That is one of those Wikipedia articles which is a bit vague about what it means. It's doesn't make sense to intend to say that glass transmits 90% of incident light regardless of the thickness. The Wikipedia entry references a single optical "element", so I'd take "the transmissivity of one element (two surfaces) is about 90%," to mean that 10% is the lower limit of light loss for a single lens of arbitrary thinness.
Now if a very thin silica glass lens transmits 90% of the light falling on it, then clearly it'd be very difficult to conceive of a material that transmits 10% more light than that. However you can achieve whatever level of attenuation you wish by making your piece of glass sufficiently (possibly absurdly) thick. The three inch thick glass panes used in giant ocean tanks are noticeably more opaque than air. Clearly it's physically possible for a material to transmit 10% more light than the same thickness of glass -- for a sufficient thickness. Particularly if the index of refraction of that material is closer to air.
Of course that's where we get to the point that the summary is badly written too. Silica glass *is* very transparent; insufficient transparency isn't a problem in window applications, if there's a problem it's that the material is too transparent. That's why we have dark tinting and anti-IR coating. So it's not clear why we would care that the material can transmit 10% more light. Clearly the story got garbled somewhere along the way.
You know what's going to happen if you rely on a pager, don't you? Nobody will know how to contact you on that.
Which, indeed, is a feature -- not a bug. Anyone you want to reach you you give them the secret formula: call my pager's phone #, and when you hear the beep enter your phone number followed by #. Or if you need to send text, send an email to myPagerPhoneNumber@provider.com. If you can't handle that I don't want to hear from you.
Oh, and a feature phone is fine solution if it's OK that you can't be reached when you're in a tunnel or some other places the VHF phone band can't reach but typical pager frequencies can.
If it'll help, the basket looks kind of like a depiction of a gravity well.
Also, the observers changed the outcome. The discussion of this game might very well spark insights that unify quantum mechanics with general relativity.
You can say you were there when the 21st century Newton got hit on the head by a basketball.
Oh! DeLorean is paging me. brb.
Actually, I'm fairly certain that the time is kept internally (precise) to better than 0.001 seconds, but it's not displayed to that decimal place at any point. When the timer stops, it does not continue to run until a second is completed, but stops mid-second. That's why the decimal was added - so that fractions of a second could be seen.
You just "whooshed" on the meaning of life. Hard too. It's pretty pathetic.
This guy just explained to you that the point of fishing isn't fishing, it's about the art of extracting enjoyment from life regardless of circumstances. Your reply showed you don't get it. At all.
Efficiency is not enjoyment. It doesn't enrich. It doesn't produce. It is the antithesis of richness of experience. It is insectile, robotic, and inhuman. Trawlers that drag immense nets, indiscriminately scouring aquatic life from the water, are efficient. That's already been done, and the results are hideous and unsustainable. Explosives are very efficient for fishing. So is poison.
Why catch fish efficiently when you can do it with joy and pleasure, or flair and gusto? Sorry to rant, but I get the feeling you are modeling life so much that you are missing out on what it is to live it.
It ended up in a remote fishing village in Iceland, then it drove around Croatia for a couple days. Finally, it was stranded in Death Valley and over-heated.
Sorry. Couldn't resist. See later story.
Make headway at work. Continue to let things deteriorate at home.