samtho

This is very true and something I didn’t mention (I don’t live in an area where this is a problem). If it’s just a little bit of water and a sump pump can be used or you are able to install a water-resistant concrete sealant, a basement is possible, just cost prohibitive for your average house.

This does not work differently in other states as far as I’m aware, California just might be more willing to enforce the laws already in place. Additionally, this not a tax credit which is money owed to you by the tax authority, rather a deduction which is a very standard vehicle in calculating net income (revenue minus costs). Who takes deduction doesn’t matter as far as the IRS is concerned, for example, as long as it’s not claimed twice. As an employee, I would rather be reimbursed for company expenses than have to manage those deductions throughout the year because part of the benefit of being W-2 is that you don’t have to worry about anything except collecting that paycheck. If I we’re on a contract, I would be managing my own expenses.

To slightly contradict my original statement, cabins (or recreational use homes) are an example of buildings in colder climates where a foundation may be pier and beam rather than basement. Part of this has to do with the fact that mountains are literally raised areas of bedrock with some tiny amount of topsoil on them so it's likely you'll dig and hit solid goddamn limestone.

Likely because you need to hire a structural engineer to sign off on the project.

Building codes allow us to do this sort of thing without direct engineering input and most municipalities have not adopted a code that define safe practices for this sort of construction. Additionally, materials selection and availability is geared towards stick frame construction and you may not have everything you need from big box hardware stores or local supply houses.

This rhymes with the tend in the US pre 2020 of fancy live/work, urban lofts that look like industrial spaces with exposed brick, masonry, metals, etc.

Cottagecore was a sort of backlash to that movement - especially during a time where we needed to stay physically distance from one another and had to make solitude look more attractive a la provincial life.

Most of the time, rebar and concrete is placed and poured in the vertical column created by laying the block effectively turning into a vertical slab. It’s so much easier to build a wood-frame dummy wall on the inside to house utilities.

Prior to tech, I primary worked in construction during and right out of high school.

Cast-in-place concrete dwellings have never caught on despite it making a tremendous amount of economic sense. While it has a foothold in the market for specific applications (basements, retaining walls, commercial buildings, etc), a concrete house form in-a-box poses some logistical challenges and human ones.

First, the vision here was to be able to drop a form and creates a single pour/unibody structure (like injection molded plastic). That is very difficult to do and most concrete work is done in multiple stages for this reason. The main challenge is the creation a form that is sufficiently supported on the inside to create the “void” of the living space. You’re having, instead, to pour a slab, wait a sufficiently long time for it to cure enough to support weight, and do the walls and ceiling next.

The other logistical issue is internal reinforcement, which is what rebar is for. Concrete, as a building material, can really only resist compressive loads, which makes unaided concrete highly unsuitable for applications where there is a void underneath (in our home, for example, under a window frame, under a ceiling, or in infrastructure, as an overpass) However, by using iron-reinforced concrete, we can turn shear forces into compressive and by using pretensioned concrete (stretching of reinforcement cables prior to concrete pour), we turn tension into compression as those stretched steel wires want to return back to their original shape, it’s like an internal lasso keeping it together.

The last logistical challenge is installation of all utilities, which means in/under slab and wall piping (water supply lines, in floor heating, DWV, etc), electrical with conduit setup going to masonry boxes, outlets, switches, light fixtures.

The point here is, setting up for a concrete pour is not as simple as erecting forms. When the concrete pour is cured into a structure, it’s now a very inflexible material to work with and any wall penetration needs to be checked against blueprints, new electrical need to be run on the surface, leak repairs need to be done with very specialized equipment and a tunnel created under the dwelling, etc.

The other main problem is that people don’t want complete concrete homes. Without in-slab heating, it is a cold, hard, unforgiving material that allows for zero flexibility and repairs are a nightmare. Just like software, homes should be built with maintenance in mind because that’s the normal state in which it is worked on. Plus, it feels like a prison. At least it won’t burn down?

I have a lot of gripes with slab-on-grade construction[0] for this reason, and every dwelling I’ve built has had at least a crawl space, often a basement where everything is serviceable. The basement is usually CMU (concrete masonry units, aka cinder block), precast concrete (slabs trucked in), or, rarely, ICF (insulated concrete forms, basically in-place formwork with concrete in the middle of two pieces of foam insulation like an ice cream sandwich[1]).

I think there are some things we can learn from commercial buildings where you can have concrete skeletons[2][3] but large cut-outs where you can build walls. Inside the concrete pillars are PVC channels that let you thread wiring and plumbing, and other things through without having to do a concrete penetration. To built the house part, you effective put up wood frame walls in the voids or an aluminum-framed window installation (like a storefront assembly).

Side note: If you have ever wondered why you see basements in colder climates (and conversely more slab-on-grade in warmer ones) is because the bottom of your construction need to be situated under the frost line to prevent shifting caused by the ground freezing. So if you have to dig 4ft down anyway to reach that point, maybe just dig out a 5ft hole and install a basement instead, then your can have your home’s first/ground floor about 3-5 feet elevated. Slabs made to handle the shifting of ground due to freezing, liquefaction, or unstable building surfaces are called “rafts” and are not used very often compared to other methods.

[0]: https://anchorfoundationrepair.net/blog/slab-foundation-how-...

[1]: https://images.finehomebuilding.com/app/uploads/2017/10/3011...

[2]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_frame

[3]: https://www.understandconstruction.com/concrete-frame-struct...

> A bigger population just hasn't been trained properly. We have no controls for that, so people get lucky with disparate learning being just enough for their first job, then that turns into experience towards the next job.

I agree, but I am also hesitant to advocate for controls in the form of certification (degrees, licenses, etc) because it just adds a layer that provides a strong positive signal for a while until it’s just inundated by grifters yet again, so now we’re back to square one.

We see this take the form of degree mills and accelerated trade schools initially, which ends up creating more problems, more barriers, and ceases to benefit the companies looking to hire. Everything can and will be gamified, and I am also hesitant to tie people to former employers so heavily as that creates an unhealthy power imbalance.

Then how can we control for talent? I don’t know the answer to this question or if it’s even the right question to ask, but I’m fairly confident that we cannot solve this using 20th century nor modern hiring and screening processes.

And where it does exist, it’s usually someone exploiting power and/or access to another person, e.g. superiors in the workplace taking advantage of subordinates, customers being inappropriate to servers and not understanding or caring that it’s their job to serve them and their advances are not welcome, that weird/obsessed guy in your greater friend circle that you never want to be alone with, etc.

Respectful advances in places where both people are on equal footing and there are not external pressures, have never been seen as off limits as far as I am aware.

With regards to hiring, this is tricky because all candidates will try to put their best food forward and have a reasonable explanation for everything on their resume. In addition, low performers can look like high performers if their experience was painted by working at places with low expectations. I’ve hired very high performing people who later admitted to being PIPed many times throughout their career but these places were either greatly dysfunctional and/or just not a good fit for them.

Additionally, high/low performance has little to do with competence in the role in my experience and hiring someone truly unqualified is very rare. Some of the lowest performing people (in the long-term) were the sharpest during the interview and I still consider very bright people. Higher performers can run the gambit but a lot of companies miss out of great talent because the prospective employee fumbles over a closed book, live coding challenge.

Lower performers typically have something else going on in their life (relationship problems, housing or living situation stressors, financial stress, family stress, undiagnosed/under-addressed mental health problems, etc) and maybe during another time in their life could very well have been very high performing.

My point is, when dealing with people, it’s complicated.

I am unsure of the context in which codabar was developed, but I know it was originally made for dot matrix printers, maybe if you go back to how those worked, it lended itself well to monospaced fonts because we had a fixed number of “dots” per byte cell. It can be roughly thought of like a low-resolution LED screen display used at transit stations to display real-time etas. The purposefully low resolution can save on costs while being able to show legible text - but not much else.

Codabar was can be implemented as a font because the standard does not define specific start and stops symbols, instead it was developed as just a raw 1-to-1 encoding of character to pattern. It does not have check digits because it uses more space per symbol to handle error correction by making it very difficult to misread each pattern. The spacing (kerning) between each symbol is a different width ratio than the white bars found in each symbol.

Going back to dot matrix, it does appear that some early printers just had a grid of character “cells” in which the spacing between each cell was slightly more than a single “dot”, this probably explains the codabar quirk with 3 different space ratios (black bar, white bar, and inter-character quiet-space) and probably is the beginning of some further investigation into that topic.

While this is true, the frequency and ease in which engines are swapped does allow the potential for innovation to creep into the space. We’ve made ICE engines smaller and more efficient over the last 3/4 of a century - but the FAA doesn’t seem to car about GA and likely won’t let anything innovative into non-experimental aircraft, which is a shame. Their argument is always safety, but we have ways to test for that and most of the GA engine designs we still see are from an era where they were not as concerned and were effectively grandfathered in.

I really love barcodes and barcode symbology for reasons I cannot fully explain. I even wore the npm module named ‘barcode’ which I desperately need to update.

Fun fact about codabar, it is among the only barcode symbologies that can be implemented completely as a plain font.

I made a cheap barcode display-er with a Bluetooth MCU and an E-ink display, that works for all 1D only barcode scanners.

Also a project manager, and one of those is a lead developer/architect. One year is not a lot of time, either.

> I do not know why pilots would be giving you a hard time with a truck given that most general aviation aircraft in operation are older than your truck.

The airframe likely is older than the truck, but the engine is usually considerably newer. GA aircraft engines require overhauls or replacement be done every 1200-2000 hours of run time.

One of my friends that helped me build hours does experimental aircraft and just runs his c172 on 91 unleaded from a highway fuel pump. Pretty sure he has a lycoming IO-360M1A on it. He does have to haul fuel in, however.

> Most attempts to water down R2R specifically involve limiting the access provided to "assemblies" rather than individual chips.

This is how the automotive industry has managed 3rd party repairability, and it’s served them well. It’s almost less about the parts themselves (gears/shafts/bearings can measured and machined and fasteners can generally be found off the shelf), and more about the the components not having interchange part numbers, or official service manuals with torque specifications. It’s an entire market separate from official channels of part acquisition.

I’m dealing with a consequence of an “assembly” now. I have a GTI with VW/Audi 6-speed manual transmission of type 02Q. If you looked at all VW/Audi vehicles with a standard/manual over the last 25 years, it’s going to be a 02M, 02Q, or 0FB - all of these sharing roughly 80% of their parts with one another. But, it’s an assembly, so you cannot find individual replacement gears, pinion bearings, synchro rings, shift forks, etc from OEM, everything is aftermarket. If you’re having transmission problems that cannot be fixed with new seals, input bearings, sensors, or fluid change, you need to get a whole new transmission according to VAG.

My first gear synchro ring is busted and instead of buying $40 3-inch diameter piece of stamped brass, VAG wants me to drop $5000+ for the part. The labor would be less for the swap than doing the repair, but they would rather make me spend money on the part so they can sell the old one to a remanufacturing company and they can sell me the trans for $3000. I can go to a salvage yard and get one for $400 or pick and pull (and hate myself for trying to wrestle it out) for $250.

People generally choose to participate in a makerspace and projects there are inherently physical. The remote work movement is predicated on the idea that employees owe less of their life to their employers, orgs that require employees to spend many hours of their week in an unpaid commute, when they could just be at home at not worry about that logistical challenge and at the same time regain control of a huge chunk of their waking hours.

Those who have personal or company access to the tools they need and are satisfied with that are not the ones that do not benefit from makerspaces, and makerspaces do not benefit (in the long term) from a bunch of businesses booking our huge blocks of hours of machine time only for them to go home immediately once everything is done.

A makerspace should be a social and creative space with access to tools. A makerspace as a community space is successful when people want to be there.

18km/s is almost understated in terms of speed, so I looked it up to more familiar measures of speed: 65,000kph or 40,000mph. The only thing I really learned here was how even in the thousands of miles or km per hour, it’s just inconceivable how fast that is. Km per second was a better measure after all.

The only reason why we got these probes as far and as fast as we did was because we were able to fly by each planet and use their gravitational influence to skip to the next one, increasing velocity after each slingshot.

Or perhaps a (non air) bus

This is a very disparaging view and I’m sorry you fell victim to what sounds like grifters and con artists. This broad characterization is not fair to the hackerspaces that continue to this day, however.

Most traditional hackerspaces either went defunct or pivoted more towards coworking. The allure is pretty obvious: way higher margins. No tools to maintain, no giant safety concerns, just need tables, chairs, and vending. Also, people (or rather companies) who are willing to pay for coworking usually have more resources than “makers” who do not have the equipment or space at home to house projects.

Tech shop tried this coworking model on a makerspace, and we known how it turned out. While it had some internal problems (from what I’m aware), it was never going to be sustainable because, at the prices they were charging, those who could afford it could usually afford some sort of desktop version of what they used tech shop for, except for maybe the water jet and plasma cutters. It was a self service machine shop that required you to invest your time in training to be able to even utilize, and no real community experience to speak of. It became a lot of people doing professional work, a few hours of machine time each per week, and they would go home.

But all this is to say that a makerspace (nor a coworking space for that matter) is a hackerspace automatically, that titled is earned. The point at which a shared space like this becomes a hackerspace is the point where it becomes “cool”, where the community has reached critical mass, events and meetups can happen periodically, and it becomes a hub for the community.

Most hackerspaces that went under recently will have claimed it was because the pandemic and lockdowns, but those events were merely the catalyst to their demise. A lot of people in this thread posit that the community is nice or at least important, I disagree.

The hackerspace is the community.

Hackerspaces that could not keep up with rapid community attrition during the pandemic post-lockdown were left them resource-constrained, unable to keep up with financial commitments. Most in this position chose to close. The community (more specifically the community members’ network) provides the stability as nearly all opportunities, grants, donations, and other contributions originate from people who built or are active participants in the community. An actively shrinking community effectively lobotomizes the hackerspace, leaving nothing more than an empty shell.

Coworking spaces are for those who want to play office (WeWork, HackerDojo)

Makerspaces are glorified tool shares (TechShop)

A true hackerspace is a community space for those who are curious, creative, and passionate about doing things just because they think it’s interesting or cool.

I found out about this company when I was job hunting last year. I almost thought it was some sort of joke or pilot for something more innovative than replacing a transparent refrigerator door with a screen. I do not like putting down peoples ideas, but it’s pretty safe to say that this is product is the Juicero of the 2020s.

It has a complexity that is equal to its lack of utility.

I don’t disagree with the assessment that hackerspaces on government property will never be cool, mainly because I think we are beyond the days where being “cool” is a given. There is a distinction I need to make first, however:

The label of hackerspace should really be earned and the spaces that fall into that 10% group demonstrate specific ethos, robust community engagement, and as a result can operate independently.

A makerspace is just a place where you make stuff in and can have or gain some level of access to tools and equipment. It is certainly not as cool as a hackerspace, but its very presence is the prototype for one.

I honestly think a library is the best place for a general public makerspace for 90% of cases. That last 10% encompasses famous ones in specific cities like Noisebridge in SF or c-base in Berlin (all of which can only exist in that city’s culture scene) and also smaller, niche spaces such as Curious Forge, DIY or die (sadly defunct), etc.

My local library system offers a limited “makerspace” program[0] that does some of this stuff within the library, but I think something that should be more integrated is their Library of Things[1] program which allows patrons to take home all sorts of tools and equipment that are just not used very often.

I think more library systems should be granted the freedom and funding by their governing bodies to create a makerspace.

Footnote: The other option I didn’t address was to have schools/universities maintain them, but those are always reserved for student and faculty.

[0]: https://www.saclibrary.org/Education/Tech-Creation/Makerspac...

[1]: https://www.saclibrary.org/Books-Media/Specialty-Checkouts/L...

I was involved in makerspaces for a while. While I have not given up on them, I will admit that I have become thoroughly disillusioned with the idea.

Real estate is expensive and a makerspace should be near public transport (which will likely be closer to the city center) but should be able to to facilitate some parking and/or transfer of large items to/from a vehicle. Cheap real estate does come in varieties that support the above.

Most makerspaces carelessly target people to pay membership and nothing else. This creates a membership base that primarily goes to the space for their projects and goes home. This kind of member will drop the membership the moment they realize they can just buy the one or two machines they need and keep it at home (see techshop). This becomes a treadmill very quickly. Makerspaces need to focus on building a community of people who have the tools at home and choose to work there because is a great place to collaborate, but the problem here is that those people don’t have a ton of disposable income (or at least reliably recurring income) to spend on a membership. Leadership needs to balance the financial sustainability motive with the community sustainability one.

A makerspace staring up needs:

* to be a nonprofit

* good value for rent

* one to two years of runway in the bank

* founding members who can work from the makerspace

* a set of tools that are more difficult to have at home

* night events that happen several times per week

Basically, you need a lot of money, patience, and City buy-in helps a lot. Municipalities should be lining up to give money to people who want to manage theses sorts of community spaces, they are innovation and educational centers that can create an absurd amount of value for the relatively small investment. Usually it’s difficult to fill a community space with smart, competent people who actually want to help instead of grifters, sales people, and those who lack curiosity.

The best experiences feel like an eternal September, and the bad ones just feel like accelerated enshitification. How do you attract people that want to spend their time being part of a community and dissuade those who are looking to only consume resources? I think a lot of spaces fail because they rely too much on paying members who never become part of the community and will drop the expensive subscription when it becomes convenient for them to do so.

My vision for a makerspace is one where anyone can use it for free, you can become a member for some money, and those we want to stick around, we pay a small amount to stay. Using tools that are relatively safe should be mostly self certification. Tools that’s cause injuries or are expensive should require training or you should just send a job in (CNC mill). The actual real estate needs to be held by a trust and should be available to the makerspace as long as they are active.

It can get messy, especially because the very thing the city can offer (real estate) ends up being a political pawn. With no provision in the city’s charter to protect it, anything the city provides is going to be quick to the chopping block.

The better way for a city to help is let the local library system manage the relationship or itself be the steward of the space.

> I remember reading articles (15+ years ago) about how dangerous and impassable the Darien Gap was. Clearly that's not the case, or at least not anymore, considering the number of migrants (including children) walking through every month.

This comment really belongs at the unfortunate juncture of privileged assumptions and geographical/geopolitical naivety.

The volume of people making the crossing doesn’t signal that it has somehow become less treacherous. All this shows is that the reward for crossing outweighs the risk of dying along the way - both of which are preferable to not attempting the cross (which is pretty bleak when you think about it).

> Perhaps they should develop some infrastructure, like roads or tunnels.

This is a very “thanks I’m cured” sort of statement that appears to be informed by nothing except your own lived experience in a place where terrain is mild and the political landscape is such that this is even possible.

If you have not seen this sort of terrain for yourself, it’s hard to imagine it. Miles and miles of stinking swampland, ankle to waste deep in mud, bounded only by limestone cliffs with a shear drop to salty oceans below and plenty of rain to keep it muddy. Malaria is a literal plague and the mosquitos that carry it are not in short supply.

Getting construction equipment there is difficult at best absolutely impossible otherwise. Tunnels would require multi-decade, multi-trillion dollar investments, boring through bedrock. Making coast-adjacent roads is difficult due to the isolation of the place and two closest cities you could link are on facing opposite oceans.