Wow, I had no idea there is a 15X increase for endurance athletes. Make me want to dial down the running a bit, which make you wonder where the sweet spot is for distance training.
For long term data storage, you might consider using a UV laser to etch inside a crystal cube. This should last for thousands of years I would think. You could also read back the bits using optics which is non destructive.
I've had to deal with mold more than I care to discuss.
The key is to keep humidity down (relative to temperature). There is a concept of "Days till Mold" growth. Once you're past this number all bets are off.
Here is a chart that shows Days to growth. If museums can stay in the "no risk" zone then artifacts should be good. If they fall outside that zone, then artifacts are at risk.
Has anyone used their go stores? I'm curious how the experience felt from a consumer standpoint. Do you feel welcomed or more like a thief?
I remember WAY back in the day when Arby's implemented touch screen ordering (on CRTs!) and it was a very quirky process. An Arby's employee would sit behind the counter and stare at you while you spent 5 minutes poking a CRT display. Very slow and very impersonal. They discontinued them in a short period of time.
Seems there is a market for a truly biodegradable print material, if even for doing a prototype before committing to a full plastic print. Or a real recyclable method to take old prints and reuse the material again.
Combine what you know with development and apply it to art. There's a lot of magic and opportunities at the intersection of two major domains. Artists would love to know how to use programming to bring their ideas to life. Programmer would love to come up with creative artistic ideas, but they are limited to the world they know - code.
If you become medium/ok at both domains, you become a bit of a renaissance person, and hopefully excited to work on ideas and projects that bring you much joy.
Edit: Replace Art with whatever second domain might interest you.
Engineers are employed to fix problems, so they have an inherent disposition to break things down into pieces to identify what's working and what's not working. I've had the opportunity to demo our engineering tools to professionals at industry-type events, and they all came to our booth with arms crossed, even before they understood our value proposition. We demoed the exact same tools to the maker space and everyone who came to the booth was flowing with positive energy. Basically a glass half-empty vs half-full type of experience.
If you get this dialed in, you could charge a LOT more. Your big market is enterprise customers that need to review schematics that are 30 pages long with FPGAs, memory busses, and lots of connectors. You should segment the hobbyist for the $10-20/month and then enterprise customers at $+100/month. If your product catches just one major problem in a schematic, it could save a full revision which is worth thousands of dollars.
Eating at nice restaurant with my entire family. When we finished the meal the waiter came out with a dessert and said that someone across the restaurant paid for our entire meal. I was shocked, I looked around and I think I might know who it was, but they were already gone. That was probably a $150-$200 dollar check. I'm still shocked to this day.
The tool would ideally classify the output into levels. Just like a compiler or DRC checker. If you submit a clean design, the tool should not be throwing major flags. 99% of the time you should be getting advisory outputs, which should not be tricking any designer. The 1% red flags should easily be understood and if you, as the designer, can't discern them, perhaps you don't understand the fundamentals of your own design.
I'm sure your feedback is appreciated, but the tone of your reply is a skeptical engineer with arms crosses. This is a show HN post, and we should support the founder(s) if we think this is a good idea. Clearly a MVP product is not going to check all your boxes, but does it have the potential to be really useful?
I see this idea as a sort of AI ERC/DRC checker that offers some incredible opportunities. Even if it only catches one small, it could save thousand of dollars down the line.
It's another tool in the toolbox for hardware designers.
Back in the day our hardware group created a pre-flight checklist before sending boards off to fab. This reduced our errors significantly and got rid of stupid mistakes. Your product idea sounds great and has ton of opportunity for additional features like supply chain analysis, alternate part sourcing, EMC advisory, etc.
I think SpaceX is taking the re-usability part of Starship as foundation. Meaning they won't move forward until it's solved. With Falcon they added it as a bit of a secondary priority. They've spent so much resources trying to get the second stage back to earth. I think they should have just focused on getting the whole system flying to orbit, throwing away second stage for now, and using that platform to replace falcon. Eventually, they could refactor second stage to get it back to earth. But perhaps it's all too coupled that it has to be solved at one time (not later).
So it might come down to how many "9s" you're comfortable with. The experience is really good 99.999% of the time until it's not, and that "not" could be catastrophic. I suppose the data engineers are quite confident in the 9s.
I was on the fence for same reason - should I get the nano display? I opted for the 15" MBA, and the display has been great. Way better than my 2019 Macbook Pro. I've had zero issues with glare, but I'm also in an office environment during the day and use it at night when home.