is in the Unknown Unknown quadrant. When you have a Known Unknown, you don't know what it isn't, and you don't know what else is in the Unknown Unknowns category.
To a Rumsfeldian, God might be a Known Known, a Known Unknown, or an Unknown Unknown, depending. If you want God to be un-knowable, you'll need to adopt some Logical Positivism instead of just Rumsfedianism.
And I can't speculate at all on what sort of person considers Dick Cheney a known known.
The truth science can know is the outcome of an experiment.
Don't get lost in the weeds worrying about that science doesn't tell us what happens in a new experiment.
You're conflating the part where we don't know why an experiment turns out the way it does, with the part where we do know what actually happened in that experiment. (Because it was replicated)
People often get lost here. The truth that they wish science would tell them is the "why." But that part is mostly speculation, even when there is a solid long-standing theory and lots of replicated experiments. We can't ever know if we're right about the "why." But we can indeed know the "what."
New theories replace old theories as understanding changes, but the truth, the outcome of an experiment, remains untouched by this process. Indeed, new understandings follow new truths; new experimental outcomes.
The utility of "why" is mostly in deciding what experiments to do, as far as the science goes. It can also uncover important engineering.
Keep in mind also, if you think I'm contradicting Feynman's definition of science, you parsed something wrong. This is very, very mainstream stuff I'm saying.
So until that is resolved, we might have braking issues. Definitely a hurdle for both the science, and actually building a spaceship, but extra thrust when you don't expect it in no way refutes the existence of the thrust.
That the initial predictions are proving to be incorrect, even while the device is indeed producing thrust, that isn't a sign that this is nothing. Rather, that is a sign that this might be bigger than we realize.
The expected success state is for the experiment to match prediction. The expected failure state was no thrust. That the predictions were wrong, and there was also thrust, that is actually what makes this such a huge thing.
That one of the device states produced unexpected thrust implies that the inventors hypothesis of why it works is incorrect, but this is already replicated and the device does produce thrust.
The failure of the prediction means that the science they were testing gave a negative result, but it does not at all refute the engineering success of having produced thrust.
No, it "works" in the same sense that a single grain of rice is "edible" and a "viable human food source."
And often even on F-Droid.
A lot of F-Droid apps ask for extra permissions. Instead of just trusting them, I download the source, reduce the permissions, and then run the app. If it is trying to use those extras permissions I took out, then it will crash when it tries. Almost all the apps (on f-droid) that claim not to actually use those permissions unless some feature is turned on will actually crash without them. Then I go in and comment out the sections of code that cause the app to crash. That way I don't need to audit their source, just debug the crashes.
It is a total PITA but it is the only way to get the tracking code out; even on "free" software.
Why doesn't GNU Hurd run on my phone?
Because you didn't finish installing it.
Even if they're bending spacetime, they're only doing it inside the device so it would be more of a pinch drive than a warp drive. Warp drive is a metaphor from the art of weaving, applied to the concept of a "fabric" of space and time. So "warp drive" implies a large scale folding, an effect involving the breadth of space. This device, if we give the interpretation most favorable to this line of thinking, pinches space locally without changing what is outside the device. This creates an imbalance, and some angular momentum keeps everything balanced.
You need to be able to project the imbalance outside the device in order to have any sort of "warp drive." Here the effect is contained entirely between the threads, so if you don't like "pinch drive" it could also be a "stitch drive."
It could mean anything between, "shave a few hours off a trip to Jupiter" all the way up to, "2 hours to Alpha Centauri."
What we have now is some new engineering that advanced ahead of the science. Until the science catches up and explains it, we have no way to understand or predict the actual utility of the device beyond the inconsequential amount of force the existing device directs.
Another thing to remember when thinking about it is that the speed of light is not any sort of "speed limit." Actual photons go faster or slower than that speed according to quantum theory. Since photons are faster than our fuel sources, and spewing fuel out the back of a craft requires increasing fuel as you approach light speed, it is realistic to say that as a matter of engineering it is unlikely to be possible to build a device based on spewing fuel out the back that could achieve the average speed of light.
That is the potential importance of this technology. It is creating directional force without spewing any fuel. So there is no reason to just assume that the practical limits on fuel-spewing based propulsion will apply here. What will matter is the exact details of the forces involved and their edge cases, which is not yet well established. We don't know what we don't know.
Maybe the limits will be so broad, we can start tootling around between the galaxies. Or maybe the limits will be even stricter, and this won't even be useful for short trips.
No. These tests prove that the device is real, and that it produces force.
You're just saying, it isn't proved how it works. That is true, there are different ideas, and a lot of people are skeptical of the inventor's theory of operation. However, most of those skeptics also claimed the device wouldn't work at all, and yet, it does work. So it is on them to think up new hypotheses if they don't like his.
That the device works is what was proven here. Waving your hands about how you don't know why it works, that doesn't refute that the device works.
Or to put it another way, that the device works is proven engineering. Why it works is unresolved science. But the science and engineering are not going to be in dispute; we know that in advance. The science can't refute the proven engineering, and it is silly to claim outright that it does. Especially in advance of even understanding the science! lol
If this device actually works, it means everything we think we know about physics is wrong.
No, just the non-scientific armchair claims of various things being "impossible," where actual physics doesn't even address what isn't possible, and can't claim anything to be impossible. Science is about what is known, not what isn't. Things are either know to be true in a certain set of conditions, known not to be true in a certain set of conditions, or not known. There is no way that science could, or would try to, claim what is or isn't possible in unknown conditions.
A new technology is just an example of a new context, a new set of conditions. There are basically no limits to what might be true under new conditions. Those are all unknowns.
I see it every time I drive through a small town, actually.
Right, exactly, the default one is for bare minimum use. If you're hosting some modern what-the-what, then you install a full size web server. If you just need to serve up some HTML on a server that mostly does something else, then this is great.
If you are actually hosting something, using a default bare-bones httpd is a no-go. You will have to make a choice between web server packages, and install one. Probably configure it, too.
Linux on a desktop with shitty hardware that BSD doesn't support ... sure, its great.
NetBSD runs everywhere, even shitty hardware.
Everything on the "linux desktop" is portable stuff that runs fine on *BSD.
Notice the difference between, "one guy with a problem not widely reported" and "I've never heard of it so it doesn't exist?"
I mean, if you can't disagree with what I said, just make something up to disagree with, right? LOL haters gotta hate I guess
BTW, hating a company harder doesn't change what hardware they manufacture. Reviews are widely available. Your anonymous review says nasty stuff; the ones from reputable sources say other, different things.
Also, if ASUS sucked for years and then you bought their tablet after having that experience, only to be totally shocked that it was the low quality you expected, it would not lead to the review you give here. It would be a different review. Your review doesn't seem consistent with your claimed facts. It was not the cheapest tablet, so if you thought they were so bad, you wouldn't have chosen them.
There are no widespread reports of tablets just "stopping" charging. For one person to claim it happened 2 times, well, there are ways to consistently damage batteries, for example aftermarket products that claim to give you extra battery life. If if it was somebody claiming it happened to them once, that is totally believable. Some electronic devices will die earlier than expected. It is just the nature of manufacturing. But that is very different than claiming a specific manufacturing fault that repeatedly causes a very specific problem, like batteries totally dead and not charging. That sort of manufacturing fault would actually be widely reported, and show up in reviews.
We can't know what did or didn't happen in one case, but we actually can know if a particular problem is frequent and caused by poor build quality.
I dropped my N7-2012 an insane number of times. Whenever it fell out of a pocket, it did a backflip and landed flat, unharmed. Every single time. Knocking off tables was the same deal... tumble, tumble, *slap*! I did finally knock it out of a laundry basket onto a sidewalk, and it didn't have a chance to flip at that angle, because when it slides off a curved surface it can't do the backflip balance tricks. So then it finally hit direct and smashed the corner bad.
OTOH even then, since everything is accessible I could order the part and put a new touchscreen on for ~$65.