lightrush

joined 2 years ago
[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 weeks ago

Thank you! πŸ™

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think you understand it correctly. πŸ˜‚

 

A video showing beans being poured into a cup sitting atop of a scale, atop of another scale. Both scales measure the beans concurrently.

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago

@protonprivacy@mastodon.social

Paging Andy!

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Asking the tough questions.

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Housing construction isn't funded by existing housing investment. It's generally funded by debt. Private or public, just like any other capital intensive endeavor. And debt isn't created by lending people's savings but by creating new money. By public or private lenders. (Private lenders create money too.) The only thing that is really needed ahead of time is labor, equipment and materials available. Financial capital is created on demand to mobilize those real resources.

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Marxists believe Socialism is what Capitalism is necessarily leading to because decentralized markets form centralized monopolist syndicates with complex internal planning

Jesus fucking Christ, I was just talking to a friend about how big corporations with hundreds of thousands of employees resemble centrally planned economies, and how consolidations creates them all around us and the only thing stopping them from becoming fewer is the attempts of some governments that haven't been regulatory-captured yet to stop it. But regulatory-capture increases with wealth accumulation so if you keep running the system, it tends to total central planning. I haven't read Marx and neither has he.

On a separate but related point - what stops the system from being somewhat disrupted by labor in a way that redistributes huge amounts of the accumulated wealth, restoring the regulatory regime in favor of labor and restarting the cycle from that point, then repeat. In other words, what's stopping it from doing a depression-FDR-redistribution every 100 years? I can absolutely see the inevitable end without labor intervention but to my current brain it seems possible to maintain it with. Is this wrong in some obvious way?

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

Your PC is an unused server.

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Also the last democratic presidency has sucked a lot less corporate than previously.

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 months ago

This is one of those situations when you just nod and take the endorsement.

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well it's not the government doing this it's private insurance companies. You're free to shop around or start your own insurance company. This makes me feel much better about gatekeeping healthcare. πŸ¦…πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The repair:

It's not exactly trivial if you have to change the connector of the replacement battery, but it's not difficult either. AAA batteries would be way simpler and safer for most people.

[–] lightrush@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

An army surplus ammo can with its gasket removed.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/31824976

Lately I've had some obviously inaccurate measurements from my Timemore Black Mirror scale. That would happen occasionally but not always. I was charging it today and as luck would have it, I was sitting beside it. I typically charge it unattended. I noticed that it took a very long time to charge and multiple times it seemed to restart charging. I grabbed it to check the cable and noticed it was quite warm in one spot. I though - that's alright, it's likely where the battery cell is, it's charging, lithium cells get warm during charging. Later I took it off the charger and while handling it I examined the hot spot a bit more. I noticed that when I squeezed the scale at that corner, the top plate wouldn't sink towards the bottom as it does in the other corners. A few mental calculations later I figured this could be a swollen cell that has grown so large that it impacts the plates and doesn't let them come together as they do normally. I took it apart. Lo and behold this spicy pillow:

The marking on it means it's supposed to be 8mm thick. It's currently closer to 12.5mm. Removing the battery allowed the two plates to come together in all corners as normal. That confirmed the hypothesis. Further, the reason why it only occasionally impacted the measurements is likely due to the weight of the cup I was using. When using a lighter cup, the total weight would be lower than needed to get the two plate to touch the battery and produce inaccurate measurement.

I ordered this as a replacement. It fits the dimensions and it's got some safety certification.

To check if your scale is a fire hazard, squeeze this corner:

Normal squeeze action looks like this. Unfortunately I didn't record a video prior to removing the battery.

If it the two plates come together as the do in the other corners, you're probably okay. If the plates don't come nearly as close, you've got an unlit petard in your hands.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/31824976

Lately I've had some obviously inaccurate measurements from my Timemore Black Mirror scale. That would happen occasionally but not always. I was charging it today and as luck would have it, I was sitting beside it. I typically charge it unattended. I noticed that it took a very long time to charge and multiple times it seemed to restart charging. I grabbed it to check the cable and noticed it was quite warm in one spot. I though - that's alright, it's likely where the battery cell is, it's charging, lithium cells get warm during charging. Later I took it off the charger and while handling it I examined the hot spot a bit more. I noticed that when I squeezed the scale at that corner, the top plate wouldn't sink towards the bottom as it does in the other corners. A few mental calculations later I figured this could be a swollen cell that has grown so large that it impacts the plates and doesn't let them come together as they do normally. I took it apart. Lo and behold this spicy pillow:

The marking on it means it's supposed to be 8mm thick. It's currently closer to 12.5mm. Removing the battery allowed the two plates to come together in all corners as normal. That confirmed the hypothesis. Further, the reason why it only occasionally impacted the measurements is likely due to the weight of the cup I was using. When using a lighter cup, the total weight would be lower than needed to get the two plate to touch the battery and produce inaccurate measurement.

I ordered this as a replacement. It fits the dimensions and it's got some safety certification.

To check if your scale is a fire hazard, squeeze this corner:

Normal squeeze action looks like this. Unfortunately I didn't record a video prior to removing the battery.

If it the two plates come together as the do in the other corners, you're probably okay. If the plates don't come nearly as close, you've got an unlit petard in your hands.

 

Lately I've had some obviously inaccurate measurements from my Timemore Black Mirror scale. That would happen occasionally but not always. I was charging it today and as luck would have it, I was sitting beside it. I typically charge it unattended. I noticed that it took a very long time to charge and multiple times it seemed to restart charging. I grabbed it to check the cable and noticed it was quite warm in one spot. I though - that's alright, it's likely where the battery cell is, it's charging, lithium cells get warm during charging. Later I took it off the charger and while handling it I examined the hot spot a bit more. I noticed that when I squeezed the scale at that corner, the top plate wouldn't sink towards the bottom as it does in the other corners. A few mental calculations later I figured this could be a swollen cell that has grown so large that it impacts the plates and doesn't let them come together as they do normally. I took it apart. Lo and behold this spicy pillow:

The marking on it means it's supposed to be 8mm thick. It's currently closer to 12.5mm. Removing the battery allowed the two plates to come together in all corners as normal. That confirmed the hypothesis. Further, the reason why it only occasionally impacted the measurements is likely due to the weight of the cup I was using. When using a lighter cup, the total weight would be lower than needed to get the two plate to touch the battery and produce inaccurate measurement.

I ordered this as a replacement. It fits the dimensions and it's got some safety certification.

To check if your scale is a fire hazard, squeeze this corner:

Normal squeeze action looks like this. Unfortunately I didn't record a video prior to removing the battery.

If it the two plates come together as the do in the other corners, you're probably okay. If the plates don't come nearly as close, you've got an unlit petard in your hands.

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/30850573

 

 
26
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by lightrush@lemmy.ca to c/coffee@lemmy.world
 

I'm syncoiding from my normal RAIDz2 to a backup mirror made of 2 disks. I looked at zpool iostat and I noticed that one of the disks consistently shows less than half the write IOPS of the other:

                                        capacity     operations     bandwidth 
pool                                  alloc   free   read  write   read  write
------------------------------------  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----  -----
storage-volume-backup                 5.03T  11.3T      0    867      0   330M
  mirror-0                            5.03T  11.3T      0    867      0   330M
    wwn-0x5000c500e8736faf                -      -      0    212      0   164M
    wwn-0x5000c500e8737337                -      -      0    654      0   165M

This is also evident in iostat:

     f/s f_await  aqu-sz  %util Device
    0.00    0.00    3.48  46.2% sda
    0.00    0.00    8.10  99.7% sdb

The difference is also evident in the temperatures of the disks. The busier disk is 4 degrees warmer than the other. The disks are identical on paper and bought at the same time.

Is this behaviour expected?

 
21
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by lightrush@lemmy.ca to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
 

I built a 5x 16TB RAIDz2, filled it with data, then I discovered the following.

Sequentially reading a single file from the file system gave me around 40MB/s. Reading multiple in parallel brought the total throughput in the hundreds of megabytes - where I'd expect it. This is really weird. The 5 disks show 100% utilization during single file reads. Writes are supremely fast, whether single threaded or parallel. Reading directly from each disk gives >200MB/s.

Splitting the the RAIDz2 into two RAIDz1s, or into one RAIDz1 and a mirror improved reads to 100 and something MB/s. Better but still not where it should be.

I have an existing RAIDz1 made of 4x 8TB disks on the same machine. That one reads with 250-350MB/s. I made an equivalent 4x 16TB RAIDz1 from the new drives and that read with about 100MB/s. Much slower.

All of this was done with ashift=12 and default recordsize. The disks' datasheets say their block size is 4096.

I decided to try RAIDz2 with ashift=13 even though the disks really say they've got 4K physical block size. Lo and behold, the single file reads went to over 150MB/s. πŸ€”

Following from there, I got full throughput when I increased the recordsize to 1M. This produces full throughput even with ashift=12. My existing 4x 8TB RAIDz1 pools with ashift=12 and recordsize=128K read single files fast.

Here's a diff of the queue dump of the old and new drives. The left side is a WD 8TB from the existing RAIDz1, the right side is one of the new HC550 16TB

< max_hw_sectors_kb: 1024
***
> max_hw_sectors_kb: 512
20c20
< max_sectors_kb: 1024
***
> max_sectors_kb: 512
25c25
< nr_requests: 2
***
> nr_requests: 60
36c36
< write_cache: write through
***
> write_cache: write back
38c38
< write_zeroes_max_bytes: 0
***
> write_zeroes_max_bytes: 33550336

Could the max_*_sectors_kb being half on the new drives have something to do with it?


Can anyone make any sense of any of this?

179
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by lightrush@lemmy.ca to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
 
view more: next β€Ί