You should not have, because the researcher who claimed you should retracted his own claim in 1989. This story is the latest release of a rough example working better than smooth.

I have to disagree. While I agree the understanding of roughness impact has evolved over time; The summary clearly indicates Ichiro Tani introduced this idea in 1940 and retracted it based on further analysis of data [from 10 years prior to his claim] in 1989. The rest is just examples of people hunting down the best inverse examples of what he'd previously claimed... with this being the latest 2026 release directly descended from his own work.

It's actually impressive flex to claim an idea you pushed that misled people for 40yrs before you retracted it [and arguably beyond that] is a fundamental principal of aerodynamic engineering which you then 'overturned' with your continued research into how wrong you were.

1940 - Ichiro Tani argues surface roughness prevents laminar flow.
1989 - Tani reviewed data from the 1930's and found "roughness may not necessarily only promote turbulent transistion.
1990s - Yasuaki Kohama of Tohoku University experimentally demonstrated fibrous rough surfaces, which have fine fibrous irregularities on their surface, have the effect of delaying transition under certain conditions.
2026 - Same team announces this.

From TFS "This technology is fundamentally different from the "rivulet (shark skin) process," which is known as a typical aerodynamic drag reduction technology. The rivulet process mimics the fine longitudinal grooves in shark skin, and by carving grooves approximately 0.1 mm wide along the direction of airflow, it aligns the vortices that occur near the wall surface of turbulent airflow areas. DMR, on the other hand, delays the switch from laminar to turbulent flow by means of random and minute irregularities. The flow zones it affects and the mechanisms it employs are based on completely different concepts."

<blink>12:00</blink>

You used the phrase 'junk emails' but it is clear from context and the rest of your remarks that you were not talking about SPAM but rather legitimate emails that you just considered useless junk.

Look at this statement, it would be nonsensical to claim this is referring to ACTUAL junk aka spam email: Pruning spam.

"Don't use the legal excuse, that a lawyer might ask for an email some day, that's BS and you know it! Don't use the "I might have to reference email X later on", excuse, you'll know if it's important enough to keep."

"I will never keep an email where someone is alerting me they'll email me later, I'll just wait for that later email. I will never keep an email where someone is asking me to upload stuff to their site, once I upload whatever, they confirm, I delete the email. There's no the value to the email once the upload is done"

Right, emails you subjectively consider useless, but many people are required to keep ALL communications. They are not allowed to decide which are useful and useless. More importantly, you are describing a time consuming process where you spend significant time and worse, mental load, backtracking to determine old LEGITIMATE email is no longer useful. We just calculated a cost under 25 cents a year to simply archive all your email forever. That means if you make $15/hr flipping burgers and spend ONE MINUTE A YEAR managing email you've already exhausted the cost to simply keep all of it.

A lot of developers took a long time fighting your argument, only they were fighting for microoptimizations in code but the math kept crushing them. It's simply far more effective to save the time you'd spend choosing instructions that are slightly faster and instead use that time finding a high level design that is more efficient or timing execution to find the choke points. Email management is only useful to the extent it aids you in finding emails you need.