I was surprised at the early failures of my Sylvania bulbs. Had expected that going with a brand that has been in the light bulb industry for a long time, I would get decent quality, but they've all died in under a year. Now IKEA bulbs are my go-to, the mix of selection, quality and price is impressive compared to what I've seen but I haven't thoroughly researched this. Do Philips or GE do better?
I have only my anecdotal experience, but I'm happy with the Philips & GE bulbs. As I said, they both seem to run pretty cool. Philips makes what seem to be inexpensive-but-quality bulbs, as well as dimmable LED's that red-shift like incandescent used to. They also make a 60W yellow bulb that has very low blue emissions, uncommon for LED bulbs. Some of GE's LED bulbs have really high CRI which I like for making the basement more cheery.
One thing to pay close attention to on the package is whether the bulb can be run in an enclosed fixture. The package should always specify. Following this guidance and picking the right bulb for the fixture will help ensure you get the service life you expect. I don't think I've found any 100W equivalents that are OK'd for fully enclosed application, and 60W equivalent is like 50/50.
The last I looked at them, Ikea bulbs ran hot the packaging advised not to be used in small/enclosed fixtures because they could overheat. Do you find that to be the case with the ones you're using?
I have a couple of 2W/80lm ikea bulbs for bedside lighting, and they are room temperature.
I also own some 5W/400lm ikea bulbs for general room lighting and they do run warm, maybe something like 40°C ± 5°C. The fixture/thingy around the bulb is roughly the size of a fist.
The bulbs are pretty new so I can't say anything about the lifespan of the bulbs, but the price is reasonable, they are not the fancy smart bulbs.
I had some complex JS plotting to do as part of a client project, with axis navigation, color changes, discontinuous lines on time-axis scatter plots, custom markers, and custom gridlines. I scrapped my initial approach and switched to Highcharts, saving a lot of time compared to building the plot directly in D3.
By default you get a great plot, and with a well-documented API you can customize literally every aspect. Congratulations to the team on the launch of the new version!
Backed! I hadn't heard about this Kickstarter campaign, thanks for posting.
Magit is such a great tool that I think it's worth learning emacs for, even if you just use emacs for revision control and spend the rest of your time working in a different IDE.
There might be insight to be gleamed from a better dataset than public repos on github. It's a big leap to make inferences about the use of Django in the wild from this.
This is an interesting problem. I'm trying to visualize this and I must be thinking about the problem incorrectly; perhaps you can help me wrap my head around it.
Since the pieces fall onto the faster conveyor belt with random spacing, isn't it possible that two consecutive pieces will have the spacing of the puffers they are destined for (within margins), regardless of the puffer placements?
The spacing of the conveyor 'traps' is equal, the conveyor belt speeds are a constant. If the puffers are equidistant the chances of overlap are substantially higher than if they don't. Most conveyor traps take only one or two parts along. If there are many more parts they tend to fall in a clump and won't be classified so then there also is no problem.
In the end the error rate went down a lot because of a less predictable spacing. But you are right that if the pieces would fall with random spacings that it would not matter what the distance between the puffer stations would be.
The funny thing is that I spent a lot of time measuring out the vertical spacing on the conveyor in the hopper. If I had done that more sloppily it would have worked better :)
I had to think for some time on this one. Finally it occurred to me, that the pieces are some x distance apart on an average.
At any snapshot, the pieces are lying with a Gaussian distribution around x multiples along the belt i.e having sigma at x, 2x, 3x,...nx....
So for the bins to not overlap:
1) their width/span-along-the-belt should be lesser than x
2) And they can be placed at x, 3x/2, 5x/2, 7x/2 (i.e. prime multiples of x/2)
Wow! Learnt something useful today. Thank you. :)
Edit: I realize after posting that, my solution won't work! If somebody can explain how the prime thing works will be great. I can imagine, though, that the bin placements should be such that, at any given time the piece is only in front of a single bin. Meaning, no pair of bins should have a distance of x-multiple. I can guess, perhaps heuristics which work well, can be devised. But it will be great to know the mathematical solution for this.
No, the Gates Foundation just has open access requirements. Sorry Nature and Science.
I hope this sets the stage for all grant funding sources to institute similar requirements, and we'll get even more absurd clickbait headlines as a result.
