Torx is the 🐐! Phillips are just terrible, I prefer slotted over Phillips. You can slip out quite easily with slotted but if you are in there they work ok.
Phillips are horrible. You need to have 20 different ones that look all the same and you have to try them multiple times to figure out which slip the least. The post and people with no clue make it seem like they make new torx every day to fuck with people. If you have a 15, 20 and 25 torx bit you can use most torx screws out there. If you work on small applications you need a 10 and below. If you use massive screws you ned a 30 and a 40.
Torx are superior to all other types. I’ve been a carpenter for roughly three decades, and have suffered through all manner of fastening methods that have come and gone. None of them can hold a candle to Torx. I’ve never seen another type that can resist stripping out so well and for so long.
Torx should be the default over Phillips for sure. Phillips is fine for shit like access panels or screw terminals. Slotted is useless for anything but the adjustment on pots and thermostats. Robertson is just a proto-torx. Everything else either exists to make someone money or is a bolt
How do you feel about square drive? I’m no carpenter, just someone that’s done enough work around the house, but I’ve found that Torx are the best option but square is a close second (but I don’t think I’ve used them in any especially high torque situations, and they may fall short there).
So square is a close second in terms of quality, while being vastly simpler and cheaper to manufacture. Seems to me like i’d prefer square.
Also i’d be terrified of getting dirt in a torx screw, good luck cleaning it to make it usable again. Though i haven’t actually had this problem personally so it’s just a hunch
I have torx all over my mountain bike that gets caked in dirt, a little bit of water and a pick gets them usable in seconds. I could argue that hex is superior to square but they’re both worse than torx so who really cares.
Torx, hex, and square/Robertson all require broaching, generally with a rotary broach. The manufacturing process is basically identical, though the manufacturing of the machine tools varies slightly.
robertsons are tapered, so unless you get a proper positive lock, or they have dirt in them or something, they’re more liable to stripping out. But other than that, they’re great.
Remindes me of the tweet that said something like “My favorite moment on the internet was when someone said, they believe that people will changed their mind when given evidence. Then I linked TWO SOURCES that said otherwise and they were like I still believe it.”
Or when a hexbearian explained to me that hexbear isn’t toxic at all, it’s just when people refuse to read sources but than it’s their fault for not engaging with the material. Later they refused to open my sources.
The person you’re talking to is unlikely to be pursuaded but there’s usually silent, invisible lurkers who can be.
I know I’ve changed my mind on things because of arguments I’ve read on the internet.
It is proven that people do double down on their views when confronted with opposing evidence, but IMO this is more about the psychology of trust and confrontation between individuals, rather than proof of the futility of argument as a concept. Hell, Vsauce made a video called ‘The Future of Reasoning’, where he makes the case that argument might have been selected for as an essential part of human psychology and necessary for our survivial.
Evidence shows that arguments are really only conducive to changing opinions when the person has a set of primers to find the person they disagree with otherwise agreeable. They refer to it as being in alignment with socio-epistemic conditions. Basically, people within a group identity can change opinions with others in the group, as long as the difference in opinion is not one that would be diametrically opposed to their group’s underlying identity. So, arguments between people from two different groups, like left v right, don’t really change minds towards the group they do not identify with. Those watching the debate will agree with the people who are in the same socio-epistemic group. This arguably makes public debate a bad thing. This is because those third party on-lookers will side with the person in the debate they most identify with for reasons outside of the debate. So you are simply platforming the person you disagree with, and possibly exposing people more in alignment with them, to an argument for a more extreme version of their position, rather than exposing them to a counter-opinion argument, to be considered.
Here is a good starting point on this subject, it links to a number of supporting papers early in the paper.
lemmyshitpost
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.