Software engineer at the Nucleic Acid Observatory in Boston. Speaking for myself unless I say otherwise.
jefftk
FWIW, I read 700e6 the same as 700M or 7e8. If someone was trying to communicate significant figures I’d expect 7.00e8.
If I was running a website I’d simply not use analytics.
My bet is if you were running a website like this you’d see how useful analytics are for making complex websites better.
In our case I’m not worried about when they wake up in the morning, but about going to sleep, especially at naptime. A crib is boring and conducive to sleep, but there are a lot of interesting things to play with around the room.
The reason I want to stick with a crib over a bed or floor mattress (and I assume the reason most people use cribs) is that it keeps them in their bed during the time they’re supposed to be sleeping.
Climbing out of the crib is mildly dangerous, since it’s farther down on the outside than the inside. So it’s good practice to switch a way from a crib (or adjust the crib to be taller) once they get to where they’ll be able to do that soon.
Even if they can do it safely, though, a crib they can get in and out of on their own defeats the purpose of a crib—at that point you should just move to something optimized for being easy to get in and out of, like a bed.
I do think it’s possible to have low crosstalk with low damping. The problem is that my current design uses the same rubber (sorbothane) pad for both purposes. Possibly this could be two layers, first sorbothane (for isolation) and then something springing (for minimal damping). Or an actual spring?
I do think that would be possible, but then I think you’ll also get more false triggers. The strong damping is what makes it so I can sensitively detect a pluck on one tine without a strong pluck on one tine also triggering detection of a weak pluck on neighbor tines.
I was thinking that finger muting wouldn’t be possible, because the sensors are physically damped and there’s no vibration left for your fingers to stop. Except now that you mention it, it might still be possible! It could be that gently placing your finger on one of them has a sufficiently recognizable signal that if it’s currently “vibrating” and you do that I could treat that as a mute signal.
I don’t think they are pinchy, since they are tight in their resting position?
Whoops! You’re right! Will do.
Turns out I forgot to solder the ground and power pins! So they worked, but very poorly.
Combined with switching to shielded cable and swapping the piezo input from +1.65v to ground, it’s working well now!
I did decide to redo it for the Teensy 4.1, and I hooked up all 18 inputs:
I also added mounting holes, and a bit of writing.
When you get deeper in you will hit the issue that almost every modern part is smd with no through hole equivalent.
I’m not currently planning to get deeper into this, but we’ll see!
Audio science review forums will have domain experts who are much more knowledgeable than I am about this, it’s very hard to make “perfect” analog acoustic circuits where any design compromises are no longer audible. But it can be done.
One nice thing about this project is that I’m not trying to capture high-quality audio: I only need it to be good enough to work as a sensor.
Testing with a breadboard the 3.3v digital seems to be good enough, and the noise I’m getting seems to be RF on the piezo lines which is hard to avoid.
Note that if you have a hot air soldering iron and paste it’s not difficult to use smd parts of you order the big ones or have a microscope.
I don’t, and haven’t used one. I suspect it’s not worth getting into it for this project?
I silkscreened the actual values not “r1...rn” and the same for capacitance. This makes hand building easier.
My current draft (as pictured here) does both, which is the KiCad default.
The post isn’t trying to cover all cases of harmful careers, just ones where the career seems to be clearly net positive when approached from a costs-and-benefits framework, but still involves some harms. Trying to think about your class of objections, all the ones I can think of are covered by “that’s actually net negative” and not “that’s clearly positive, but you shouldn’t do it anyway”?
For example, say someone cares a lot about animals and thought their best altruistic option might be working in their family’s ranch. They’d (a) they’d earn a bunch of money (hypothetical!) that they’d donate to ACE recommendations, (b) they’d have some influence in the direction of better treatment of animals, but (c) they’d be complicit in raising animals for food. [1] It seems to me that the question here is whether (a) and (b) outweigh (c)? Or do you want to give additional weight to farms like this being incompatible with the stricter moral standard you think is correct?
[1] If the movement were working to outlaw ranches like this I see how working at one could undermine that, and so be another harm in addition to (c).
That’s right: if it were free to include then sure, even if only 5% of attendees can read it. But it’s actually quite a lot of work.
I can’t tell if you’re joking? But at the risk of missing the joke, where do you see this in EA philosophy?
Twilio has extended this by two years: https://www.twilio.com/en-us/changelog/Extension-of-Twilio-Programmable-Video-End-of-Life-to-December-5-2026
Speak up if you want me to keep this running until the new EOL date?
That’s my guess too.
Are you sure? It seems to me that even the most “rigid” masks I’ve tried are still not very hard, and with sufficiently tight straps while my skin deforms slightly the masks deform much more?
Note that this is a valved mask, so it probably wouldn’t have done well in a source control comparison.