> I noticed "copyright info goes here (c) 2025" - which you might want to update!
It's still 2025, so that's fine :P post-Berne Convention, there are no forms required for copyright protection to vest, merely fixing the work upon a medium is sufficient.
Hey, thanks a lot for sharing, a couple comments/questions:
Would it be possible add a little more writeup in tooltips etc to help interpret graphs?
The time series data isn't possible to interrogate on a phone at all and in general I suspect it's too complex for most users, unless you're downloading a dataset and analysing. So I wonder if there's another way of displaying the data that gives some interpretation. Presumably the main figure we care about here is something like "hourly total renewable supply" and "hourly demand" so the energy mix might be better shown as a stacked chart not individual lines?
Perhaps the "non renewable" hourly component could be represented as a grey fill, to help communicate the total mix?
Would it be possible to also show the daily/monthly/annual totals in a sort of balance sheet, so we can see how/where tradeoffs between non-renewable and renewable certificates were made?
Perhaps I'm not explaining myself too well but while the point is to illustrate that at a real time level many suppliers are not matching demand with renewable supply, it becomes a bit confusing because it almost looks like they just aren't meeting demand at all.
Thanks for the work, it's a great project and will no doubt be valuable for policymakers
The battery provides approx 6V - the timing circuit uses a 555 IC to create a pulsed signal. The combination of resistor and capacitor values determines the period of oscillation. Then, the output signal from this circuit is used to switch a transistor on and off. That makes/breaks a connection from the battery to the LED strings.
I also added a switch to select between the red LED and Yellow LED strings.
hey, author here, thought I'd reply to you. Cheers for reading and thanks for the feedback.
I wanted to explore how the focus on tech-centrism impacts the product design and styling. I do think Dyson makes compromises on cost and ergonomics to uphold their brand values. Does that mean the products are bad? No - but I think they could be better. Do I think a lot of other products on the market are far, FAR worse? yes. But Dyson asks us to hold them to much higher standards (and pay a lot more). So I think serious design criticism is warranted.
Dryer time - there is a huge spectrum here. There are many dryers which cost a fraction of an airblade and dry with similar speed. My real point is that dry speed is a key factor but not the only factor, and that I believe other manufacturers have set their design decision-making with a different set of priorities.
You make a good point about colour-coded interaction points - and the consistent application of those colours across the vacuum product range is good as well. I intend to update the article with some feedback and I'll be sure to mention that for balance.
Regarding James Dyson and the invention culture: I worked with senior ex-dyson designers some 6 years ago so have some 2nd hand awareness over the IPR culture and JD's oversight of design reviews. I agree that I don't think the public literally think that it's JD himself inventing things (though, he is certainly more involved in design than a typical CEO). Yet the objective of the Dyson branding is surely to ensure that the name James Dyson is firmly in the public consciousness as an inventor extraordinaire. I think that is a conscious choice by Dyson and that it has a sizeable influence on societal perceptions of the design profession.
Please, James, don't sue me. It's just my opinion as a fellow Design Engineer... and in my defence, I probably wouldn't have written this if your company didn't constantly proclaim how amazing all your products are. And besides, these days, I can't exactly opt-out of a Dyson-altered existence, given that you're systematically making public washrooms everywhere louder, wetter, more expensive and more confusing. I don't really like your products, James, I don't like what they stand for and I don't like you either, for that matter. Anyway, here's (just some of) the reasons why. But please, James, don't sue me.
> In the future we're going to regret breathing air. It's the accelerant for so many health problems.
A non-oxygen dependent energy system for the human cell is the only option moving forward. We need to utilize a clean energy source like sunlight and dump that oxygen dependency once and for all. Cyanobacteria was a crutch dependency that helped bootstrap that whole life thing pretty quickly for the demo. We have a proven concept now that we know work. Can we leave the idea to use oxygen back in the GOE era where it belongs now? Building all this complexity on top of a fundamentally flawed bases like oxygen reactivity was the main mistake.
I love the satire. (Did I really write "regret breathing air" before editing or something?)
Oxygen is an amazingly energy rich fuel and is super abundant for us. The oxygenation of earth was one of the key steps, and it might be a "hard step" for other civilizations.
Of course oxidation causes a lot of damage and byproducts, and is one of the causes of our aging and death. But without it, well...
I was primarily referring to particulate matter suspended within the air we breathe. High PPM / particulate measurably reduces lifespan in several population studies, and it also produces noticeable pulmonary and cardiac disease states.
shit sorry that way my mistake. lol. I meant to add a strike through "bad" but realized HN doesn't have strike through, so I deleted it and thought I added a "FTFY" but forgot to add it. sorry about that.
No worries at all! I frequently edit my comments on HN to better wordsmith my arguments, so I half thought I'd made the mistake and been caught in a slip up.
I noticed "copyright info goes here (c) 2025" - which you might want to update!