Ollee does that by replacing the original PCB. In this project the movement is kept original.
I recall the blog n-o-d-e did successfully put an NFC chip inside while also retaining the default PCB, so there is at least some free space in the case...
The largest CRT had a 43” viewable screen and had a volume of 0.75m³. A 43” LCD TV has a volume around 0.025m³. I’m not saying you could fit 30 packaged LCD TVs in the space of one CRT, but the volume is completely different. If you don’t think LCDs are less bulky, you probably never had a CRT.
But the size of the box is what, again? We're not measuring the volume of the tv, but the volume of the tv's box. I've never seen a tv box less than about 10" deep. Most are more like 14". They're what, even for a 43", nearly 5ft long by 4ft. That's 20 cubic feet, or something like it, for the crappy little smallest tv that they sell at Walmart. That would compare what, to a 13" crt (similar price points and so on). That probably fit in a box that was 8 cubic feet.
None of you are looking at this right. We were talking about how much space to ship one of them. And here you are talking about how thin the tv is when you stare and gawk at it, not the box it came in. Reddit-tier commentary.
Again, I’m going to disagree. Boxes for CRTs were massive. I had to RMA my 19” CRT in college and it was heavy, but worse was how wide and tall the box was. I had no car so had to painfully lug it a few blocks to the post office. I can’t quickly find package dimensions, but did find a YouTube video of a guy packaging a 13” trinitron for sale second had. The volume of the box was approx 0.075m³. The retail packaging for a 13” LCD currently available is 0.012m³. I have a 65” TVs that came in a box approximately 68”x38"x8". That’s rough equivalent to the package volume of a 24” CRT.
Costco wasn’t selling 24” CRTs, though, they were selling 27” & higher up to projection. These were massive, maybe three to a palette at most. CRTs needed to get deeper as they got larger, so their packaging grew in all three dimensions. LCDs only get bigger in two dimensions.
Either you never dealt with CRTs, or you’ve forgotten just how massive they were. I still have 25” Trinitron in the corner of my office. It is a production to move it. I could fit at least four of the package boxes for the 27” monitor I just bought for my in laws in footprint of that display.
>I had no car so had to painfully lug it a few blocks to the post office.
I'm sure that it was awkward, and it without a doubt was heavy. But heaviness is only one factor in shipping difficulty, the other is volume. For comparable tvs, flatscreens are going to outdo them on that count.
>The retail packaging for a 13” LCD currently available is 0.012m³. I
That's what, to hang on the back of a minivan front seat for the kids to watch? Or a computer monitor? No one is buying televisions like that. Could you even find one retail that small?
>I have a 65” TVs that came in a box approximately 68”x38"x8". That’s rough equivalent to the package volume of a 24” CRT.
And both of those are comparable, are they not? That's about the max (non-gargantuan) television people get, and the 24" crt was pretty close to the max size back in the day.
>Either you never dealt with CRTs, or you’ve forgotten just how massive they were. I still have 25” Trinitron in the corner of my office.
You're being unfair in this comparison. That Trinitron isn't a tv is it, it's a monitor right? The CRT televisions were rarely Trinitrons, even most 25" televisions are half it's size. If you have to stoop to corner cases to win the argument, did you really win?
The 13” Trinitron was a TV. Believe it or not, it’s not easy to find the retail package dimensions for CRTs anymore (maybe Crutchfield pages on the Wayback machine have them).
My 25” Trinitron is a TV. It’s no bigger than any other 25” TV of the time (maybe even a little smaller since it’s a late model) I’m being absolute genuine and trying to be as fair as possible.
I’ve spent a lot of time with TVs and monitors. I kept my CRT monitors for far too long because they had better resolution than any LCD panels well into the 2000s. I still have two CRTs for retro games and AV (the previously mentioned Trinitron and a beloved 12” PVM). I have to move them, find space for them, maintain them.
I’m not trying to win anything, just share my experience. I could easily fit inside of a 19” CRT box (curled up). I could barely cover my legs with a 19” LCD box.
The padding was probably a lower percentage of the volume, because they were honkin' great cubes to start with, but don't try to pretend that LCDs in boxes come to the same size as (or even remotely comparable to) equivalent-viewing-size CRTs in boxes.
The other thing is that TVs are nearly trapezoidal prisms, but the boxes are nearly cubes. There’s a lot of dead space to fill with some structure, especially if the boxes need to be stackable.
Not only that, but NTSC and VGA (and higher) CRTs. I had a 1600x1200 CRT on my desk in 1999. HD CRTs existed, but were basically always out of reach for most people. PVMs fo broadcast and medical were different still.
Now LCDs are used at effectively every scale - tiny embedded systems, watches, phones, tablets, laptop displays, monitors, TVs, projectors, and even billboards. CRTs can’t scale like that.
As someone paying for a family on a marketplace bronze plan, that’s a bargain! I think our premiums will exceed $20K this year.
With all of the medical group consolidation, all of the wait time woes our Canadian friends always complained about are the reality here now as well. So I’m paying more than anywhere else on the world and have to wait 6 months for a PCP appointment. We have the worst of both worlds.
I'm curious to compare this to other countries that have state owned/mandated insurance and are so far still mostly covering everything and which are always touted as "superior" to the US, who "have the most expensive health care system". Can't use Canada as OHIP et. al. don't cover much and the same employer tied insurance scheme as in the US exists and is necessary.
An example of a country with "good healthcare" and such a system would be Germany. Extra insurance does exist there as well nowadays from what I understand but health insurance isn't tied entirely to employment and the extras are things like a 20 EUR per month to cover the co-pay on large and expensive procedures. While private insurance exists there too, I want to compare to the often touted "free healthcare" i.e. public system. There are still different providers even under the one public system.
So from a quick search, Germany has insurance rates from ~14-16% of gross salary, half of which the employee pays from their gross salary. But most insurances have an extra percentage they charge on top. I found one as an example that charges 17.29% total, which if you're self-employed, you have to cover yourself (to be comparable to your marketplace bronze plan being entirely self-paid).
Now the question becomes: Are you paying more or less as a percentage of your salary and by how much?
(and side question for your parent I guess: how does that compare to the $10k the employer pays, which would be 8.645% in this example)
It is actually more complicated than this implies. For example hospitals are often held afloat by Medicare/Medicaid spending (25%/19%). Private health insurance is about 37%, so larger than either, but smaller than both. But then you have to remember that some of the private health insurance is being subsidized by taxpayer dollars (e.g.: the ACA subsidies), and that private health insurance is largely coming from tax exempt dollars (a form of subsidies). So where the costs are actually being paid is more difficult.
I am not sure where your question about a percentage of your salary is valid on the face of it. Do you count the employer portion of your medical coverage as part of your salary? Do you count the tax exemption? How do you figure the taxes taken out to support Medicare/Medicaid/Veterans Health (all of which are required to support the system as it exists)? And how do you figure that for single payer systems?
So a much more direct way of comparing is to look at total costs per person, and then figure out how outcomes compare. When you do that the U.S. comes to about double the cost, and generally worse outcomes. Conservative politicians will scream about how long it takes to get procedures, but the research shows that elective procedures take about the same time (and no-one waits for emergency procedures in comparable systems).
I asked from an employee and cost perspective. So whether or not to count the employer portion depends on whether we're comparing one or the other. If you buy on the marketplace in the US, compare with the full cost in the example I gave for Germany. If you get insurance through your work the US/CA, compare with the employee only portion (as the employer pays part of the insurance there as well).
Theoretically it's even more complicated as at least in Germany private insurance also exists and is cheaper if you're a healthy single youth and more expensive if you're an older family ;)
But again, like you say, it is totally valid to also compare outcomes / wait times per dollar spent of course.
Canadian (OHIP recipient) here. As a long time employer, and former employee, I can tell you that no one takes a job here for the heath care.
Some things like dental and vision are not covered (unless you are under 18, over 65, or low income), but everything else is.
Over the course of a decade my father in law had 3 heart attacks, a stroke, and ultimately lost a year long battle with lung cancer. The total health care bill to him (or his employer) was $0.
Now the downside … because health care is free, everyone uses it and the wait times are longer. My grandfather recently required an MRI (non life threatening). The wait time in Ontario was 3 months. He drove to the USA, paid out of pocket, and had it done within in week …
> Now the downside … because health care is free, everyone uses it and the wait times are longer. My grandfather recently required an MRI (non life threatening). The wait time in Ontario was 3 months. He drove to the USA, paid out of pocket, and had it done within in week …
Imo, singapore solves this well, by ensuring that some cost is borne by the patient at point of use, but it's never anything excessive. No one goes bankrupt from emergency hospital visits.
> Can't use Canada as OHIP et. al. don't cover much and the same employer tied insurance scheme as in the US exists and is necessary
False. From what I know, only prescription drugs, dental, and vision are not covered. And since Americans frequently drive to Canada to buy prescription drugs, we can assume that's not as big a burden as in the US. But hospital stays, surgeries, lab testing, imaging, doctor visits, vaccines are all fully covered.
Fair enough, I guess I got carried away given the private insurance has to cover drugs, which would otherwise be covered by the provincial insurance (like OHIP), if you have it.
Private insurance also can cover a higher percentage, i.e. provincial plans do not always cover 100% of everything. Also, Health Care Spending accounts are in many cases part of private insurances and can be used to cover things that provincial plans do not cover at all (unapproved drugs et. al.)
And just for context … if medication is not covered and has to be paid out of pocket, the cost is generally under $100. Canadians don’t have $1000 medical costs
The first info about what's not covered for example is concerning diabetes. There's a limit to the number of test strips for example. I'm no diabetic, so I don't know if these numbers are "enough" or not but there is an actual limit. It also then states:
Syringes, lancets, glucometers and other diabetic supplies are not covered by the ODB program.
If you're a senior with "too much income" you also have co-pays/deductibles, meaning the coverage is less than 100% of the cost of the drug:
A single person aged 65 years or older with a yearly income above $25,000 after deductions pays:
the first $100 of total prescription costs each program year (August 1 to July 31 the following year)
this is called the deductible and is paid down when you fill your prescriptions
after paying the deductible, up to $6.11 for each prescription, filled or refilled
this amount is called the co-payment
I'll stop here but I'm sure this is both similar in other provinces and/or other limits may apply in specific cases.
Just to be clear: I'm not saying the OHIP / other Canadian insurance programs aren't great overall in comparison to the US. But neither they nor I suppose Germany's "full coverage" actually are in all real world cases.
I'm pretty sure the original 10+k/yr/employee for good ppo coverage is a radical underestimate, for what it's worth, though I guess "way more than ten" is technically part of the "ten+" range, haha.
The last time I had reason to look at full market-rate price for a family of four for a good PPO (Seattle market, circa five years ago, large tech company), it was around 3300 USD per month, or over $39k/yr. That was for cobra coverage, so a combination of what I would have normally paid and what the employer would've (about one third us and two thirds them when I was employed by that corp). I can only imagine it's gotten more expensive since then; we left the country three years ago.
Just as an FYI, that is a massive outlier based on available data.
My employees are about $500 per month in a major metropolitan area, and a family of 4 can run up to $2000 a month for the most expensive plans (I cover individuals and their spouses in full for standard plans, and could cover one dependent for basic plans).
I looked at marketplace plans in WA because I was curious, and it looks like it's about the same as where I am but nowhere near what you were quoted 5 years ago.
I got the $10k a year employee from chatgpt with "Assume I have a company with 100 employees in New York, how much on average does it cost to provide health insurance" and it gave me poor, moderate and good ppo plan prices. I figure this seemed reasonable for ballpark figures from employer friends, so the numbers may be very well off.
The key part of your statement is that you're paying for a family.
Individuals do not cost $10k per year under any normal circumstances, and if you're paying almost $2k a month for a family bronze plan, you either have a lot of kids, you have some unusual needs, or you are getting ripped off. Even more so if you're waiting for a PCP appointment, because that is unusual as well.
So the ~$10k a year is just what the employer is paying in my example, taking some numbers from chatgpt for a medium sized company in new york. Not even counting the employee side of the premiums, which can be crazy high as well.
I hear this a lot, but have used Safari as my since it was launch in 2003.Performance has always been great. UI has always been minimalist, out of the way, and has never upsold me on anything. There are times where it lags and times where it leads standards. There may be a a site every now and then that doesn’t work, but iOS makes that less likely. The only thing I can ever think of is that it’s not <insert favorite browser> or doesn’t have <some favorite esoteric feature>.
That said, the only plugins I use are ad blockers, so maybe I’m missing something.
It might look ok from user's point of view, but lot of the problems fall on web developers who have to work around a bunch of these issues to make their pages work in Safari
This is such nonsense and everyone who’s a web developer knows you’re not being honest here but just to make it ever clearer for anyone else here’s a chart showing the number of bugs that only occur in a single browser.
> This is such nonsense and everyone who’s a web developer knows you’re not being honest
And in your opinion "being honest" is speaking for every web dev out there?
I've been a web dev for 25 years (god I'm old) and Safari has not been a major pain for me.
You keep bandying wpt.fyi results around not even understanding what they mean. E.g. Safari only passes 8 out of 150 accelerometer tests. So? Does it affect every web dev? Lol no. But it does pass 57 out 57 accessibility tests which is significantly more important.
I have a record collection and a cd collection. It was not the same. So many CDs of older music sound bad on CD. Recordings made during the CD era sound fine though, but I'm not an audiophile. Maybe the "loudness wars" are a complaint for some.
The loudness war (in the usual sense of the phrase) on CDs was to not seem weak against other releases. The loudness war (if I may use that phrase very liberally now) on analog media is to not seem weak against hiss and surface noise. The desire to compress and limit dynamic range does exist for both, but for these different reasons.
However, a huge difference is that on CDs you're up against a fixed maximum (0 dBFS) so all peaks are equal, which is fatiguing; on vinyl you're up against the adjacent groove, so your maximum amplitude any given moment depends on the amplitude of things in the recent past and near future! Ways to optimize for this are prevalent, amazingly, and the result is less fatiguing.
There was a stretch of time between when specific mastering for CDs started and before the loudness war kicked in. Plenty of time for good recordings to happen.
It is partly the medium's fault. A lot of the sins of CD/digital mastering wont fly on vinyl because there's physical constraints around what you can literally press into the record groove.
Classical labels were recording digitally even before CD players existed, to avoid the generation loss of recording to tape before transferring to vinyl. These recordings were later released on CD and mostly sound great.
Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms (1985 release, first CD to sell over a million copies) also sounds great, and IMO better than most modern releases.
Some early CDs were recorded using pre-emphasis, similar to the RIAA equalization used with vinyl records. CDs using this have a flag set in the metadata to tell the player to apply a matching de-emphasis filter. I sometimes see people blaming digital production for early CDs sounding "thin". I think it's more likely they heard rips of CDs using pre-emphasis that didn't have the proper de-emphasis applied.
An average CD from the 80s sounds better than an average CD from any other era, because it pre-dates the loudness war, and because it's intended to be played on a good home stereo (which if you were buying CDs back then you could probably afford).
amazing quote. Adding it to my about page, do you want credit or shall I credit it to archimedes xD
On a serious note, its so brilliant that something like this is now possible when we think about it. It's maddeningly crazy to think about all the process but in the end that you can end up with a system / linux iso whose hash you can trust/independently verify and then you use it and spread around the world. Definitely makes me feel as sky's the only limit or just its very pleasant to think about it.
That shebang will work on GNU link based systems, but might not work elsewhere. I know that’s the most popular target, but not working on macOS, BSDs, or even busybox.
It’s really sad it wasn’t open sourced. In the early 2000s I was triple booting Windows 98, BeOS, and QNX. BeOS was my favorite, but QNX Neutrino was great as well.
reply