I guess they wanted to make the screws even more tamper-resistant? With the standard Torx Tamper-Resistant screws, they could often be bypassed by chiseling the pin away with a flathead and a hammer, and then using a standard Torx driver. Can’t do that with the pentalobular design!

I know HP uses those on some computers. Pretty neat design, if you ask me!

There’s only one type of torx

There isn’t. There’s Torx, Torx Plus, and Torx Paralobe. See here for more details: https://www.semblex.com/en/pdf-files/technology-files/torx-paralobe-pdf/ . Plus there’s also the ttap and tamper-resistant variants shown in the meme.

As other people have mentioned, Torx screwdrivers are forwards compatible with Torx Plus and Torx Paralobe. But the screwdrivers for the newer standards are not backwards compatible with older screws.

Similarly, Tamper-Resistant Torx screwdrivers can be used on regular Torx screws. But Tamper-Resistant Torx Plus screwdrivers cannot be used on regular Torx Plus screws – it’s a completely different shape!

If you’re in a professional setting where you order high-quality screws and drivers in bulk directly from a manufacturer, I’d imagine that this isn’t much of an issue. But if you’re a hobbyist or just need to repair something in a domestic setting, the three different torx variants plus the other non-torx hexalobular screws (WA drive, Polydrive, T-Star Plus) can cause quite a bit of confusion. Anecdotally, I have a set of what I thought were really low-quality Torx bits. Turns out, they’re actually good-quality Torx Plus bits that by design don’t fit my Torx screws.

Things are getting heated in the screw fandom

I’m not canadian, so I don’t have a lot of experience with robertson. But from the limited experience that I do have, I would rate it 10/10.

What would you recommend for smaller screws (e.g. for electronics)? As far as I know, there aren’t smaller sizes of robertson like there are with torx?

Perplexity.ai is also pretty nice. As far as I understand, it’s just some version of chatgpt but with the ability to search the web.

This but with “microsoft office” instead of java

Gradual typing isn’t reinventing the wheel, it’s a new paradigm. Statically typed code is easier to write and harder to debug. Dynamically typed code is harder to debug, but easier to write. With gradual typing, the idea is that you can first write dynamic code (easier to write), and then – wait for it – GRADUALLY turn it into static code by adding type hints (easier to debug). It separates the typing away from the writing, meaning that the programmer doesn’t have to multitask as much. If you know what you’re doing, mypy really does let you eat your cake and keep it too.

reasoning

What reasoning? I’m not trying to make any logical deductions here, I’m just expressing annoyance at a inevitable, but nevertheless cumbersome outcome of the interaction between numpy and mypy. I like python and I think mypy is a great tool, I wouldn’t be using it otherwise.

B🤮ng