I have a bunch of related questions so I will drop them all here:
* You mentioned focusing the spectrum on humans, but I have always wanted to have light that works well for both humans and plants (e.g. houseplants) as they are also beneficial for human spaces. Why not do both?
* Exposure to near IR has significant health benefits and seems like it should be included in an ideal lighting fixture that attempts to replicate the sun:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9855677/
What do you mean when you say IR can be produced in other ways more efficiently?
* How does your product compare with the Yuji Skyline?
For broadband IR, using a gas IR heater will give you the cheapest output - followed by an electric heater. Hard to compete with devices design specifically for heating when you are trying to do fancy optics in a compact form factor at the same time.
Yuji is similar to a lot of Chinese brands doing something similar which is a backlit Raileigh Scattering panel. The show images of the sun in their marketing and sharp sunbeams on the wall, but these are complete fiction. The also advertise color tuning, but the only natural color they can produce is a blue because Rayleigh Scattering doesn't allow very good color control. Still, for some applications like wall washing if you don't need a dynamic sky color and you can hide the view of the sun it could be a reasonable option.
We haven't researched plants a ton, but did some test to confirm they can grow under this light. Here is a cool time lapse video showing this in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TDIVnXfE9I
It’s not even legal for them to try to compete. Even if someone preferred to pay more for the convenience the brick and mortar shops aren’t allowed to charge a premium over the online pharmacies.
According to one of my local pharmacies (that closed in the last year), there are laws in some states preventing brick and mortar stores from imposing additional fees over online pharmacies. Reference in a sibling comment.
There is no law against a pharmacy owner from charging whatever they want.
However, most pharmacies enter into contracts with various groups, such as the government, insurance companies, etc so that they effectively give away their right to charge what they want.
> There is no law against a pharmacy owner from charging whatever they want.
On closing, one of my local pharmacies claimed otherwise and referenced the following:
> states have enacted legislation prohibiting certain PBM clients from imposing additional co-payments, deductibles, limitation on benefits, or other conditions (“Conditions”) on covered individuals utilizing a retail pharmacy when the same Conditions are not otherwise imposed on covered individuals utilizing home delivery pharmacies. However, the legislation requires the retail pharmacy to agree to the same reimbursement amounts and terms and conditions as are imposed on the home delivery pharmacies.
Interesting. I guess that sort of qualifies, even though a pharmacy owner can technically choose to not enter into any agreements.
The government is at the root cause of wanting to squeeze all players in the healthcare business, since public rancor reached a tipping point in the late 2000s and ACA was passed. Pharmacists just got shafted first because they were the easiest to squeeze due to supply and demand. Doctors were next with the insertion of physician assistances and nurse practitioners.
Yes, pricing regulations forced brick and mortar pharmacies to sell drugs below cost. Several closed in my area in the last few years and this was one of their cited reasons why.
Unless they are performing large scale sampling of the general population, the denominator (cases of confirmed influenza) is potentially much larger in practice.
Moreso because it seems likely that the confirmed cases are sampled from the sickest population seeking treatment.
And this article is further evidence of exactly this, since the "silent infections" here were previously uncounted.
Exactly the issue; inevitably someone will forget to follow those rules, at which point esoteric bugs will have been introduced.
I think it’s somewhat similar to unchecked memory access. Used correctly it works just fine and offers extremely high performance. Unfortunately, history has shown that over enough time mistakes will be made. As an industry we’re now to the point of actively denouncing entire languages over the risks of unchecked memory access.
Using software development patterns that rely on the engineers to follow a bunch of rules to do things correctly will eventually burn you. Better to avoid them entirely if at all possible.
> A Few Rules For Using Globals:
> If you change observable state, restore it
I’m sorry but no. Humans are human and mistakes will be made. I’ve lost count of the number of esoteric bugs I’ve had to track down due to global state being changed and not put back properly.
If you have to qualify a pattern with rules that are easily forgotten or open to corner case bugs, it’s far better to just not use that pattern in the first place.
The author shows encapsulation of global state elsewhere. I’m not sure why they wouldn’t use RAII for the log level stuff so it was automatically rolled back.
I'm the author. I seen people make mistakes writing pure functions with many if statements in them. For a small period I heard people say loops should be banned. Would you want to go that far?
If your narrow the usage of a global within a file you can get a lot of mileage. That's not how people tend to use globals and why I wanted to write about it
Just two of the "rules" is enough to see that there's no sense here:
1. It should be hard or impossible to use incorrectly. For example, counter() keeps increments consistent.
2. If you change observable state, restore it.
That can be summarised as "To prevent mistakes: Don't make any mistakes". It made lots of sense once I saw this was by a C++ programmer, C++ is the language with, as a prominent C++ practitioner put it: False Positives for the question: Is this a valid program?
If you're used to a language which gaslights you by having the compiler not emit any diagnostics whatsoever and just calmly handing you a nonsensical output executable because what you wrote was subtly wrong obviously global variables seem fine, what's not to like? You just have to be inhumanly competent at all times, which was the baseline requirement for the entire language.
I had a feeling someone would bring this up (I'm the author.) Your state really shouldn't be depending on IDs or handles from a counter function. I'm not sure if most people can agree with what is considered using a global variable which is why I wanted to define it near the start
Yeah, I like how the OP basically recreates scoped variables by applying all these strict rules, instead of just using scoped variables. For example, with DI, instead of a global variable, we just use a singleton/scoped dependency. Why? Because we can enforce those rules implicitly without hoping everyone pinky promises to use the global variables correctly.
If you want to write code to show me what you're talking about (best if I can run it) I'll tell you why or why not. I can tell you right now I dislike DI (and singletons) for reasons I can't cover in a single post
This comment was written by a US Coast Guard helicopter pilot. It gives a lot of information on how the two aircraft should have been able to share the space and some speculation on what went wrong:
A helicopter instructor suggests that possibly the helicopter pilots, who were told to go behind an aircraft that was landing, were looking at the previous aircraft that was landing.[1] That's just speculation at this point.
I’m not surprised by this at all. I purchased a pro-sumer grade (Ambient Weather) weather station a couple of years ago that happened to include an indoor CO2 sensor. Among other things I discovered:
* Modern building codes (for energy efficiency?) leave buildings far too sealed. HRV/ERV should probably be mandatory as we continue to have tighter regulations for insulating homes.
* The level of CO2 produced by a Gas stove range is a bit shocking.
I now leave my windows open a crack during the winter which keeps CO2 levels around 800-1200ppm. If I purchased a home I’d upgrade the HVAC system to include an HRV/ERV.
* You mentioned focusing the spectrum on humans, but I have always wanted to have light that works well for both humans and plants (e.g. houseplants) as they are also beneficial for human spaces. Why not do both?
* Exposure to near IR has significant health benefits and seems like it should be included in an ideal lighting fixture that attempts to replicate the sun: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9855677/
What do you mean when you say IR can be produced in other ways more efficiently?
* How does your product compare with the Yuji Skyline?