anmorgan (u/anmorgan)

anmorgan commented on Ask HN: Should I try to manufacture toasters? · Posted by u/Dig1t

Cacti · 2 years ago

no, a toaster is actually pretty simple lol.

the issue is that production at scale for millions of customers, for practically anything at all, is not simple. all of the things you point to are true, but they are true of many other goods and products.

also, you are assuming they need or care about profit.

anmorgan · 2 years ago

Let me rephrase that. A toaster is functionally simple, but designing, engineering, manufacturing, and creating a business selling toasters is not.

Also I'm making the assumption it is for profit since they started off with "I'm wanting to start a business"

anmorgan commented on Ask HN: Should I try to manufacture toasters? · Posted by u/Dig1t

anmorgan · 2 years ago

To mix in with other's comments.

It's always good to have a target in sight, but building a physical product with no experience will be a long, expensive journey.

I make physical and digital products as a consultant, the first thing I tell entrepreneurs is get to your first prototype. Not even an MVP, just something functional with the core features. Some times these are partial prototypes that work out various sub-systems. In this case, the actuation mechanisms, the heating elements with power, digital / physical controls, etc.

After that, the real work begins. You need to get to a complete working prototype. The other thing I like to say is just because someone else has made it, or something similar, doesn't mean I know how to make it. It just means it's technically feasible.

If you start looking at the parts of the toaster, you need to electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, material science, embedded software engineering, probably some industrial design and user experience design if you get that far. Even user research if you want to better understand the user and market.

Once you get to a first iteration, and typically before, you need to engage UL and FCC, usually through third parties to start testing for certifications and engineering refinement. You also need to start engaging contract manufacturers to understand how to work within limitations of their capabilities and your design.

A toaster may seem simple, but I assure it is not.

Then couple all of this with legal considerations as mentioned in other comments and whether or not it's even a practical business model. This is quite a large endeavor.

But if you are going to do anything, start small.

anmorgan commented on Google speakers are listening to more than just voice commands protocol.com/google-smart... · Posted by u/kiyanwang

dsr_ · 6 years ago

We would all be surprised if it turns out that a giant corporation who sells you always-on networked microphones wasn't abusing it in any way, shape or form.

Here's a slippery slope for you:

1. "OK Google, order pizza from Sal's."

2. "Broken glass detected in living room. Should I call police?"

3. "The baby has been crying for more than 60 minutes. Do you want assistance?"

4. "Shots fired. Calling 911 now."

2016-2020 has taught me that slippery slope arguments are not fallacious in and of themselves; they just aren't convincing by themselves.

The sound of a Siamese cat in heat is extremely similar to a crying baby.

Watching an unusually well-Foleyed action movie on a good sound system can probably fool any recognition system Google can jam into next year's $150 smart speaker.

And that's how Google could swat you with the best of intentions.

anmorgan · 6 years ago

I would disagree that example is a slippery slope, but more of a leap across a vast canyon.

Going from providing information and requesting an action, to making an automated decision and action, is much more difficult as you pointed out. Therefore I'd be very surprised to see this actually occur.

anmorgan commented on Holographic optics for thin and lightweight virtual reality research.fb.com/blog/2020... · Posted by u/onurcel

numpad0 · 6 years ago

LCD can’t darken, aren’t that transparent in the first place, also can’t focus without microlenses and you won’t be able to look through microlenses. If you still think it viable you can prototype the optics you described using old Nokia phone LCDs or some later GameBoy models that has easily removable backlights.

anmorgan · 6 years ago

Are you being specific about the word darken? Because LCDs are design to either allow or block light. So technically an LCD can "darken" incoming light. But I think the point of inconsistent lighting from the environment would be the biggest challenge.

The best example of transparent display I've seen in production is:https://glas.johnsoncontrols.com/

But the material on that seems darker and I believe they use an edge light to provide higher contrast.

I think the distance from the eye, as well, would be difficult if you aren't doing some type of projection, like what is used in the the article.

anmorgan commented on Why is strlen so complex in C? stackoverflow.com/q/57650... · Posted by u/azhenley

ncmncm · 7 years ago

Simply this: if you write C code, it produces the same instructions compiling with a C or C++ compiler.

But a C compiler restricts you to the C subset. Many of the most useful features of C++ generate no extra instructions, but make the code more maintainable. There are libraries that compile to no code except exactly what you call, optimized down to exactly the circumstances of the call, wholly inexpressible in C, that you would have to open-code directly in C, gaining no benefit from the maturity of a library.

In other words, in the absolute worst case, you write the program using only C features, and get the same program. But there is never a reason to opt for the absolute worst case when you have a better choice.

anmorgan · 7 years ago

Okay, I think this reply helps frame your stance much better. You are not necessarily proposing no C ever, but saying at least start a new project with a C++ compiler / IDE and if there are reasons to use C code or rules like "don't use dynamic memory allocation", when there is a substantial reason, then that is acceptable

anmorgan commented on Why is strlen so complex in C? stackoverflow.com/q/57650... · Posted by u/azhenley

ncmncm · 7 years ago

If it's too small for C++, it's also too small for C. Arduino is 8 bits, and it's C++ from here to the horizon.

On ARM it is no contest, at any size.

Funny little $.10 PICcy things may not have a C++ compiler available. Then, the C compiler is better than asm, if you can fit. Otherwise, no excuse.

anmorgan · 7 years ago

On Arduino, from my experience, it is easy to run into memory constraints, especially when using dynamically allocated memory like strings. And I'm taking about both the flash memory for code and the ram for data, stack, and heap.

I don't think C is always a win, but to say to never use for new projects seems overly biased. Why is your opinion about C so strong? I am curious.

anmorgan commented on Why is strlen so complex in C? stackoverflow.com/q/57650... · Posted by u/azhenley

ncmncm · 7 years ago

I, in fact, do suggest C++ as the right answer, where it is not precluded for practical or silly reasons.

It is generally quite easy to compile a C program with a C++ compiler, and then the sky's the limit on code improvements. I recommend it, and suggest starting with improvements to memory safety.

There is really no excuse for writing a new C program anymore.

anmorgan · 7 years ago

An 8-bit microcontroller where memory is constrained and all the vendor libraries are written in C, is a good example.

Your 32-bit ARM M3/M4 cores are probably crossing that line where the memory cost of using C++ is worth it, but I would say there are still real world reasons to use C.

Though I would love to see more microcontroller vendors (or any) support C++ or Rust as part of they HAL libraries, but I think you will still find C to be perfectly viable for the low cost microcontroller application.

anmorgan commented on Technical Vision for Qt 6 blog.qt.io/blog/2019/08/0... · Posted by u/pjmlp

kart23 · 7 years ago

Can someone please show me how to style a qt app relatively easily? I've built qt applications, and making some effort to make it look passable takes twice as much time as actual programming. QSS just sucks in making luxurious feeling interfaces, and this is where electron succeeds. Its much easier to make your own 'widgets' and have a great feeling application at the expense of ram and performance on electron. If Qt fixes styling, I would be onboard 100%. Performance is amazing and I like being able to develop one codebase for all operating systems.

anmorgan · 7 years ago

This is geared towards qtquick (not widgets) applications, but to create a general theme you can use this pattern:

https://doc.qt.io/archives/qt-5.11/qtquickcontrols2-flatstyl...

Then before the engine is loaded in main.cpp call

qmlRegisterSingleton( QUrl(QStringLiteral("qrc:/Theme.qml")), "mycustomname.theme", 1, 0, "Theme");

Then in a qml file:

import mycustomname.theme 1.0

This allows you to do something like:

Rectangle { width: 100 height: 100 color: Theme.mainColor }

You can also do things like set the application font which would be done in main.cpp before the engine is loaded:

QFont appFont("NameOfLoadedFont); appFont.setPixelSize(16); QGuiApplication::setFont(appFont);

You would need to load the font, which you can do in the Theme.qml file:

property FontLoader someFont: FontLoader { source: "qrc:/locationOfFont/Font" name: "NameOfLoadedFont" }

anmorgan commented on UX clichés uxdesign.cc/a-comprehensi... · Posted by u/flywithdolp

ryanSrich · 7 years ago

“UX” should go away. What everyone calls UX is just proper UI design. Too often the term “UX” is put on this pedestal. It’s thought of as more important or cerebral than visual design. The problem with that thinking is that UX _is_ very obviously visual. Those that try to distance UX and visual UI design often have terrible aesthetic taste and lack any creative skill.

Which should give you some indication why the design industry is a shell of its former self. The homogeneous nature of modern web products is concerning, but it makes sense unfortunately.

anmorgan · 7 years ago

I find your comment very similar in tone as the article: someone who is a interface designer that has had bad experiences with UX designers.

I think this is unfortunate, because I think UX design just a definition of the process that product (digital or physical) design was already doing, and now there is a common (though still evolving) language to be able to communicate the challenges of the full product design lifecycle.

To me UX is the superset for user centered design and User Interface design is a subset of it. They are both important. UX is not UI because they are not comparisons, but parts of the same thing.

Those are my thoughts and experiences at least.