I'll be honest, after seeing a nightmare situation where a smartring battery inflated and cut off circulation to a finger, I will never ever buy a ring with a battery in it.

I’d be interested to see a battery-less ring that uses the mechanical energy of the press to power a BLE transmitter to trigger voice input on a watch. I feel like it’s much safer, plus it has no fixed lifespan.

How will a single press provide that much energy?

Piezo

It's a single press, which has to power the microphone for several seconds, and wireless connection to communicate with the sync device, even later if it isn't immediately available. In what way would piezo generate that much energy?

> BLE transmitter to trigger voice input on a watch

I suggesting triggering input on a watch, not voice recording on the ring. In my suggestion the ring would be a ‘dumb’ input device.

I see. However that misses the point of always having the function at hand, 24/7/365. There will be the off time when you remove the watch to charge it for instance, or times when it may be inconvenient to wear a watch.

Your use case would be another product, likely with a different audience.

Mentioned elsewhere: this is why they didn't go with a rechargeable battery.

I suppose it would be possible to design the ring so that any pillowing would occur only in outwards expansion.

git bisect gets interesting when API signatures change over a history - when this does happen, I find myself writing version-checking facades to invoke the "same" code in whatever way is legal

Yes. poetry & pyenv was already a big improvement, but now uv wraps everything up, and additionally makes "temporary environments" possible (eg. `uv run --with notebook jupyter-notebook` to run a notebook with my project dependencies)

Wonderful project

azure tools also support JMESPath

excellent i was wondering what reddit might think

There’s a lot of technical details that make it interesting, basically there’s a small swarm of specialized AIs with access to literature and based on integrative therapy principles, so it’s not only “hey you’re a therapist prompt”

if you can dream it, you can type it into a chatgpt text prompt!

what happens if you need to heat your house and it's below -10?

Nothing. Your heat pump will still work. Modern heat pumps typically have a COP of 4 with some of the newest ones approaching 5.5. With a COP of 4, you can still heat your home when the outside temperature is -30C. The colder the outside air is, the less efficient a heat pump is so below -30C, the heat pump will still work, but the COP may have fallen to 1 or below and so may not be as energy efficient as resistive heating at that point.

Another point to consider is the capacity of your heat pump. If it's capacity is not enough to heat the room or home at -30C, it may not be able to keep up, even though it keeps up fine at -10. Make sure you have enough capacity to heat the area you need, down to the lowest outside temperatures you typically get in your area.

Absolute zero is -273C at which point there is no heat left, so at -30C, there is still a lot of heat left for a heat pump to extract to heat your home.

I use my 15 year old Panasonic heatpump down to -20 C. Add some wood to the fire on the coldest days. Works great although the «free energy» is really low at those temperatures.

It works less efficiently but it doesn't stop working.

From the article: “As a result, it boasts a reliable heating performance, enabling it to deliver a 100% heating performance in temperatures as low as -10 C.“

The freezing point of propane is -188C. So, it should continue to compress and expand just fine at extreme temperatures. It's just that the heat transfer probably gets a bit less efficient and it might not heat all the way to 70 degrees anymore or require more energy to do so.

If you can get refrigerant to a lower temperature than -10, you can still grab heat from the outside environment thereby heating your house.

3 cheers for useful defaults

Toronto as well: http://www.mapto.ca/maps/the-fruit-trees-of-toronto

Impossible to avoid in python.. exceptions are even how a simple for loop is implemented under the covers!

Python was never designed to be performance sensitive. Most of python’s high performance libraries were written in C/C++.

Is that still true in recent Python versions? Sounds like low-hanging fruit for perf optimisation.

Yes, the for loop still calls next() on the iterator until it throws a StopIteration exception.

Using exceptions in python isn't any more expensive than not using exceptions because the interpreter pays the same cost no matter what. It's a core design decision. Changing it would probably break some things.

Python 3.11 made the "try" part of exceptions zero-cost. The "except" part only has overhead if the exception is triggered.

So the answer to the question is yes, because for loops signal their finishing by raising an exception.