I've played with MeshCore and Meshtastic a bit, and while they are fun, the general hype seems overblown. The "SHTF" types that get involved with this tend to just taint the whole concept for me. I was/am interested in the use cases for building sensor networks, but most of the chatter seems to be around people who just want to send Hello World type texts back and forth, without realizing how poorly a network like this would perform in a real SHTF scenario.
I largely agree and want to add more,I also think the lack of standards also will effect it's usability in a real shtf scenario. why should I use meshstastic over meshcore for example. I also don't think lora will be in my mind in that kind of scenario.
I feel the same way, and both mobile apps are pretty janky, with Meshtastic being extra obnoxious because the UI teams between Android and Apple apparently don't talk to each other- very hard to onboard/answer questions from someone new if you're on a different platform than them.
It was fun and cheap to set up, but I look forward to something with better messaging persistence so you can at least reliably not miss stuff.
I got to participate in a game that used Meshtastic and GPS where you walk around a large camp and "capture" different regions. It worked great for that and was a lot of fun.
If there ever where a more serious situation where my life depended on one of these meshes, I would be feeling pretty uneasy. They are absolutely not reliable enough to even consider such a thing. I suppose they might be better than nothing.
To say nothing of what is required to set up the devices. I wanted to put a full dev system on a raspberry pi 3 just so it would all be in one place and I could work on it when in a location with no internet - it ran out of memory trying to compile the massive web app that is the default client interface.
I'm not aware of janky laws in Florida, when I had panels installed on my last house in 2017 there wasn't much friction from the perspective of laws. Standard permitting process (basically just expensive paperwork).
The issue was with the insurance companies. We had an 11.6Kw array, and it was getting difficult to find insurers that would allow more than 6Kw of rooftop solar.
There is more to it than just accounting for inflation. Apple has done a number of other things in the meantime, including designing and manufacturing their own chips, that have changed the economies of this. Until the very recent RAM price explosion, a sub $500 computer in 2008 was probably more like a sub $350 computer today.
Inflation goes up - someone who could buy a $500 computer in 2008 should be able to buy a $766 or so computer today (cite: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com)
But today, if you can finagle the EDU discount, you can get a MacBook Neo for $499 ($600 without) which apparently isn't really compromised in any major way.
> Inflation goes up - someone who could buy a $500 computer in 2008 should be able to buy a $766 or so computer today
It should also be noted that technological advances tend to be deflationary in general: regardless of real or nominal dollars, the chips/storage/etc you can buy today were sometimes not even available in the past at any price.
True, a high-end 386 would have cost upwards of $10k when it first came out, but a MacBook Neo probably beats the pants off a supercomputer from the same era.
Yes, I'm aware how inflation works, you missed my point.
Many technology things have effectively gotten cheaper over time, when you account for overall performance/specs/capabilities/etc.
The "we don't know how to make a $500 computer that doesn't suck" statement of today would be more like "we don't know how to make a $350 computer that doesn't suck".
In a perfect world, sure. But people also want phones these days that are physically durable, have some degree of waterproofing/water resistance, maximum battery life, etc. Many of the demands and expectations of a modern phone aren't easily compatible with a replaceable battery design that can withstand the incompetence of the average end user.
A GoPro fits all of those requirements and has easily replaceable batteries. Now, I understand that the shape and sizes are different. But I wouldn't mind some extra mm of thickness (I already get a pretty big camera bump anyway) if that means I can replace a battery faster.
We don't have a choice in the first place, minding or not. People who would mind missing a 3.5mm jack or replaceable battery have no say anyway, as none of the flagship devices on the market have either.
That only holds if you believe the market has a high level of efficiency.
Maybe if we wait long enough, the distribution of devices being manufactured will match consumer preferences, but I don't believe that to be the case today. The iPhone Mini sold ~millions of units. That may not be enough for Apple, but it's certainly enough to make a profit, yet nobody's building small phones now.
>people also want phones these days that are physically durable,
Anecdotally on this front, I have had to replace the screens of my iphones at least three times in the past (different models). Incidentally, I have never needed to replace the screen of a phone that had a replaceable battery. YMMV, but this seems needlessly defeatist.
>maximum battery life
One could also claim that bespoke charging cables allow for faster charging or longer battery life, but I don't know any iPhone users that are a crying a river for their deprecated non-standard chargers. But again, YMMV I guess.
Can we have this discussion once? In this thread alone, there's like 50 instances of people making this claim and each time it takes about 20 minutes before at least one person replies that it's not the case, after which no refutals are posted. I'm happy to learn it is false if it is (I never had a phone that I trusted to be waterproof to any degree so I don't have first-hand knowledge), but it gets really tiring to read the same information level over and over as a reason for why we can't have nice things
Taking this comment as an example of someone who actually used a battery-swappable phone in rain on a motorcycle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47835184 (I'm not only taking the person's word for it: the device is also IP certified as waterproof 30 mins at 1m depth)
> (I'm not only taking the person's word for it: the device is also IP certified as waterproof 30 mins at 1m depth)
Many expect phones these days to be the more stringent IP 68, this would correspond to a device with the lesser water resistance of IP X7.
That phone only needs to be restored to IP X5 to handle usage in rain.
So it is great they got it (somewhat? completely?) restored, but it was a device with less water resistance than many flagships phone today, tested with a lower level of water resistance than it was originally rated for.
Fwiw, I also use devices with no IP certification or claims whatsoever in mild rain. It's not because there's a drop on the plastic case that it'll seize up, so the 5th ingress protection level being minimum for rain... I mean, technically yes, practically... depends if you really mean exposure to proper rain for more than the distance between bus stop and door step, say
Edit: wait,
> this would correspond to a device with the lesser water resistance of IP X7.
If 7 is already considered lesser...
> That phone only needs to be restored to IP X5 to handle usage in rain.
I looked it up and level 3 is rain actually ("spraying water"). How is 7 not sufficient for anything but perhaps full-on diving sessions
You severely underestimate the capabilities of modern electronics manufacturers. Sure, it’s harder to produce something that fits all those capabilities. But it’s totally possible. This is exactly the scenario where government regulation is critical to a well-functioning market.
There is a lot you can do with advanced materials science but as you get close to the high end of capability the cost goes up very rapidly and the ability to scale production is reduced.
Most common advice is that you have to be at least one of the sides somehow. Reddit famously did this with lots of sock puppet accounts to foster discussions and create pseudo activity.
In your case, I'd probably start by reaching out to businesses in mid-size metro markets, ones where bike couriers don't already exist, and offer to save them on shipping small packages. Build up a list of clientele and encourage them to contact you for jobs when they need to ship small ad-hoc stuff. That should give you an idea of demand. Then start posting on craigslist and facebook looking for delivery drivers, then start match-making. From there encourage the drivers you find to sign up on your platform for future work.
this is really helpful, especially the "build a list of clientele first" part. I've been so focused on the product that I havent done enough of this groundwork. The craigslist/facebook angle for finding travelers is smart, it crossed my mind but wasnt sure
Yes, we called API - Actual Person Interface. One person on one side of the marketplace that does the heavy work to build the other side, kickstart the flywheel
Start with one of the cheap kits on Amazon. A good chunk of the learning curve is software/design/workflows. On the machine side, learning how to properly secure your work pieces, and find the right bits, speeds, and feeds is another art. You can do all of that on a ~$300 3018 CNC kit. Your work output is limited in size, and precision, but that doesn't matter as much when you're just trying to get the hang of things.
I require payment upfront before work starts. Simply make it clear you are not a bank and are not extending credit. If your invoices are small setting up a recurring credit card payment is an option with various payment platforms.
The thing this article does not cover is that the average journalist has no sway. Most readers don't want the opinion of some random person covering a space, so "CEO Said a Thing" is the headline that draws the reader in. Many times the journalist also is not getting paid enough to inject any sort of counterpoint or unique perspective. This just seems like the natural outcome of the click-whoring online "news" structure we've created.
Then a better approach would be to not report on CEO's ramblings, and instead focus journalistic resources on topics of more interest to society. But, as the article points, that is not the purpose of journalism (at least in the United States).
You'd be hesitant to trust a brand if it can't keep consistent styling. Branding helps users identify a brand and believe it or not the aesthetics of a brand make a great deal of impact on consumers.
As others have said, your point comes across as "let's remove design who cares" because design and human computer interaction roles stopped where your understanding ends. Everything looks the same to you after all (it doesn't, you just haven't noticed it affecting your decision making).
Interesting how you seem so sure about what matters to other people, when the reality is that anything matters that people say matters to them. If people care about fonts, they do care about fonts.
If I follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion, nothing matters. Which is correct, but sort of pointless to state. On top of this nothingness, we typically stack personal preferences.
reply