[-] litchralee 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

In Australia, you currently need a recreational helicopter pilot's license to fly this machine – but US owners might not. "It is possible to fly the Pegasus without a pilot's license," reads the company website, "if you have successfully completed the FAA private Pilot written examination and have also completed the company-mandated vehicle familiarisation and operator training programs."

Although somewhat tangential to this community's intent, I decided to verify this claim, since licensing and registration of an air-and-land machine is likely to be a top question.

Regarding United States aviation, everything revolves around certificates. For individuals, a certificate is a license to pilot or operate particular types of aircraft. For machines, a certificate is the authorization of airworthiness for a particular type of aircraft, allowing it to be used in US airspace. Setting aside the road registration quandary -- which is regulated on a state-by-state level -- I will focus only on the aviation aspects, since those are controlled mostly by federal law.

For pilot licensing, there are a fair number of those, ranging from the Student Certificate to get into the air under instruction, to the traditional Private Pilot Certificate/License (PPL) for flying solo or cross country, to the Air Transport Certificate to fly paying customers commercially.

Given the description from the company, I would guess that they meant the Light Sport Certificate, which is an abbreviated pilot license to fly smaller aircraft with up to one passenger and weighing less than 1320 pounds (600 kg). This certificate does not require the thorough medical exam of a PPL, if the holder also has a US Driving License. This might sound a bit weird, since why would driving an automobile be indicative of sufficient health to not crash an airplane, but it's a balancing act given the restrictive set of aircraft types that can be flown with a Light Sport certificate.

So the company's statement is vaguely, mostly correct, if they meant that the strict requirements of a PPL can be avoided, by instead applying for a Light Sport certificate. Although this still requires 20 hours of flight training beforehand.

As for certificating the aircraft itself, this is fairly straightforward, since the manufacturer just needs to declare that they meet all the requirements in 14 CFR § 1.1. The FAA would then grant the type certificate, allowing this aircraft into the national airspace. The owner would then need to register the aircraft by presenting the type certificate, and then receive a tail number (aka N registration) to attach to the aircraft.

So if a person is in possession of a valid Sport Light certificate, an N registration with the FAA, and this helicopter/go-kart, they should be good to take off, right? Well, mostly, but with a substantial number of caveats.

Firstly, certificated aircraft -- even for the Light Sport or Experimental categories -- is still strict, and any modifications to the airplane that deviates from the regulations can invalidate the type certificate. Even just basic maintenance must be performed by a certificated mechanic, as well as the mandatory annual inspection. While one could obtain that additional certificate to maintain one's own Light Sport aircraft, the inspection must take place at a certificated inspection location, which is probably somewhere else.

And then there are the operational limitations. This is less of a problem with the machine itself, since the limits in 14 CFR § 1.1 simply won't impose a restriction. Rotorcraft don't usually fly high enough that they need pressurization, and this machine only comes in a one- and two-seat variant. The real issue is the pilot's license limitations.

With only the Light Sport pilot license, it is Visual Flight Rules (VFR) only. So no flying at night, through or over the clouds, nor into inclement weather where visibility is below 3 miles (5 km). And only Class E and G airspace are permitted, unless having obtained additional endorsements to operate near airports and to communicate using the radio.

This page describes US airspace circa 1997 for ultralights (a category of very light flying machines that the FAA doesn't even require type certification for), but it does underscore the complexity in determining what airspace is of which class. Ultralights and LSA do tend to use the same airspace, though.

Perhaps you could argue this go-kart/helicopter is only meant for flying close to the surface, so the roughly 700 ft upper bound for Class G airspace would be perfectly sufficient. Maybe. But most urban areas have an airport within 10-15 miles (16-25 km), which may displace the Class G airspace to a 0 ft upper bound, meaning the Class G space is non-existent. That really cuts against using this as an urban commuter.

But maybe it's meant for rural/suburban commuters who don't necessarily go into the urban core but travel around it. But now we've reduced this machine to a one-trick pony.

Do I think this is an intriguing machine? Yes, absolutely; I wouldn't have hashed out this long comment if it weren't at least some food for thought. But do I think this is the future for the masses? Definitely not.

The process to get this legally flying is sufficiently involved that it will never see mass appeal. And I will not even entertain the notion that flying regulations should be relaxed to accommodate this novelty, since we already have an example where lax licensing of heavy machines and grossly insufficient operator training causes thousands of deaths per year needlessly: automobiles.

[-] litchralee 9 points 2 days ago

Most people riding bicycles already deploy their retractable landing gear when preparing to touch down: they're called legs.

And while maybe there's an argument to be made that a properly-adjusted bicycle might not allow both feet to touch the ground while still seated, this contraption has some serious limitations. The most egregious is that landing gear -- like on aircraft -- are only effective when fully extended. But whereas all runways are laterally level, bicycling surfaces offer no such guarantee.

Imagine riding this cargo bicycle on a curve which has a cant (aka superelevation, or banking, or cross slope), then slowing down for a pedestrian or even stopping. A two-wheel bicycle naturally finds the lean angle to balance the centripetal force against the gravitational force, irrespective of the relative angle to the ground surface. But fully-extending landing gear forces the bicycle to be perpendicular to the ground surface, against the mandatory lean angle to balance the forces. And there doesn't seem to be a provision for partially extending one side of the landing gears to account for the cross slope. If the perpendicular arrangement puts the center of gravity beyond the stubby extended wheels, the bike will fall over.

Tricycles will also force the same perpendicular alignment, but: 1) does so at all times, on straightaways and curves, so this isn't a surprise to the rider, and 2) tricycle wheels are set wider than these stubby "landing gear" wheels, which is important if the cargo load is substantial (or heavy or too high) and could topple the bicycle when stopping on a curve.

This contraption is akin to bicycle training wheels: too narrow to provide actual safety benefits, while also being outright detrimental towards developing the motor skill necessary to pilot a cargo two-wheeler with its unique qualities.

[-] litchralee 23 points 4 days ago

Sources: Aviation Stack Exchange

If a citation is going to point to any of the Stack Exchange Q&A pages, it is extremely important to specifically cite the exact post or answer, since -- not dissimilar to Wikipedia -- the quality, consistency, and biases of Stack Exchange answers is paramount for evaluating the information presented, especially factual data to be fed into an infographic.

I personally am intrigued at these $800 economy, ten-hour flights, as well as a total omission of freight cargo in the underbelly. As presented, this flight has 180 passengers and runs for ten hours. This would suggest it's not a common narrow-body, either the Boeing 737 or an Airbus A320, as even their largest available configurations can't fit 180 people in a 2 class setup, let alone a 3 class setup. It could possibly be the Airbus A321, though.

My point is that if it's a widebody aircraft or the A321, not hauling cargo would be some staggering malfeasance for a commercial revenue airliner. But I can't follow-up on any of these queries, since the sources aren't properly cited.

1
submitted 1 week ago by litchralee to c/[email protected]

The idea for this strange combination of arm day and leg day came from realizing that my existing leg press and many commercial preacher curl benches both share a 45 degree angle. So in the interest of consolidating floor space, I decided to build a preacher curl bench attachment for my Force USA machine.

Just like with stripping down the machine to fit against a wall, the goal is to build something which is removable, if I wanted to restore the machine back to factory condition. Conveniently, at the top end of the machine, there are three 11/16 inch (17 mm) holes on each side, meant for resistance band pegs. Likewise, between the frame and the chrome running surface is approximately 1.5" (38 mm).

Thus, it made the most sense to cut pieces of 2x4 lumber (actual size: 1.5x3.5 inch) that will sit within the frame, secured by two snug-fitting 5/8 inch (16 mm) wood dowels going through the top-most band peg holes. These side-pieces are held captive by the dowels, although the pieces can still slide inward of the frame, falling away from the peg holes. They're also not really weight-bearing. But they do provide a foundation to build upon.

To form a sturdy and flat base, I then cut some scrap 3/4 inch (19 mm) board that spans the width of the frame, and screwed it down onto the side-pieces using Torx deck screws, notched to avoid protrusions on the frame's top surface. This makes the board weight-bearing, since it rests flat upon the frame; the side-pieces prevent the board from sliding down. And by fixing the width of the side-pieces, the pieces can no longer fall away from the peg holes.

close up of preacher curl attachment on the leg press

Finally, any preacher curl bench requires a pad. For this, I simply went online and found what existing machines used. Having had a good experience with the parts department at Body Solid for my functional trainer, I looked at their GPCA1 preacher curl station, whose detailed PDF schematics showed a pad that is 600 mm wide, which is perfect for my use!

After $40 + $20 shipping, the pad arrived and I was able to measure the exact distance between its two bottom mounting holes to drill through the board. Once again, Body Solid's documentation described the exact 5/16" wide, 1" long bolts that I would need to mount the pad.

The final result isn't my nicest wood project -- to the point that I just stained it (badly) in black -- but it may have been one of the cheapest so far, using nearly entirely scrap materials except for the pad itself and the bolts. It also wasn't terribly complex and didn't require fairly high precision, unlike the short barbell project.

The whole premise of this attachment is that as an average height American (5 ft 9 inch; 175 cm), my range of motion for the leg press and hack squat simply won't ever push the carriage into the upper part of the frame. So it's free real estate.

preacher curl pad attached to the top of a 45 degree leg press

But wait: how am I going to use this? The pad is 5.5 ft (167 cm) above the floor. I'd have to be over 7 ft tall (2.2 m) to drape my arms over it. The answer to that will be its own future post.

6
submitted 2 weeks ago by litchralee to c/freebies

This is different than the promo from two days ago.

When uploading photos using the desktop website, make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

39
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by litchralee to c/[email protected]

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/20965205

This is the story of how I turned a 15" Titan adjustable dumbbell to be 80 cm (31.5 inch) long. Why? Because I have a space-constrained home gym but still wanted a leg press, and so I had to remove its original barbell.

In its place, I built a pair of wood mounts for a normal barbell to rest upon, covered in that earlier post. However, since this machine is wall-adjacent, such a barbell would have to fit inside the width of the leg press, so about 80 cm. But must also be wider than the spacing from outside-edge to outside-edge of the wood mounts, which is 60 cm.

wooden mounts where a leg press barbell would be

Such a short barbell -- or long dumbbell -- does not readily exist commercially, with the narrowest one I've seen being 48 inch barbells, which are still too wide. So I decided to build my own, using my spare Titan dumbbell as the base.

To start, the Titan dumbbells are excellent in this capacity, as the shaft diameter is 28 mm -- not 32 mm as the website would indicate -- which is a common diameter, if I am to cut short a cheap barbell to replace this dumbbell's shaft.

In keeping with my preexisting frugality, I purchased a cheap 1-inch barbell, hoping that it adopts the Olympic 28 mm shaft diameter, and not the 29 mm deadlift bar shaft diameter, as the Titan collars have small clearances. Matching neither, I find that this bar is closer to 23 mm, which although will fit into the existing collars, poses its own issues.

Nevertheless, this 7 ft barbell can conveniently be cut in half to yield two 42 inch segments. And then the included bar stops can be loped off, and then the length further refined to 77 cm, thus hiding the marks from the bar stop within the Titan collars, and also centering the (meh) knurling from the cheap bar.

But perhaps a picture will be more explanatory. Here, the original collar is dismantled at the top, showing the original shaft with a groove cut into it, about 1/4-inch from the end. Into that groove would fit two half-rings with an inner diameter of 20.4 mm and an outer diameter of 40 mm. In fact, all the parts inside the collar use 40 mm outer diameter, except the spacer cylinder, which is smaller at 37 mm. All of these parts are held captive within the collar using the C-ring and the geometry of the collar itself.

To deal with the difference between the collar expecting 28 mm, and the cheap bar's 23 cm, I designed an ABS 3d printed part in FreeCAD to act as a bushing, upon which the original Titan brass bushing will ride upon. This ABS bushing is held captive by way of its center bulge, which fits within the dead space inside the collar.

As for how I cut the groove into the end of the new shaft, I still don't own a lathe. So the next best is to mount an angle grinder onto a "cross slide vise" taken from a drill press, with the shaft secured in a wooden jig to only allow axial rotation manually. The vise allows precision control for the cutting wheel's depth, with me pausing frequently to measure how close the groove is to the desired 20.4 mm inner diameter. This is.... not a quick nor precise process. But it definitely works.

After reassembling both collars onto the new shaft and lubricating with white lithium, the final result is a long dumbbell (or short barbell) with Titan's 3.5 inch collars on the end, with 63 cm of shaft exposed and 80 cm from end to end. The ABS bushing is remarkably smooth against the brass bushing, after some sanding with 180 grit. The whole dumbbell weights 5.48 kg empty.

Here is the comparison with the stock Titan dumbbell. It's pretty amazing how the knurling conveniently lined up. It fits well onto the wood mounts of the leg press.

Don't ever talk to me or my son ever again

But why would I do all this just to add a weirdly long 3.5-inch collar dumbbell to a leg press, when it already can accept weights underneath the carriage? I will answer that in a follow-up post.

5
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by litchralee to c/[email protected]

This is the story of how I turned a 15" Titan adjustable dumbbell to be 80 cm (31.5 inch) long. Why? Because I have a space-constrained home gym but still wanted a leg press, and so I had to remove its original barbell.

In its place, I built a pair of wood mounts for a normal barbell to rest upon, covered in that earlier post. However, since this machine is wall-adjacent, such a barbell would have to fit inside the width of the leg press, so about 80 cm. But must also be wider than the spacing from outside-edge to outside-edge of the wood mounts, which is 60 cm.

wooden mounts where a leg press barbell would be

Such a short barbell -- or long dumbbell -- does not readily exist commercially, with the narrowest one I've seen being 48 inch barbells, which are still too wide. So I decided to build my own, using my spare Titan dumbbell as the base.

To start, the Titan dumbbells are excellent in this capacity, as the shaft diameter is 28 mm -- not 32 mm as the website would indicate -- which is a common diameter, if I am to cut short a cheap barbell to replace this dumbbell's shaft.

In keeping with my preexisting frugality, I purchased a cheap 1-inch barbell, hoping that it adopts the Olympic 28 mm shaft diameter, and not the 29 mm deadlift bar shaft diameter, as the Titan collars have small clearances. Matching neither, I find that this bar is closer to 23 mm, which although will fit into the existing collars, poses its own issues.

Nevertheless, this 7 ft barbell can conveniently be cut in half to yield two 42 inch segments. And then the included bar stops can be loped off, and then the length further refined to 77 cm, thus hiding the marks from the bar stop within the Titan collars, and also centering the (meh) knurling from the cheap bar.

But perhaps a picture will be more explanatory. Here, the original collar is dismantled at the top, showing the original shaft with a groove cut into it, about 1/4-inch from the end. Into that groove would fit two half-rings with an inner diameter of 20.4 mm and an outer diameter of 40 mm. In fact, all the parts inside the collar use 40 mm outer diameter, except the spacer cylinder, which is smaller at 37 mm. All of these parts are held captive within the collar using the C-ring and the geometry of the collar itself.

To deal with the difference between the collar expecting 28 mm, and the cheap bar's 23 cm, I designed an ABS 3d printed part in FreeCAD to act as a bushing, upon which the original Titan brass bushing will ride upon. This ABS bushing is held captive by way of its center bulge, which fits within the dead space inside the collar.

As for how I cut the groove into the end of the new shaft, I still don't own a lathe. So the next best is to mount an angle grinder onto a "cross slide vise" taken from a drill press, with the shaft secured in a wooden jig to only allow axial rotation manually. The vise allows precision control for the cutting wheel's depth, with me pausing frequently to measure how close the groove is to the desired 20.4 mm inner diameter. This is.... not a quick nor precise process. But it definitely works.

After reassembling both collars onto the new shaft and lubricating with white lithium, the final result is a long dumbbell (or short barbell) with Titan's 3.5 inch collars on the end, with 63 cm of shaft exposed and 80 cm from end to end. The ABS bushing is remarkably smooth against the brass bushing, after some sanding with 180 grit. The whole dumbbell weights 5.48 kg empty.

Here is the comparison with the stock Titan dumbbell. It's pretty amazing how the knurling conveniently lined up. It fits well onto the wood mounts of the leg press.

Don't ever talk to me or my son ever again

But why would I do all this just to add a weirdly long 3.5-inch collar dumbbell to a leg press, when it already can accept weights underneath the carriage? I will answer that in a follow-up post.

0
submitted 2 weeks ago by litchralee to c/freebies

When uploading photos using the desktop website, make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

12
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by litchralee to c/freebies

Use the code on the Walgreens app and the website to claim the same offer twice!

When uploading photos using the desktop website, make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

31
submitted 4 weeks ago by litchralee to c/[email protected]

As is their custom, FortNine delivers a two-wheeler review in the most cinematic way possible, along with a dose of British sitcom humor.

I'm not sure I'd ever buy one, but I'd definitely borrow it from a friend haha. I've said before that I like seeing what novel ideas people will build atop two wheels, and this certainly is very unique.

26
submitted 4 weeks ago by litchralee to c/[email protected]

The title describes the gist of things. In 18 months of owning my Bikonit MD750, I've traveled over 2100 km (1300 miles) in day, night, and rain; swapped out four sets of tires trying to lower the rolling resistance; built my own new set of 29" wheels with ebike-speed rated tires; and have taken it on mixed-mode adventures by using light-rail as my range extender.

It's the latter where the weight is a small issue, as the light rail train has three stairsteps onboard, which I have to carry the bike up and onto. 43 kg is kinda a lot, although that does include all the things I will need for a day out. I can pursue getting stronger to lift it more easily, or convincing the transit department to acquire low-floor trains, but I'd like to know my options:

What are some Class 3, mid-drive ebikes currently available in the USA, that weigh less than 43 kg (95 lbs)? Ideally, less than 25 kg (55 lbs) too, as that's the most common weight restriction for buses. I want to see what y'all can recommend, irrespective of price or range or other considerations.

I'm not likely to terminate my investment in this current ebike, as it's provided sterling service thus far. But I wonder if maybe what I have has already been outmoded by the latest developments in this ever-changing slice of the mobility space.

TY in advance!

12
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by litchralee to c/[email protected]

One thing I've always wanted for my space-constrained homegym is a leg press. But even the most compact leg presses occupy a lot of space lengthwise and width-wide. I had my eye on the Force USA 45 degree leg press/hack squat combo machine, because it has so much capacity for me to grow into. So I picked one up and modified it so it can be placed up against the wall.

The primary issue is the barbell that attaches to the carriage (the part that moves up and down). This barbell extends about 45 cm (18 inch) beyond the left and right sides of the machine, taking up stationary space as well as dynamic space when the carriage is in motion. Eliminating that barbell would reduce the width requirement from the bare minimum of 162 cm to 80 cm, assuming the weight storage pegs are also removed.

But of course, the barbell is how the leg press is loaded, with 34 cm on each end for Olympic-spec plates. It also provides some structural stability for the hack squat shoulder pads, where they attach to the carriage. However, dangling underneath the carriage is a much-smaller space for loading plates, with 20 cm on left/right for plates.

Force USA leg press under-carriage plate holder

As an aside, this is a fairly substantial machine that arrived on a pallet, taking a few hours to assemble. The build quality is exemplary, and everything about it evinces durability and stability.

My approach was to remove the original barbell, loading only the under-carriage bar. To retain structure, I cut 1"x2" rectangular steel tube to the width of the carriage (59 cm), capped the ends, and drilled holes to reuse the same bolts as the original barbell. The reason for 1"x2" is because the backrest for the hack squat requires clearance; the stock barbell solved this by bending around that area, whereas 1x2 just barely clears the backrest, and that's good enough for me.

top-down view of replacement steel tube and mounts

Later, I added a pair of wooden mounts where a conventional barbell can be rested. This is not my proudest woodworking achievement, but it's certainly the most unconventional. Each mount is made from three layers of reclaimed 2x6 lumber (from a bed frame) glued together, then a 3.5-inch diameter hole bored through axially, then sanded, stained in cherry, and finished with Polycrylic clear coat for durability. I'll explain the point of these mounts in a different post.

left-side wooden mount on the leg press

The result of all this is a leg press that needs only about 1 meter by 2.4 meter (39" by 96") of floor space, and that's including weight storage pegs on the side away from the wall, plus space to swing the safety stopper bars in/out of place. And everything can be reverted back to the factory configuration.

The caveat is that I'm consigned to the 40 cm total barbell space under the carriage. To maximally load this machine, I would need to invest in thin iron plates, which apparently only are made to precise values, and are thus expensive. Examples: Rogue calibrated KG plates, and Hansu Power calibrated plates, both of which are 22.5 mm wide for 20 kg plates. Sixteen such plates would make 320 kg (700 lbs), and I'd be thrilled if I could get there one day. The tradeoff is reasonable to me, minimizing floor space today in exchange for requiring expensive plates in the future, until I upsize my space.

54
submitted 1 month ago by litchralee to c/[email protected]

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/20133956

With the exception of the weight stack for my functional trainer and its change plates, I wanted all my subsequent equipment to be metric. To that end, I saw some cheap 45 lbs CAP bumper plates, and figured that I could make them into metric with not too much effort.

Some rough math prior to purchasing suggested that these plates -- with a width of 68 mm -- could be slimmed down from 20.4 kg (45 lbs) to nearly 20.0 kg, by boring two 2" holes (51 mm). To keep balance, the holes should be on on diametrically opposite ends. And should be neither too close to the edge, nor too close to the center, since the plate still needs to absorb a drop without deforming. That the bored holes are 51 mm is a fantastic happenstance, nearly identical to the center hole for Olympic-spec plates.

Examining each plate before drilling, I found that the silkscreen letter A in "CAP" is well-centered diametrically, although it doesn't line up with the matching logo on the back side. Also, since these are cheap CAP plates, the initial weight tolerances are pretty poor. 45 lbs should be 20.41 kg (2 sig figs), but my first four plates registered at 20.58, 20.51, 20.64, 20.56. That's nearly an extra half pound!

To drill the holes perfectly plumb, I did the work on a drill press using a 2-inch hole saw. Because the saw wasn't deep enough to go through the full width in one pass, I started with a 1/4-inch (6 mm) pilot hole straight through the tip of the letter A in "CAP". Then I drilled from both sides with the hole saw until a ~200 gram rubber core fell out. Repeat for the second bore.

To finish, I took some sandpaper to remove the old "45 lbs" markings, then used my label maker to affix new values. All plates are still high, but ranged from 20.030 kg to 20.105 kg. Not too shabby, I think.

In a happy coincidence, the position of these bored holes is perfect for one's thumbs when grasping the plate like a steering wheel, making it easier to pick up when laid flat on the floor. I also added a strip of blue electrical tape around the perimeter to make it easy to identify these as 20 kg.

In the end, I got the cheap metric plates I wanted, and it came with a usability improvement as well. I've not dropped these yet, so time will tell how they hold up.

20
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by litchralee to c/[email protected]

With the exception of the weight stack for my functional trainer and its change plates, I wanted all my subsequent equipment to be metric. To that end, I saw some cheap 45 lbs CAP bumper plates, and figured that I could make them into metric with not too much effort.

Some rough math prior to purchasing suggested that these plates -- with a width of 68 mm -- could be slimmed down from 20.4 kg (45 lbs) to nearly 20.0 kg, by boring two 2" holes (51 mm). To keep balance, the holes should be on on diametrically opposite ends. And should be neither too close to the edge, nor too close to the center, since the plate still needs to absorb a drop without deforming. That the bored holes are 51 mm is a fantastic happenstance, nearly identical to the center hole for Olympic-spec plates.

Examining each plate before drilling, I found that the silkscreen letter A in "CAP" is well-centered diametrically, although it doesn't line up with the matching logo on the back side. Also, since these are cheap CAP plates, the initial weight tolerances are pretty poor. 45 lbs should be 20.41 kg (2 sig figs), but my first four plates registered at 20.58, 20.51, 20.64, 20.56. That's nearly an extra half pound!

To drill the holes perfectly plumb, I did the work on a drill press using a 2-inch hole saw. Because the saw wasn't deep enough to go through the full width in one pass, I started with a 1/4-inch (6 mm) pilot hole straight through the tip of the letter A in "CAP". Then I drilled from both sides with the hole saw until a ~200 gram rubber core fell out. Repeat for the second bore.

To finish, I took some sandpaper to remove the old "45 lbs" markings, then used my label maker to affix new values. All plates are still high, but ranged from 20.030 kg to 20.105 kg. Not too shabby, I think.

In a happy coincidence, the position of these bored holes is perfect for one's thumbs when grasping the plate like a steering wheel, making it easier to pick up when laid flat on the floor. I also added a strip of blue electrical tape around the perimeter to make it easy to identify these as 20 kg.

In the end, I got the cheap metric plates I wanted, and it came with a usability improvement as well. I've not dropped these yet, so time will tell how they hold up.

[-] litchralee 34 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

[2,600 men and women, with an average age of 64 years old] were surveyed about their physical activity over their lifetime. As part of the study, researchers took X-ray images to evaluate signs of arthritis in their knee joints.

The study can not prove cause and effect, given it was an observational study that assessed osteoarthritis at one point in time.

Credit where it's due, the editor has written a headline which actually comports with the merits of the study, not overstating the benefits of cycling on elderly knee arthritis. And the author takes care to do the same. The article also discusses the risks specific to elderly cyclists, and identifies the aspects of cycling which are low-impact.

Overall, an informative read.

[-] litchralee 44 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

But they have also garnered a cult status among young people, who are using them to get around with friends, take their surfboard to the beach and commute to school.

Hmm, it's almost like young people aren't being given other viable transportation options, so they flock to the mode which affords them freedom and flexibility. Should we be surprised then, that the artificial barrier for youths was breached one day, and that day is now?

IMO, the story starts far earlier, with poor government policy failing to provide transport for all. I'm no expert on Australia transport priorities, but whatever they've been doing for the last so-and-so years clearly isn't working for the youth. So it's no surprise that these councils are being caught off-guard, when their negligence finally comes to bear.

3
submitted 1 month ago by litchralee to c/freebies

When uploading photos using the desktop website, make sure to select Full Resolution in the Upload Preferences.

[-] litchralee 38 points 3 months ago

I'm not a Rust developer (yet), but I understand its strength in this regard as: Rust is statically memory safe by default, and code which isn't statically memory safe must be declared with the unsafe keyword. Whereas C++ has not deprecated C-style pointers, and so a C engineer can easily write unsafe C code that's valid in a C++ compiler, and no declaration of its unsafeness is readily apparent to trigger an audit.

It's nice and all that C++ pioneered a fair number of memory safety techniques like SBRM, but the debate now is about safety by default, not optional bolt-on safety. All agree that the overall process to achieve correct code is paramount, not just the language constructs.

[-] litchralee 32 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

"That's worth waiting for". No, I don't think I agree. Ebikes enable people to do something they otherwise cannot do right now: get somewhere mostly nearby but too far to walk, with low emissions and high personal autonomy. To say that people should deprive themselves of that ability in wait for an evolution in batteries is asinine, and ignores the very real and tangible benefits that can be realized today.

[-] litchralee 33 points 4 months ago

For other people's benefit and my own:

PWA: Progressive Web App

[-] litchralee 37 points 4 months ago

Oh wow, that might be the shortest-representation IPv6 DNS server I've seen to date: 2620:fe::9

[-] litchralee 57 points 5 months ago

For other people's benefit beyond my own:

RIIR: "Rewrite It In Rust"

[-] litchralee 87 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

OSM can definitely find you a bank near a freeway ramp, but it can also find you a bank near a creek to make an inflatable boat getaway. What it can't do is arrange for decoys to confuse the police while you eacape.

The inflatable boat robber was ultimately caught and sentenced a year later.

[-] litchralee 33 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm willing to have some fun with this idea.

A cursory review of the relevant California Government Code section 420 -- blaze it! -- provides a description of the California state flag, and also a picture of it. Or it would in the print version of the code. While there doesn't appear to be a specific bit of law which authorizes the state to retain the copyright on the flag, there is case law which disallows the state from retaining copyright for "government documents", with exceptions which wouldn't apply here. So it's reasonable to assume that California doesn't have the copyright on its state flag, with it likely being in the public domain.

This would suggest that Minnesota could indeed use the flag to mean something else, the same way anyone can with public domain material. Now, if this occurs outside of California, that state could not enforce any sort of rules pertaining to how the flag is used. Even within the state, California's authority to control how public domain material -- or more broadly, any material at all -- is circumscribed by the First Amendment in any case. The exception would be for those agencies and subdivisions of the state itself, which it can and does control. See Gov Code section 435, which disallows cities from having confusingly similar flags. The other exception would be uses of the flag which perpetuate fraud or some other related crime, since then it's not the speech being punished but the conduct, which happens to involve a flag-related expression. But neither of these really speak to the flag being used by another sovereign entity within the state.

Supposing for a second -- and this is where we're really departing from reality -- the several states had embassies at each other's state capitals, but without the equivalent protections afforded by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relationships. And by that, I mean each state buys land in other states, without creating sovereignty issues, owning that land as any other individual or corporation could. In such a case, if the Minnesota Embassy in Sacramento were to fly the flag of California as its own, what could California do? If they drafted a law like section 435 that applies to individuals, the First Amendment would present a barrier. If the law applies to out-of-state entities, it might run against the Dormant Commerce Clause, in a very broad interpretation of interstate commerce. If they apply it to all sovereign entities operating within the state -- which would include the Minnesota Embassy, since the State of Minnesota owns it -- then the thorny question of state sovereign immunity in state court would arise.

In a California state court, would the State of Minnesota have sovereign immunity? If instead of Minnesota, it were a foreign country like Scotland, the answer would be a resounding yes. But here is a state vs state issue. The proper venue would be a court with original jurisdiction over states, and there's only one of those: the US Supreme Court.

As to what the state of California would assert as a cause of action? I suppose they could raise a criminal violation of their freshly-drafted law, with the risk of devolving into whether a US State has its own rights of free speech, which other states must respect. Alternatively, they could raise an action in equity, such as a tort (MN's use of the flag is costing CA somehow) or defamation (MN's use of the flag asserts falsehoods about CA).

At this point, we're deep into legal fanfiction and it's time to stop haha. Needless to say, I think the situation in real life would be messy if it were to happen.

view more: next ›

litchralee

joined 1 year ago