rainbowDolphin

Great job MB, on both the lighting fixture and the blog post. Design #1 was certainly the right call.

As for the comments about it being over-engineered, I agree. Yes, you could have used French cleats over the extrusions, and yes, you could have used a chisel and avoided having to print a routing jig.

But I’m sure you learned a lot, as evidenced by the difference between the first and latter pockets.

Time in CAD, 3D printing, and structural materials selection is crucial for production runs, but you might be surprised by how much sooner you can finish a one-off project by prioritizing a pencil, paper, and hand tools (where sensible of course).

I say this not to criticize, but to encourage, as I’m sure you would like to finish the next project much sooner.

You ended up making a fixture that looks and functions as well or better than the €600+ one, and in that sense, this is a resounding success.

You also started with IKEA detritus for cost savings and ended paying more than €600+, which is pretty funny! Might not be a bad idea to start the next one with some nicely figured solid wood board (and maybe use those routing skills for some inlays…)

But again, great job.

Sincerely, Former carpenter, machinist, & lighting fabricator/designer

I find the convention whereby authors 'explicitly tell readers what they're going to do' a hallmark of good explanatory writing, so long as the writing is supposed to be explanatory and the author follows through.

So your comment got me to take a closer look, and yeah, the author could certainly cut "in this article" and "in this blog post" from the third and fourth paragraphs.

Otherwise, yeah, this is an excellent piece of work. Reminds of that ancient, short, black and white film from General Motors that artfully demonstrates how differentials work.

If the HN commentariat knows of similarly excellent educational work that uses intuitive visual to explain software concepts, please do share.

Agreed. I was a carpenter for a long time and have built everything from completely disposable structures to things that ended up in Design Within Reach.

I think Ikea is great. Sure, the cheaper stuff consists of veneered particle board at best. But they (at least used to) use thicker veneers, often include relatively high quality hardware, and make some products that are just completely solid (stainless kitchen gear, simple but serviceable pine furniture, standing desks, some bedding).

What gets to me are places like West Elm and similar companies. Mid-Century design, but it's the same veneered particle board as the much cheaper Ikea stuff, and costs far more.

The risk is absolutely real, and varies immensely, as does its significance.

Consider the risks of VC backed initiatives, which far more often than not, return less than market salary to entrepreneurs, and less than the S&P 500 to capitalists.

For a shot at the jackpot, entrepreneurs are risking substandard salaries, and capitalists substandard returns.

You could argue that the capitalist’s risk is more significant than the entrepreneur’s. Even in failure, a VC initiative can afford the entrepreneur greater networking and professional experience than other roles, which increases their future earning potential and offsets their risk of substandard salary.

Hard to say the same for the capitalist, who is also, of course, risking a far greater amount of currency than anyone else.

But a risk’s significance is not determined by the amount wagered; it is determined by the consequences of losing the wager. As well as the consequences of participation, or lack thereof.

Median American lifetime earnings are somewhere between one and two million dollars; let’s say an entire life costs two million. A capitalist capable of investing a billion dollars could risk an entire lifetime’s money on a venture every other month, for eighty years, cradle to grave, and if they suffered complete losses every time, they’d still die with enough money for 1600 years of life in a wealthy nation.

The sum risked is immense. But the consequences of losing it are null.

It is, of course, more nuanced than that. Many businesses are funded by people with far less than a billion dollars, and many of them fail. There's also 3,000 billionaires, and an overwhelming majority of human lives that cost far less than American's.