Titanium for electronics isn’t much of a problem (look at Apple Watch and a bunch of Apple product). The issue is that it’s a considerably more expensive material (every cents count when you scale to consumer electronics) and a bit harder to work with.
We were talking about weight -- you don't hang those devices on your face.
Titanium glasses are lightweight because a very minimal amount of material is used. This is possible for regular glasses because you can make them with a ~1mm cross-section. When you want to put electronics inside of them, you need much more material.
Although parent asking for titanium for the feeling, so maybe something in-between would be fine? Lightweight material inside and structurally, but titanium or something else as the "skin".
I don't think a titanium coating over something else is going to deliver that.
I think the reason titanium glasses feel nice is primarily because they have minimal contact with your skin and very low mass.
My frames weigh 6 grams, with lenses they're 14 grams. The Meta Ray Bans are 50 grams. If you could make the frames from pure helium they still wouldn't feel close.
I assume the poster above imagined the something inside could just be voids, like a tiny aircraft. But yes, some kind of low density filler could also add some stability in areas you don't want mass metal but also don't have electronics or battery "cargo".
The weight is the issue. The guy above said he doesn't like the weight of acetate glasses. Acetate frames for traditional glasses are 10-20 grams. Titanium frames for traditional glasses are 5-10 grams.
Between the weight of material and the electronics, I don't really see anything approaching the feel that someone that discerning would want.
Yep, but seems like the discussion was around solid titanium, that's why I mentioned sheet titanium. I can't see how making the fame out of thin titanium with hard bends (like how computer cases are made of steel sheets, but on a small scale) would make it weigh more than the solid acetate version. Should also be much stronger.
The "solid" frame titanium glasses I'm wearing right now are 0.5mm thick. If you were to put a housing the same thickness around a 60x10mm cylinder you've got something about the weight of an acetate frame, with zero electronics inside. Add the electronics and you've got something heavier, just with titanium as the material.
I mean, the material is nice, but you're not making it light weight that way.
You may be right, but I think they are imagining a tubular frame construction. It would contain a volume of battery or electronics inside the hollow skin.
I guess the problem is can you extrude and form something so small with the precision and metallurgical properties you want to maintain. You probably don't want to just cast it in the final shape, right?
Even if it’s an order of magnitude more expensive, they would make money on the glasses. Oakley (and every brand controlled by the Luxotica monopoly) glasses have extreme margins. On the order of, could be sold for under $20 making a profit but are sold for $300+. I don’t think the titanium work and the electronics can offset that.
The material is not the majority of the expense. The cost comes from the difficulty encountered when working the metal using standard tooling. It is difficult to work, low tolerance and high failure rates made it impractical prior to modern (very expensive) machines.
Absolutely amazing. I've been hoping for something that is similar to OnShape. I would absolutely pay in the hundreds for something like this. Its an absolute shame how expensive Onshape licenses are. There's no way I'm shelling 1k+ for a license.
Onshape employee here. I agree with another poster that for most "non-professional" requirements Onshape's free tier is all one should need - sure, the documents remain public if you don't pay. It's prohibitively expensive to maintain the technology stack with the complexity, scale and performance that Onshape does, and its costs a lot of money. :)
Documents being public is one thing. But I remember you guys changed the ToS at one point (I just looked it up, in 2016) where the verbiage is that Onshape owns the IP of these documents which is a huge no for me. I rather pay for solidworks hobbyist for $100 a year that comes with 3Dexperience which performs very similar to Onshape.
I don't know where you see such a line in Onshape's ToS. Can you point me to it? IANAL (and speak only in an individual's capacity who is hopefully reading the same ToS), but the public documents you create as a free user are essentially in "public domain", so even though you still 'own' it, you grant a broad, "worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license to any End User or third party" to use the intellectual property within that document "without restriction". This includes the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of it.
Taking the chance: As a hobbyist with a decent CNC with no intent of using it for commercial work:
Linux "support" was driving me from Fusion to Onshape.
CAM is driving me back to Fusion.
Please consider pushing the idea of having CAM for the hobbyist level in Onshape in your company, I know there's not much in revenue us hobbyists, but I'd gladly pay up to 20-50 per month for such a license. At least that's more money than 0 :).
> But I just know, at some point Onshape will start charging us freeriders.
- I don't know about that, may be, may be not, but I don't know of any such plan in the short term at least. It gives University students a free 'professional' license so there's that too.
> Just fill pattern and text are always a struggle.
Feel free to create a support ticket about your pain points. Everyone can easily do that, and Onshape is surprisingly more responsive to support tickets than many other companies.
Yep. YMMV. DE is the most corporate-friendly state, but usually requires 2 state tax headaches. For a very small concern, it might be more costly than registering in another or one's home state.
This might sound crazy to a lot of people, but I actually wish I had the same lint/mypy/flake8 CI from work on my personal projects. I don’t need anything fancy but something on github that’s single click that forces discipline.
For example, Run you lint script on pre-commit. You can use `git config core.hooksPath .githooks` in your package.json/cargo.toml/composer.json/etc scripts prepare hook to maintain your scripts in a `.githooks` directory in the repo.
You could also run your code coverage command on pre-commit to help with discipline. Sky is the limit.
Do you use any kind of version control on your personal projects? If so, you should be able to set up a precommit hook. Or is the difficulty in finding a project template that has all the right tools configured in the right way?
Rerun co-founder here. Rerun doesn’t have replay in the sense of you send messages in and can play back the same messages in the same order later. We have playback in the sense that you can play it back in the viewer. We also have apis for reading back data but its more focused on dataframe use cases rather than sending you back messages
We considered it as well but there was a feature missing that meant we couldn’t use it for one of our main requirements. Had that not been the case, we’d have rolled it out.
Honestly I'm hazy on the details but we're running a fairly complex environment in GCP with PSC everywhere, connections to on-prem and other external environments, and something wouldn't quite work due to all that.
Sorry I can't provide any more details but I really don't remember the specifics. We were in touch with Tailscale engineers and they offered some workarounds that we had already worked out but that wouldn't help us achieve what we were after.
I've done exactly that: headscale in production at work, a few hundred client devices, infrastructure mostly powered by nix. What would you want to hear about it?
* Does it work well?
* Do you recommend it?
* Do your users care?
* Is it difficult? Do you have to maintain it or is it basically set it and forget it?
* What was memorable about setting it up?
* Why did you go for Headscale vs Tailscale or Netbird or some other solution?
Very well! There are some limitations (see link above), but what's implemented is reliable.
> * Do you recommend it?
Yes, provided your requirements fit headscale's capabilities. If you need things like device trust attestation (e.g. Kandji MDM or Crowdstrike Falcon integration), SCIM provisioning, or various other enterprise features you may find it inadequate. If you can afford to pay for Tailscale, you should just use Tailscale because it's really good.
> * Do your users care?
They like it way better than our previous OpenVPN setup, that's for sure. I don't think they care about Headscale vs commercial Tailscale - the backend implementation is largely invisible to them.
> * Is it difficult? Do you have to maintain it or is it basically set it and forget it?
Not hard at all to set up, and it requires little maintenance attention. I have barely had to touch the control plane (other than version upgrades) since setting it up a year ago.
> * What was memorable about setting it up?
We had to do some custom coding to have automatic user offboarding when employees leave the company, and to emulate app connectors / dynamic routing (this is now OSS! https://github.com/singlestore-labs/tailscale-manager).
And I've been contributing to the headscale codebase to smooth out some quirks that affected our SSO integration. The headscale authors have been pretty flexible in welcoming outside contributors.
> * Why did you go for Headscale vs Tailscale or Netbird or some other solution?
vs Tailscale: It was way easier to build this myself than to get funding to use the commercial solution. I'm not good navigating corporate politics, but I am pretty good at building infrastructure and writing code.
vs Netbird: Mostly because I already liked Tailscale from using it at home, I like its implementation, and I like the way Tailscale (the company) have behaved. The handful of folks I know who work there are people I deeply respect.
- How much effort do you put into key management compared to plain WireGuard?
- How automated is the onboarding process; do you generate and hand over keys?
- How do you cope without the commercial Tailscale dashboard?
- Do you run some kind of dashboard or metrics system?
- How long did it take to set up?
- Were there any gotchas?
> - Do you run some kind of dashboard or metrics system?
Yes, I scrape headscale's Prometheus metrics endpoint and have put together a simple Grafana dashboard. The metrics it emits are somewhat limited, but enough to keep an eye on its health.
> - How long did it take to set up?
I had a prototype up and running on Kubernetes with OIDC integration and a web UI in about 1 day of hacking. Going into full production took a few months, but the majority of that time was about planning the migration of all the existing users from OpenVPN.
Come to think of it, maybe I should share my terraform modules for deploying it.
> - Were there any gotchas?
A few, yeah:
- Setting up mobile clients is a bit fiddly, because they hide the "connect to a non-default control plane URL" under a debug menu. The mac and windows apps are similar - it's too easy for users to accidentally try to connect to tailscale.com instead of your headscale instance. If you have the ability to deploy MDM profiles (mac) or windows registry tweaks this is easy to fix, and the headscale server will even generate the configs for you.
- The headscale control plane doesn't support any kind of HA or replication. This doesn't disqualify it since tailscale can handle brief control plane outages without breaking the network, but it's likely to be a concern for serious enterprise users. It's possible to use an external Postgres database, so you can at least replicate data that way, but only one headscale server replica can be active at a time because they don't share runtime state.
- The tailscale API is not fully implemented, so you can't use things like the tailscale Kubernetes operator.
- Some features are missing: tailscale funnel, tailscale serve, app connectors, `autogroup:self` ACLs, SCIM provisioning, SSO group membership sync, and I forget what else. These may or may not be important to you.
It's possible to implement group sync with some custom scripting - a python app to scrape your LDAP (or whatever) and generate tailscale ACLs isn't hard to write. But you do have to write it.
`autogroup:self` might be a big deal - you would need this if you want to stop users from seeing or connecting directly to each other's devices. I think there is an implementation of this coming in the next release of headscale.
Summary: headscale is great if you have relatively simple needs and can't afford to pay for Tailscale. You will probably outgrow it if you're running a serious business and need to comply with fancy audit requirements.
reply