That was my first thought too. SoundHound worked 90% of the time for me, very impressive for the day IMO. Too bad it was fairly short-lived - I think they removed that functionality within a year or two. It's nice to have the ability to search like this again.
Also, you only have room to park your car when the house is in certain orientations!
Some neighborhood kids would definitely wedge rocks in-between the rotating platform.
So the less fortunate who are forced to rely on these basic jobs should live below poverty, so you can enjoy some extra cash to travel internationally?
The reality is, in modern America the percentage of people relying on these jobs as their sole source of income is much larger than the highschoolers looking to make some extra cash. We shouldn't sacrifice the masses to enable the few to maintain an optional job, in my opinion.
Thanks for this reply! I was curious too, since I just spent the last few weeks working with an esp8266 on FastLED.
One type of shield/expansion I'd love to see for the Pixelblaze would be some sort of lipo charger and protection circuitry. My favorite esp8266 board has an integrated battery holder for an 18650, and I've found this to be my favorite way of powering all my projects!
LEDs draw lots of power. I just put ~~50W~~25W of SK6812s in my 3D printer enclosure. (It's overkill, but not drastically so.) So you're going to need big batteries for any LED project.
It seems like they've chosen to not lay power lines down the length, which simplifies some things and allows them to reduce the tunnel size. But limits their drivetrains to only short bursts of use before needing to be recharged.
They are, however, laying power lines to have illumination of the entire tunnel. Seems more like they're doing batteries because that's something they have already, not because it's the optimal solution.
The lines to power LEDs over a few miles are several orders of magnitude cheaper than lines and infrastructure capable of delivering power to a Subway car. The LA Metro runs on 750V DC.. the transmission and switching/transforming for that amount of power isnt cheap.
You'll have to switch/transform/transmit exactly the same (or bigger) amount of power for charging batteries with this solution. And you'll definitely have more electricity losses when you have to go through a battery.
But you can centralize that technology at the terminals instead of burying / waterproofing extremely thick cables for miles and miles.
There's no doubt it will be less efficient, especially since the cars are carrying their batteries but the whole point of this is to cut CapEx by 90+% and eliminating miles of power lines is an important part of that effort.
It's a lower level of importance over this 3 mile trip, but it's not uncommon for power upgrades/maintenance to be a multi hundred million dollar Annual outlay for large transit systems.
OTOH you are forgetting about the CapEx of the batteries, which looks to be in the ballpark of $1M-$10M depending on number of "skates" etc. That's $1M per mile of track (order of magnitude), which is the same as what METRANS estimates is the cost of retrofitting a third rail on existing rail track. As a rule of thumb, retrofits are significantly more expensive per mile, so I'd say odds are better than even the batteries are more expensive than a third rail.
A well-executed new metro line development, like the MetroSur line in Madrid, runs at around $60M per mile total cost including everything, all the construction and the trains and the stations and property rights.
If you want to improve on that by 90%+, you can't afford much more than just the batteries and the "skates" for this Dugout line.
I don't quite see the purpose of illuminating the entire tunnel unless they're using their autonomous driving tech which uses a camera. If so, they've just put a single point of failure on their lighting systems.
It's a bit more complicated than that. These train cars will be going somewhat faster, and accelerating and decelerating a lot more than a typical long distance highway journey. Of course I'm sure they'll employ regenerative breaking, but even so, it's a lot of energy to load and unload from the battery over and over again.
This is probably the way to go, you just have to worry about data limits and overages, plus the extra latency. Probably not the biggest deal for mobile, though.
This is a good workaround to a problem that shouldn't exist. I feel it's important to clarify this is certainly not more secure than using a client-side solution that doesn't involve duplicating bandwidth.
(Full disclosure I make an iOS app that is also likely going to be affected by these rules, so I am triggered)
