Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ak217's comments login


What was the model? I recently encountered something similar with a GE over-the-counter microwave. One day it stayed on after opening the door. I replaced the control module and the board in it looks exactly like the one in the OP photo (Midea with all of the same components), which leads me to think the fault is the same as the one described in the post.


Yep, the GE over-the-range model PNM9196SF3SS. GE is just a Haier badge since 2016. I'm not surprised by a Chinese company not giving a shit, but for a microwave magnetron to fire on its own feels like a sign of deep engineering rot.

The only fix was to unplug it then swap the logic board. Once it happened again with the new board we threw it out.


I had non-stop issues with GE OTR microwaves for 2 years. I started with a PVM2188SLJC that I ended up getting replaced three times by GE over a year for separate issues (buzzing turntable, cracked casing). I ended spamming the executive team and got an upgraded model with convect for free.

Fast forward two years later, and the fuse tripped inside the microwave after I forget a bottle sterilizer overnight, on Christmas Day.

I said fuck this, and went and got a Panasonic NN-SG158. The twist was that it looked like it was a different version of the first GE microwave we had from the same OEM, but a little reworked.


Mine was a PEM31DF2WW. The control panel layout looks slightly different but the segment display looks identical to yours.

The board that I replaced is a Midea MD1001LSE EMLAA5G-S3-K VER17. Not an exact match to the OP but in the same family.


> One day it stayed on after opening the door.

So you basically got exposed to microwave radiation. That's dangerous. Have you checked in with a doctor?


It's a microwave, non-ionizing. They're pretty much easy-bake ovens which shine a monochromatic light at a color water is very black/absorptive at (a color far redder than infrared). They cook outside-in so he'd be baking his skin well before internal injury.


It would be like thermal burns but deeper. The heating is more diffuse and deeper than traditional cooking methods so I'd imagine if you did get a burn, it would go deeper into the tissue than you might expect.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hBRxwQXmCQ This guy recklessly tested various way of getting irradiated by a microwave to see what the effects are.


An extremely irresponsible video. He talked a lot about scary apocrypha to do with eyeballs exploding but never once mentioned the possibility of vision damage or blindness without the drama. I think he knew that microwaves are extremely dangerous to your eyes and avoided doing the most potentially damaging things without talking about it. To whit:

If you bypass the door interlocks and operate the magnetron with the door open and then stick your head into the cavity, you risk have your eyes pass through one of the microwave peaks in the standing wave pattern set up by the cavity. Extremely intense, localized heating within your eyeballs is never a good idea, and you risk burning your retinas or damaging your corneas or lenses.

The eyeball is large made of water and protrudes somewhat from the eye socket. Peering forward into the interior of the microcave cavity has the potential to expose your eye to the full brunt of the standing wave peak without much other body mass in the way to absorb the energy, creating the potential for that intense localized heating.


I think it's a combination of that and curtain air bags which are often packaged on the pillars. And of course the rollover requirements are predominantly due to SUVs and trucks being so high off the ground (needlessly most of the time) they are more susceptible to rollover.

Minimal visibility requirements around A pillars (and in front of the car/over the hood) sound like the logical next step.


>>high off the ground (needlessly most of the time) they are more susceptible to rollover.

Also the far greater mass of the vehicle requires far stronger A-, B- and C-pillars to not crush in a rollover

Forcing all vehicles onto a 30-50% weight loss diet would help every factor tremendously, including reduced braking distances and more nimble turning to reduce collisions in the first place, reduced impact when there are collisions, reduced road wear, reduced fuel/energy consumption, etc.. Everything gets better with lighter weight, but engineers/designers seem happy to blow right past any weight budget at the slightest excuse (if there even is a weight budget in the design brief). The sheer mass of vehicles these days, even so-called "sportscars" never ceases to amaze me, and when it gets to SUVs and trucks, it's just insane. The technology certainly exists to cut weights by close to half, to levels of 35 years ago, and improve safety and performance while doing so.


Aerodynamics is also a factor. Windows used to be less sloped and more vertical.


Getting hit by a car is much more survivable than getting hit by an oversized pickup truck/SUV whose designers deliberately chose a huge, blunt frontal cross-section with poor visibility over the hood.

This deliberately unsafe design needs to be outlawed. Infrastructure improvements like traffic calming and dedicated grade-separated pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure are great too, but we need both.


What's wrong with taxing dangerously oversized/overweight/unsafe trucks out of existence?


Many people have legitimate needs and uses for pickup trucks and SUVs, and the definition of "dangerously oversized" and unsafe is rather subjective. Should semi trucks be banned because they are "dangerously oversized"? What should people use to move large and heavy items? Should farmers be prevented from having the vehicles they need to do their job?

While I agree that large pickup trucks and SUVs pose an increased risk to pedestrians, particularly in urban areas, and should be discouraged as single person commuter vehicles, particularly in urban areas, there are a lot of other use cases. What should someone who needs to move bulky/heavy/rough things with regularity and can only afford to have one vehicle use?

Discouraging negative externalities through taxation makes sense, but setting taxes to be so punitive that they make it difficult for people to afford the vehicles they need to do what they need to do is also harmful.

As an example, I have a pickup truck and a regular car. Driving around town I use my regular car, but when I need to move large or heavy things I use my truck. It's much more convenient to be able to use my truck when I need it rather than having to rent one every time or hire a company to move things for me.

The pickup truck is large (RAM 1500), and some would argue it's dangerously oversized, but its size is needed when I need to do truck things with it. The truck being affordable means I can afford to have a regular sized vehicle for tasks that don't involve moving big/heavy/dirty things.


It's not subjective. RAM 1500 and trucks like it kill more pedestrians and cyclists in collisions because they have a larger frontal cross-section that limits the driver's view in front of the cab and is more likely to cause fatalities when a collision does occur.

I agree that trucks like the RAM 1500 are useful in many applications. They should be taxed appropriately (in a way that offsets or negates what currently amounts to subsidies in the US market), and manufacturers should be required to enable the driver to see a certain minimum distance in front of the vehicle and obstruct a certain maximum angle around A pillars. Trucks and SUVs over a certain size should also have speed limiter governors that activate on city streets. It is not acceptable to have drivers of these vehicles - which were originally developed for specialized industry applications - speed in areas where it directly endangers pedestrians and cyclists.


What's subjective is the threshold of what is considered "dangerous". I do agree improving visibility would be a good thing, and incentivizing safer designs through taxation could be good. Insurance prices already do that to an extent. I do agree that SUVs and pickup trucks have become taller than necessary in recent years; pickups from the 1990s were appreciably lower and had better visibility without being any less useful for moving things around.

The CAFE exemptions for SUVs and trucks compared to cars don't make sense to me and encourage maximizing vehicle footprint, so changing those rules would make sense. What else do you consider "subsidies" for this size of pickup trucks? Not being subject to the "chicken tax"? (not directly relevant to me as I'm in Canada)


In the US it's CAFE gaming, 6000LB GVW tax incentives and arguably fuel, registration and tolls aren't (sufficiently) scaled with vehicle size. The chicken tax thing definitely contributes even to Canada's market since it's relatively rare for automakers to consider it separately from the US one.


Would you support more stringent driving licence for such vehicles? So that anyone who needs a truck puts up with the faff of getting one, but regular Joes who just want moar car might not bother?


> Should semi trucks be banned because they are "dangerously oversized"?

Poor example, they already are. You require a special license. This is a tax, and a rather severe one. Never mind that those drivers are also directly responsible if their vehicle malfunctions. That's how some big rig drivers are able to get 150 years in jail because their brakes went out.


OK whats next. Regulate everything?

Geez your computer looks to be using alot of power.

We need people to register their computer to estimate your computer footprint.

Then we can regulate it.


Your computer is not unsafely designed in a way that kills tens of thousands of people a year in accidents.

Also, your computer's power consumption is in fact regulated on a semi-voluntary basis via a program called Energy Star. People are fine with it because Energy Star certification saves them money. By contrast, the problem with trucks is that their unsafe design is subsidized by the government, so smaller more efficient vehicles that would normally save people money end up being penalized.


Last I checked my desktop doesn't slam into pedestrians/bicyclists trying to use what public infrastructure we have in the US. If unbounded vehicle bloat is systematically contributing to the deaths of citizens then yes, we have a collective responsibility to regulate it.


I can’t think of many consumer products more dangerous and widespread than cars. Going from a suggestion that we make them safer to “What’s next, regulate everything?” is quite the jump.


Dude we are literally doing calculations of the power usage of our employees at their home office for a ISO 14001 certification. It’s beyond ridiculous


Slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason...


It was previously a read-only mirror.


Yup, here I was wondering why I already had it starred if this move only happened today, but then reached the same conclusion that it was probably a mirror repository before.


This research is focused on modeling individual protein binding sites. Pleiotropic effects and off-target side effects are caused by interactions beyond the individual binding sites. So I don't think this tool by itself will be able to design a protein that acts in the way you describe (and that's putting aside the delivery concerns - how do you get the protein to the right compartment inside the cell?).

But novel binding domain design could be combined with other tools to achieve this effect. You could imagine engineering a lipid nanoparticle coated in antibodies specific to cell types that express particular surface proteins. So you might use this tool to design both the antibody binding domain on the vector and also the protein encoded by the payload mRNA. Not all cell types can be reached and addressed this way, but many can.


Epic's behavior has been consistently ethical as long as I can remember (and I've been following them since the 90s). The reason Sweeney is an interesting person is that he has been developing the industry (not just his company) for the past 30 years, and has interesting things to say based on that experience because he has a strategic vision and also continues to be deeply technically involved (he was the original architect of the Unreal Engine and continues to personally design tools and entire languages/frameworks for game engines). He was a technical founder role model long before pretty much every operator on scene today even started their career.


I don't think your analysis is valid in California. Public high schools in California receive most of their funding on a per-pupil, attendance-weighted basis from the state on a redistributive basis (all property taxes from across the state are pooled and redistributed).


Parcel Taxes allow wealthy areas like Palo Alto to have much higher qualities of education. School District quality is probably one of the number one factors for families looking for a home.


Most school districts in California don't have any parcel taxes. There are definitely some like Palo Alto and other Bay Area and LA school districts that do, but they serve as a relatively small boost (0 to 20% of the district's budget). But yes, to the extent they constitute a significant portion of the revenue, the dynamics described by the parent post play a role.

Parcel taxes are known to be a poor funding mechanism for this reason, but they were the only viable way for districts to raise extra money while working around the toxic side effects of Proposition 13 (https://ed100.org/lessons/parceltax), which illustrates its long shadow in California state law. Prop 13 is of course responsible for multiple other self-reinforcing anti-growth incentive loops.


My favorite loophole on Prop13 is where a Real Estate Trust can purchase a commercial property, and then sell portions of that Real Estate Trust to LLCs. Those LLCs maintain their ownership percentage, but investors can buy/sell shares in that corp without triggering any of the Prop 13 change-of-ownership triggers, and therefore keeping a cap on their tax increases.


Absolutely true. Also I find it strange that the companies in question could easily resolve their workforce issues by forming a fund to build better/faster public transit to link up their offices with less NIMBY-dominated cities, but choose not to do so.


Transportation rights-of-way invoke all the same NIMBY problems, only worse because an individual holdout parcel sinks the whole thing.

What they can do is run buses on existing public roads. And they do that. It's still like 1.5+ hours from the Tri-Valley to SF.


I don't think the lack of usable rights-of-way explains public transit issues in the Silicon Valley.

Tech companies had very modest participation in the Caltrain PCEP project, and still barely participate in the Dumbarton rail corridor planning, have made no direct moves to expedite or simplify the BART Silicon Valley expansion, have not attempted to improve the performance of VTA light rail, have not publicly tried to pressure the SF city government to expedite or simplify Caltrain DTC, and have made no proposals to make use of vacant or underutilized rail or ex-rail rights-of-way across the Silicon Valley where no NIMBY opposition exists. (Yes, Atherton is famous for its NIMBYs blocking the original HSR construction plan. It's not currently relevant and can be bypassed.)


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: