The ErgoDox has been out for a few years now and spawned many, many new designs based off it. My question is how would you improve it? I've been trying to answer this question for a few weeks now and would like to know what the community thinks. What is important in a keyboard for you?

I've thrown my hat into the ring with Gergo which I think comes close. It uses SMD components, reducing the overall size and cost of the board, Removes the ProMicro for a TQFP Atmega32u4, moves the paddles in a tiny bit and removes the extra keys from the thumb cluster. It's meant to be used without a case (using rubbered standoffs to keep it off the desk/surface) and the back has some pretty designs. The hardest part for me to justify was loping off the number row, but seeing as many layouts use a modifier and the right hand pad as a ortho numpad I went with it. Worst case the default layout will have paddle + top row give numbers. In addition, for occasional mouse users, I designed a trackball that fits inside of a 1u key and can be mounted on the right hand side of the board (or a regular key if wanted). The idea being for small movements you have something other then QMKs mouse keys to work with. I've gone into a bit more detail on my blog on the design considerations

The main thing I tried to optimize with Gergo was cost. Ergo keyboards need not be expensive and I think the price point on this board drives it home. With a cheap set of caps off Amazon and some Cherry clones, this board can be put together for under 100$ shipping included. Compared to a ErgoDox EZ with a starting price of 250$ before keys or shipping, I think I've done a decent job.

As keyboards are highly personal devices, what do you look for in a keyboard?

I currently have a Nexus 6P whose battery dies at 35% and unfortunately nowadays with unreplaceable batteries, that means I have to replace the phone (sigh).

For my next phone, I'm seriously considering a CAT S61.

CATs (caterpillars) are a line of smartphones made for heavy-duty blue collar work. They're built to withstand shocks, drops, accidents and various intense situations. The S61 is a high end hybrid which pulls in USB-C, NFC and various other modernities. This makes it very tempting. The big pros for me are shock/drop resistance+waterproof and a headphone jack, microSD slot, no stupid notch, and a superb battery.

Where the CAT loses is on display resolution, camera quality and probably CPU/graphics card but having never owned one, I don't know how bad these are. It's also much thicker but that I really don't care about. It also doesn't seem to be compatible with lineageOS (and even if it were, I don't know that there's drivers for the various custom hardware bits such as the thermal imaging camera).

Before I drop $1k on one of these, anyone here got any hands-on experience with the CAT line?

I'm not going through anything bad right now, I just feel like listening to some ugly-cry type of breakup albums.

My picks:

• Sharon Van Etten: Are We There

• Bon Iver: For Emma, Forever Ago

• Beck: Sea Change

• The Cinematic Orchestra: Ma fleur

• Lykke Li: I Never Learn

Unfortunately I haven't had time to sit down and keep up with the weekly episodes this week, as I caught a bad case of addiction to a new video game.

How do?

Since we're currently lacking native spoiler tags, I'd ask all of you to follow this scheme:
Post a top level comment with the title and episode number of the anime you want to talk about like this
**JoJo's Bizarre Adventure: Vento Aureo - Episode 1**
Then reply to those top level comments with your thoughts. This way people who haven't seen something yet or plan on binge watching once all the episodes are out can simply collapase the top level comment to not get spoiled ^.^

What do?

Simply post, discuss or joke about any currently airing anime you want. For Anime you've been watching that aren't currently airing refer to Cleb's weekly thread.

When do?

But what if the anime I want to talk about hasn't aired yet?

No problem, just post a comment here once the episode has aired, these threads aren't meant to last one single day.

Archive

Archives of these threads can be found at the unofficial wiki

Assume you have all the wealth necessary to do whatever. Money can buy all the things and grant you access to do your favourite things, but time is something is valuable and priceless. What would be worth your value to you because you simply enjoy it?

My friend and I are considering finishing a prototype of a Reddit app. We've already agreed to the following features on first release (if we keep going).

• Similar urls to current Reddit website (so you can change the URL to reddit.com and see the same page)
• voting, commenting, posting selftexts and links
• Directly uploading image posts may come later if it looks complicated
• Masstagger integrated.
• Dark theme (other options in later releases)
• Primary use case: desktop and mobile web.
• Performance first. Reddit's 1 minute load time on default mobile, missing/broken features on i.reddit.com/.compact, and a few tiny complaints on the desktop site are the primary reasons we are considering writing this app. Native is not in our collective skillsets or radar, so we're going to go the extra mile to make sure the app respects both your time and your battery where possible. We did do some research and found that Reddit has actually been negligent in this regard on mobile web, meanwhile we have years of experience in the subject.
• Mailbox (send/receive messages, orange icon on new message/comment reply/thread reply).
• No infinite scroll
• View source JSON of comments/posts.

What are some features/ideas that members of this community would really like in a Reddit app?

Introduction

I want to give an introduction on several physics topics at a level understandable to laypeople (high school level physics background). Making physics accessible to laypeople is a much discussed topic at universities. It can be very hard to translate the professional terms into a language understandable by people outside the field. So I will take this opportunity to challenge myself to (hopefully) create an understandable introduction to interesting topics in modern physics. To this end, I will take liberties in explaining things, and not always go for full scientific accuracy, while hopefully still getting the core concepts across. If a more in-depth explanation is wanted, please ask in the comments and I will do my best to answer.

Previous topics

Bookmarkable meta post with links to all previous topics

Today's topic

Today's topic is the dual nature of light and matter, the wave-particle duality. It is a central concept in quantum mechanics that - as is tradition - violates common sense. I will first discuss the duality for light and then, in the next post, for matter.

The dual nature of light

In what terms can we think of light so that its behaviour becomes understandable to us? As waves? Or as particles? There are arguments to be made for both. Let's look at what phenomena we can explain if we treat light as a wave.

The wave nature of light

Let's start with an analogy. Drop two stones in a pond, imagine what happens to the ripples in the pond when they meet each other. They will interact, when two troughs meet they amplify each other, forming a deeper trough. When two crests meet they do the same. When a crest and a trough meet they cancel out.

Now if we shine light through two small openings and observe the resulting pattern, we see it's just like ripples in a pond, forming an interference pattern. When looking at the pattern formed on a screen placed at some distance from the openings, we see a striped pattern Light can be described as an electromagnetic wave, with crests and troughs. It sure seems like light is wavey! The wave nature of light allows us to describe phenomena like refraction and diffraction.

The particle nature of light

When we shine light on some metals, they will start tossing out electrons. This is called the photoelectric effect. How can we understand this process? Well we know light is a wave, so we imagine that the wave crashes into the electron that is chilling out near the surface of the metal. Once the electron has absorbed enough of the light's energy it will be able to overcome the attractive forces between itself and the positively charged atom core (remember, an electron has negative charge and so is attracted to the atom cores). So a higher intensity of light should make the electron absorb the required amount of energy more quickly. Easy, done!

However, there's something very peculiar going on with the photoelectric effect. If we shine low frequency light on said metal, no matter how intense the light, not a single electron will emerge. Meanwhile if we shine very little high frequency light on the metal, no matter how low the intensity, the electron will emerge. But how can this be? A higher intensity of light should mean the electron is receiving more energy. Why does frequency enter into this?

It seems that the electron needs a single solid punch in order to escape the metal. In other words, it seems it needs to be hit by something like a microscopic billiard ball that will punch it out of the metal in one go. The way physicists understand this is by saying light is made up out of particles called photons, and that the energy a photon carries is linked to its frequency. So, now we can understand the photoelectric effect! When the frequency is high enough, the photons in the light beam all individually carry enough energy to convince an electron to leave the metal. When the frequency is too low, none of the photons individually can knock an electron out of the metal. So even if we fire a single photon, with high enough frequency, at the metal we will see one electron emerging. If we shine low frequency light with a super high intensity at the metal, not a single photon will emerge.

So there you have it! Light is made out of particles. Wait, what? You just told us it's made out of electromagnetic waves!

The wave-particle duality of light

So, maybe light is just particles and the wave are some sort of emerging behaviour? This was a popular idea, one that Einstein held for some time. Remember the experiment where we shone light through two small openings and saw interference (commonly known as the double slit experiment)? Let's just take a single photon and shoot it at the openings! Because light is particles we'll see the photon just goes through either opening - like a particle would. Then all the non-believers will have to admit light is made out of particles! However, when we do the experiment we see the photon interfere with itself, like it was a wave. Remember this picture which we said was due to wave interference of light? When a single photon goes through the openings, it will land somewhere on the screen, but it can only ever land in an area where the light waves wouldn't cancel out. If we shoot a bunch of photons through the openings one at a time, we will see that the photons create the same pattern as the one we said is due to wave interference!

Implications

So it would seem light acts like a particle in some cases, but it acts like a wave in some others. Let's take a step back and question these results. Why are we trying to fit light into either description? Just because it's convenient for us to think about things like waves and particles - we understand them intuitively. But really, there is no reason nature needs to behave in ways we find easy to understand. Why can't a photon be a bit wavey and a bit particley at the same time? Is it really that weird, or is it just our intuition being confused by this world we have no intuitive experience with? I would love to hear your opinions in the comments!

Observing photons

To add one final helping of crazy to this story; if we measure the photon's location right after it emerges from the slit we find that it doesn't interfere with itself and that it just went through a single slit. This links back to my previous post where I described superpositions in quantum mechanics. By observing the photon at the slits, we collapsed its superposition and it will behave as if it's really located at one spot, instead of being somehow spread out like a wave and interacting with itself. The self interaction is a result of its wavefunction interacting with itself, a concept that I will explain in the next post.

Conclusion

We learned that light cannot be described fully by treating it simply as a wave or simply as a bunch of particles. It seems to be a bit of both - but neither - at the same time. This forces us to abandon our intuition and accept that the quantum world is just fundamentally different from our every day life.

Next time

Next time we will talk about the dual nature of matter and try to unify the wave and particle descriptions through a concept known as the wavefunction.

Feedback

As usual, please let me know where I missed the mark. Also let me know if things are not clear to you, I will try to explain further in the comments!

Addendum

The photoelectric effect is actually what gave Einstein his Nobel prize! Although he is famous for his work on relativity theory he was very influential in the development of quantum mechanics too.