Robelius

Nickff - Maybe you could have phrased your response a little differently? Highlighting you had trouble following the OPs post because of all the idioms would have been more effect than demanding they change their approach?

I used Reeder for a year, but switched to Miniflux because I wanted an RSS reader that could be used outside of my Apple devices. I do miss having a mobile app of my reader, since Miniflux can sometimes be hard to navigate on a mobile device. I never seriously considered using multiple readers until now. Thanks for the accidental recommendation.

I don’t think anyone is making that claim. But when it comes down to switching cost + recurring costs, people are starting to answer how sticky are these products.

What’s scummy about this? Seems like the poster was giving a perspective where they are trying to maximize outcomes of the non-profit rather than maximize dollars raised.

I like the idea of having a grid highlighting system, but didn’t see any info on what happens when you have more than 49 unique parts in your current 7x7 grid.

Any plans to allow for multiple unique parts in one cube? And if so, would you prefer to mix like parts with like parts, or mix different part types? i.e. one bin holds multiple types of resistors or one bin holds a unique resistor value and a button

Asking because I’ve tried both approaching when setting up lab spaces, but both systems sort of fall apart without the correct maintenance/tidying_up. Apologies if you answered it in the blog and I just missed it.

Either way, I like the idea of busting out the hammer you know how to use.

When designing hardware, you usually define what the expected operating environments are. Some typical environmental considerations are the min/max temperature, debris ingress, shock & vibration. If you know your product is going to operate in an area where material is likely to enter the product, then you can either try to keep that material out (sealing the product up), or make sure that dust entering the product won't cause failures (i.e. electrical shorts won't happen on a board by covering exposed areas with glue or making sure a mechanism can crush/clear particles). It's not necessarily more complexity in the product to navigate these constrains, but it is another thing to consider in the design.

For example, if you're making a phone that is going to be sold around the world, then you're going to worry about arctic/equator temps (will some of your components melt or ICs fail), salty sea air (will the product begin to corrode for people living by a beach), or fast moving elevators (will the speakers pop from a sudden change in pressure).

You can check out this manufacturers robot arms as some examples of existing products. They list some data sheets for their robot arms, including some arms that are IPxx rated. I don't think looking at robot arms is a 1to1 comparison for what you could expect from a humanoid robot since the considerations in the design process are going to be different.

website is kuka dot com/en-at/products/robotics-systems/industrial-robots/kr-agilus

6 months from announcing rePebble (Jan '25) to shipping your first units (July '25) seems like a quick turnaround for a compact consumer electronics device. Curious to know if these first units are closer to a white label of existing hardware or more of a JDM model.

Side note - I got the first pebble through the kickstarter pre-orders in my first year out of high school. Seeing something so novel was definitely a contributor to me switch from CS to Mech E and working in the consumer electronics space now. Thanks for making cool and interesting things :)

Could another benefit be the ability to change payloads? If there was a desire to change the orbits and payloads, then could these serve a function as a more responsive version of existing satellites?

This is brining back memories of playing with my older siblings. For the long jump, I would smash the buttons as quick as possible and then my sibling would time (triangle?) to jump before the line....looking back at it they probably just wanted me to do the most tiring task.

You could try a battery powered phone charger since it's a "relatively simple" first project. The big hurdle for learning these types of tools is usually "What buttons do I press to create the output that I want.

For the electrical side, there are plenty of schematics online that you can try to copy or use as a starting point. And the CAD side can be a simple box with snap fits. I'd recommend OnShape if you're just starting out since it's the lowest barrier of entry, but Fusion 360 is also good. All in, it should be <$150 for the PCBs + Components + 3D Prints.

After you get the satisfaction of seeing your device charge from something you made, then you'll start getting the itch and find more excuses to make things.

The school I went to had a common Dynamics exam. It was considered the first “real” engineering course you took, and was the foundation for a lot of upper div classes. Regardless of your teacher or class time; all students took the same exam at the same time. Professors would grade other professors students.

It was also normal for a double digit % of the students to fail the exam and retake the course (me included).

Its not exactly what people think of as a standardized test, but it ensured all students in the school had the same acceptable level of comprehension on the subject.