I can't help but think that in 1910, both the concept of "fear of rejection" and "high standards" would have made no sense to people at the time. Yet I would agree that they are valid concepts today. We have to explore why these two concepts exist and why they did not exist in 1910. It seems valid to call them side effects of something bigger, what the bigger is I don't know. I don't see how society can address these two issues without addressing the other issues that lead to the existence of these.
I'm not sure why you believe that "high standards" and "fear of rejection" didn't exist a hundred years ago. Think Gatsby, from the Great Gatsby (published 1925): dude longed for human connection (hence throwing massive parties), but was terrified of being outed as not belonging to the social strata he found himself in. That's fear of rejection. People being to good for others is basis of the class system, and that predates written history.
After seeing your renders on github, a question I always have is why voxels are stereotypically 1m square... wouldn't the ideal voxel engine immediately set the scale to something more high-res? I'm just drooling at the thought of a voxel engine where a block size is equivalent to the size of a physical pixel.
Just looking at the injection molded shell of my Mavic Mini makes me cringe when thinking about the startup cost. It's the plastic shell; not the motors, nor the circuitry, nor the optical parts...and to think you could build that in the USA is laughable. DJI releases 2-3 models every 2-3 years... if you could even find a company in the USA machining the steel molds at that frequency (i don't think it exists) how are you going to afford the bill?
We'll just let Boeing build them. They have the know-how.
Plus, if we're talking military drones vs civilian drones, they wouldn't need plastic shells. That'd just be more weight reducing distance. Then again, military industrial complex would probably try to make them stealth capable, be designed by committee from 22 nation states, be micro-USB mandated to comply with EU standards, blah blah. Yeah, you're right, we'd never be able to build them here.
I'm confused too. The parts are high quality and scream "in-house" and surely not the product of contract engineers or contract machinist work. But I don't think DJI has machinists or factories in-house? I would assume they are just the product designers but I guess it's probably some kind of unique workflow due to Shenzen.
I just anecdotally see that in the USA, the required iterative design process is too cost-prohibitive for injection molding, and likely the same for every other trade. So multiply number of trades (designer, CAD drafter, machinist, electrical engineer, software engineer, injection molder, assembler, etc.) multiplied by the number of experimental iterative processes required to build an institutional knowledgebase... it's cost-prohibited.
So how can I get control of one Sears store and through that one store, singlehandedly resurrect the brand? Surely they must be ready to field Skunkworks-like ideas from young talent willing to risk and win...
This hypothetical new Sears vision is to create an Ikea competitor, but an honest Ikea, where Sears squares off with their biggest showroom-based adversary.
Ikea is beautiful but hollow, as their showrooms are seductive dioramas, but the resulting money exchange of cash for particleboard is like buying sex instead of meeting you life partner.
Instead, Sears would be the interface between the customer and the American-made premise. Sears sells American made products and represents American makers. Fuck selling washers and dryers. The showroom is not there to stock imports in cardboard. It's there to show you a concept, what your life could be if you stop buying junk. It's there to demonstrate quality. It's not particleboard at the core; it's a chunk of USA.
It would shamelessly capitalize on nostalgia and quality. Instead of nordic spartan whites and blands, it would have dioramas of pine wood wall panelling, cast iron wood stoves, chrome magnificence, Tiffany glass. Want a new desk? $5k. Made of US oak. Want the pine walls? The boardfeet are in the back, milled 5 miles away, how much square feet you need?
Even better, each store is fucking exclusive. Find local makers and concentrate their products in the geographically local store. Make people rabid and giddy to travel to each store even if they need to go five states away. Visiting is a unforgettable experience, like a museum that you can buy stuff.
Stage 2 is to use the Sears branded products like Ycombinator for machine shops. Sears injects some startup capital and now Sears cabinet pulls are turned on a machine lathe in a startup machine shop in Ohio. Furniture ateliers are like franchise Chick-fil-as.
I am of the generation of CAD users that is entirely digital, having no experience with bluelines or hand drafted sets.
And even now the industry is still changing. The old (for me) standard was obtaining reprographics from a full service supplier, signing a contract, leasing large format plotters, monthly delivery of toner, on-call maintenance.
My favorite plotter was an Océ and I think that company died? My last office was reliant on an Océ plotter which had a Windows Forms GUI app running on a never-updated embedded Windows XP. A perfect use case for embedded Linux but I guess it either predates embedded Linux or corporate offices at the time preferred embedded Windows.
Now we don't even print drawings.
I enjoyed the article because it is written by a stereotypical draftsman. While we all write in paragraphs, draftsman have some self-taught logic which results in this confusing blog format with random quotations, italicized sentences, arbitrary mix of heading styles, self-invented acronyms. Every draftsman I ever met 1. knew better than everyone 2. Knew you were always wrong 3. eternally pissed off.
> But using C# required us to contemplate whether and which dotnet runtime our client supported. Or did we need to ship our own? Isn't this just a small launcher stub? This was just too much complexity outside of our wheelhouse to put between our product and the user. This is not to say that the C# approach isn't valid. It is just that our limited understanding of that ecosystem and its requirements counseled against shipping it as a primary entry point into our application.
You should be able to compile a relatively small, trimmed, standalone, AOT compiled library that uses native interop. (Correct me if i'm wrong, dotnet users). Then there would be no dependency on the framework.
> You should be able to compile a relatively small, trimmed, standalone, AOT compiled library
Yes-ish. We do AOT at work on a fairly large app and keep tripping over corners. Admittedly we don't use COM. I believe if you know the objects you are using upfront then code generation will take care of this for you. The other options are:
- self-contained: this just means "compiler puts a copy of the runtime alongside your executable". Works fine, at the cost of tens of megabytes
- self-contained single file: the above, but the runtime is zipped into the executable. May unpack into a temporary directory behind the scenes. Slightly easier to handle, minor startup time cost.
I been using C# since .Net Framework 4.6, jumped to .Net 6, and have kept up to .Net 9 when starting new projects.
My advice is to download .Net 9 SDK because it's now super easy to create a file with extension .cs, put your terminal window next to your code, and call `dotnet run file.cs` and it just works. The compiler will teach you a lot because the errors are extremely easy to follow.
I never bought into books because too many language features have been added in the past years that improve on "old" ways.
The only complaint I have is that Google is still the best interface for navigating the docs. Spamming google over and over. Solving this in an easily greppable way is on my wishlist.
Especially because I see the MSDN docs are rolling out new "Did you want to generate a sample of this? Here's a prompt you can copy paste into Copilot to generate an example: xxxxxxx blah blah"
reply