It is effectively a free trial of the course, which seems fine as long as it is disclosed upfront that the rest of the content is paid.
Edit: after actually using the site I see your point, the only indicator is the small text "free preview" which I probably wouldn't have noticed without first having read the Show HN post.
It looks like you cut the preview from 46% of this chapter to just 22% of the chapter...
I went back to look for a quote from about 41% of the way through to explain to another commenter why the style is so effective and ran into the paywall earlier than I had my first time through.
Just FYI, the content before 22% isn't strong enough to sell the preview. It has to get to the questions where you're asking for intuitive guesses on the real mathematical expressions to make it clear how valuable this is.
Honestly, you should just be giving away this whole chapter. If you did then I could forward it to colleagues, let them learn this one concept and suggest they get the rest of the info.
As it is I really can't do that. It'd be like giving a friend a flyer that was shoved under my door.
Hey, thanks for the feedback (and your kind words!). I've moved the paywall back to (roughly) where it was. It's a challenge to find the right balance between showing off the content, but also leaving enough to encourage people to buy the course! All ideas appreciated for tweaks and alternative payment models :)
Hi, it's actually $29 for the entire course, of which this post is just one chapter. Was there some content that suggested it was $29 for just this chapter? I need to fix that if so!
Ah, that's a surprise. It went from 0 to 46% then it popped a "buy me" dialog, I had assumed it was $29 the 47-100%. I only took 10-20 minutes and seemed pretty pricey for another 10-20 minutes. Maybe add a "$29 for this course/N chapters" or "$29 for a course and show the syllabus".
Lack is made out of super cheap particle board. Is it stable enough to sit the 3D printer on? I would assume it would add some errors to the printing process.
It’s perfectly adequate for stability. People have suspended printers in midair with elastic cables, or printed upside down, and prints have come out fine. The printer frame is providing most of the rigidity in this case. Don’t get me wrong, people that place their printers on spring like things tend to get lower quality prints so there is a limit there.
The downside about the IKEA particleboard over hollow cardboard core is more about sound and resonance imo. It can act as a speaker for printer vibrations and amplify that sound in the same room or to the floor below it.
A popular “mod” is to place a concrete paver block on top of some isolation pad, typically made of rubber or sorbothane to increase the functional mass of the printer and lower the resonant frequencies created during printing.
I personally have two of those enclosures stacked, with a printer in each one.
I just bought a concrete paver and neoprene mat to put on top of my lack and I'm printing pieces for my lack enclosure on my ender 3 as I type this message.
One thing I'm not sure about is whether or not I should attach the printer directly to the concrete paver, and/or if I should take the rubber feet off of the printer as well.
I have a 3-lack-stack for my printer, but no paver. It sways a bit when I print, but I haven't run into any major issues without it. I should get one. A foam mat was mandatory though; the hollow core lack turns the motor noise into a scream!
I'd just try the easy thing first and set the printer on the paver without attaching. See if that works before you go through the effort of attaching it
Yea, I'm a bit surprised by the responses. In the case of using it for a Prusa, I'm not sure I understand the idea of buying a $1,000 3D printer and then putting it on a $15 particle board stand.
It works fine and lots of people do it, I have been using mine without issue for a few years now. It helps to put a concrete slab in it, but it's not necessary. The lack table does have a tendency to amplify the noise though.
Unsurprisingly, the same issues arise with precision scales/balances as do with printers. Having a big heavy base is useful!
I know of a few places that just procured literal blank marble gravestones as a "base" for their analytical scales at a cost far less than the usual mass-damper bases sold to labs.
This reminded me of a recent post about using cute error messages to enhance the user experience. I feel like many of the arguments translate here as well (more expressive "error messages", texbook empathy vs real empathy...), so I'm linking the discussion post:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32337520
Nice to see some Tetris news here! I've been a little obsessed lately with Tetr.io. For those who don't know it, it's a version of tetris where you can play against other players and send them pieces when, for example, you do a tetris or a combo. It's pretty impressive to watch the competitions :
https://youtu.be/A4SFWfXZsks
Instantly got addicted, and I was amazed to see how good everyone is. 14 year old me with my gameboy would have been stunned at how fast and crazy modern Tetris is. And multi-national! Love it, but had to give it up after a few months because it seemed like it would/or was causing my longstanding RSI to come back.
Pretty cool. Anyone remember TetriNET from the 90s? Similar concept, except there were special pieces mixed in that you could use on opponents or yourself (add line, clear line, quake, etc.)
Yup! I remember the Debian developers would often play it together, I suppose because it was one of a small number of exciting open source multiplayer games which worked on Linux.
There’s a battle royale version of Tetris on the switch that sounds very similar - you can alter your settings of who you attack too, targeting those who attacked you, those in the lead, etc… I never won but got top 3 a couple times :)
