These mini split inverter units seem to be good for +/- 1 C, but the 2 C swing can feel quite substantial.
PID control seems to be lacking overall, the control laws seem to be more basic. In particular, my unit waits until temperature deviation from setpoint exceeds 1C before cycling on. If I want finer control, there are a few options I can think of:
1. Spoof the temperature, add a TEC , heater, cooler or something to the sensor on the remote
2. Manipulate the controller buttons, change the setpoint down or up by 0.5 degrees so the unit kicks on after a 0.5 degree change instead of a 1 degree change
3. Spoof the temperature sensor itself, hack into the wiring with some transistor based circuit
4. Hack into the actual unit, fully take over the compressor and fan control
5. Buy a better unit or off the shelf controller
6. Spoof the remote control, reverse engineer the IR communication temperature signal
This last option seems the least intrusive and cleanest, I see other people have done it, it's definitely a lot of work even with AI.
Is your unit one of the ubiquitous Midea rebadges? Or at least one where the remote does 'follow me' type periodic, remote temp reporting?
If so, you're right, the easiest way is to build/buy an IR blaster module for a microcontroller (ESP32 if you want wifi) and connect a temperature sensor. HA/EspHome is overkill for this, but can be useful for the large catalog of pre built integrations. Most of them are built using/on IR libraries for 'Arduino' anyway, so you can easily roll your own with a half dozen lines of C++.
Mapping out your own PID correction algorithm (esp says the room is 72 F when it's really 70 F to get it to cool sooner), but usually just having the remote room temp sensor near where you'd be sitting instead of near the ceiling or in the return air stream gets you close enough.
Thanks for this. Yeah, it has the follow me mode that sends temperature from the remote control every 3 minutes. I think it's a Senville from Home Depot. The remote control sensor only seems to read at 1 C resolution, so it seems like using the follow me mode with the stock remote is right out of the question.
My biggest worry is the heat from the microcontroller affecting the temperature on the temperature sensor. I want to use a Sensirion SHT45, it has 0.01 degree temperature resolution and is supposed to be accurate to 0.1 C. But I need to locate the temp sensor far enough away from the microcontroller to make the overall remote controller form factor awkward. I have a Raspberry Pi 4 that does the temperature data logging and web server, but that runs pretty hot.
I want to do this but I'm worried about stressing the compressor with extra start/stop cycles would shorten its lifespan. Maybe they are programmed to overshoot/undershoot the set temp to prolong lifespan?
Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about how ACs work beyond the very basics.
Yeah, you can cause it to short cycle for sure. But you can also get better control without excessive short cycling. If you're worried about short cycling, just include that in the control algorithm.
Short cycling would be bad in the sense that the motor frequently turns on. The maximum current is during motor start and the maximum motor coil cooling is when the fan is running at high speed steadily. So if it starts a lot and doesn't run much at high speed you might tend to overheat, sure. That would definitely drastically reduce the motor lifespan.
If you are still starting periodically and running for awhile, you can see where this goes.
I think it's not overshoot/undershoot that is happening so much as delayed kick on.
One of the biggest benefits of modern minisplits over conventional split systems (like are still common in America) is that their compressors are variable speed inverter types. This allows them to slowly ramp up to speed without the massive inrush of current.
That said, it's still a mechanical device that can experience stresses caused by cycles. Refrigerant systems also deal with gas/liquid phase changes and high pressures, so most units I've worked with do have a compressor lockout timer that allows a few minutes for temps/pressures to stabilize before kicking the compressor back on.
I don't think so? But I would have to do some testing to tell. The unit thermometer precision appears to be 0.2 C. I think the remote thermostat precision is worse than the thermostat on the unit itself.
Oops, we accidentally included brigading related content in our training dataset. Better exclude that on the next run.
And hopefully that solves it?
Brigading is where a bunch of people on a forum team up and try to achieve a shared goal together. Someone shares progress and others build on that progress. On the Internet, I think it's not often used for good purposes. A good example would be: Taylor Swift fans on a forum thinking of ways to get revenge on Kanye. It's coordinating mass voting, DDOS type actions, commenting on social media, making more fake accounts to do that. As a next token predictor level analysis, a simple naive explanation is that the agents got stuck in that local minima/maxima.
Is that the nice thing about religious faith? Polytheism seems somewhat more tolerant of others. And religious pluralism takes in one step further.
I am sure about few things, but it seems to me that monotheism and religious exclusivism at some times represent the worst aspects and outcomes of religious faith.
The author of the work that John Carmack is referencing is named Musashi, which is also the (coincidental?) name of a WW2 Japanese Yamato class battleship, which is quite fitting. Musashi the battleship having met its end at the hand of carrier launched aircraft, which remain a dominant technology to this day.
Aircraft carriers are to a small extent superseded in their own right by strategic bombers and ballistic missiles. We may see nuclear aircraft carriers eventually superseded to some extent by missile/drone swarms and missile/drone deployment platforms, or some other threat.
If the new dominant technology, military in the sense of being used to dominate your adversaries in any arena, relies on data centers, is that infrastructure considered pretty robust? Will that data center infrastructure fully supersede the nuclear powered aircraft carriers, as has been done to battleships? Do hardened data centers and the software they run represent the main locus of national front line capability? Are AI researchers more like WW2 pilots, or are they more akin to the people who worked on the Manhattan project?
This post makes me think harder about physical computer infrastructure. Continuing the metaphor, silicon fabs, computer manufacturing supply chains and their related infrastructure are certainly the WW2 drydocks of our modern conflict, the WW2 drydocks having been critical for the Americans to churn out aircraft carriers. And the drydocks were only one piece, but might have been considered one of the most brittle.
Some seemingly brittle pieces of AI/data center infrastructure today are the fabs and the communication links. As far as I know, the fiber optic cables connecting continents are so exposed it's almost ridiculous, the cables lay directly on the ocean floor. If severing these links favors one or another global actor, my main question is why hasn't this already been done? You can ask the same questions about severing oil pipelines and the various global shipping chokepoints. I do wonder if fiber optic cables are defensible at all in the final analysis. And what life would/will be like without fiber optic connection between continents.
I'm not sure how much more durable satellite links are, due to the cascading debris effects of Kessler syndrome.
A key idea is that if the transoceanic communication links between the Americas and Eurasia were to be cut, either powers based in Eurasia or a power based in the Americas would gain an advantage.
Semiconductor fabs... Well, if I were a military strategist in charge of national security, I definitely wouldn't publish the location of every fab. And a a self respecting superpower wouldn't leave its EUV machine production external, or would it?
Fabless semiconductor companies and AI researchers are critical to current national security capabilities in the way that people who developed radar were critical to WWII. In the long enough term some people think that eventually data centers and the software running inside will supersede and encompass these functions. The question being increasingly not if, but when. Some people think that if it can be done by a computer, it eventually will be.
It really is all about timing, the Japanese thought the Pacific conflict with the USA would be short.
John, if the introduction of the translation of Book of Five Rings is so good, could you please share the identifying information including the translator or the person who wrote the introduction?
Mostly because it doesn't stay white and looks bad. But it doesn't stop people from painting their siding white, for example.
Why paint the sides of the rails? Well you can paint the tops, but it tends to gum up the wheels and get worn off.
You want a paint with high reflectivity and high emissivity. Just be sure you aren't using infrared light temp measurement as to measure and make claims about differences in temperature, emissivity is something to watch out for when measuring temperature in that way.
20 degrees is surprising, I sure wish my car was white in the summer.
I wonder if you have okay effects with white rails in the winter?
> Why paint the sides of the rails? Well you can paint the tops, but it tends to gum up the wheels and get worn off.
Tops of rails are already pretty shiny for any mainline track seeing a couple dozen trains a day. I'd bet they are more reflective than white paint could be. And the paint would be gone after the first train passes through anyways.
They rust pretty quick, but with regular use it doesn't build up much since it's constantly being worn off from the wheel friction.
Thank you, I was wondering why the need for paint rather than side polishing and the added knowledge that this blend of Steel rusts would ruin that for the non-contact surfaces.
Painting it cheeper than polishing. But I wanted to know the reason they needed to / that made it so.
I recall a test initiative was done some time ago for painting (or mixing in, I forget) roads teal. It improved the heat island where it was placed, and wasn't too bright for motorists. I wonder why that never went anywhere...
"we all more or less look the same in gym clothes"
Maybe my brain works differently than the author, but I'm surprised at this statement. Gym clothes don't change recognition for me, it's about the face, body, posture, clothes don't really enter into it. For me it is nonsensical enough to be suspicious.
And for a human centric perspective, not recognizing who someone is sad, it's knowing that you probably won't meet them again so it's not worth it, the community isn't there. Where community and interpersonal relationships between people are something we still hold dearly.
It's possible you have a touch of prosopagnosia, also known as face blindness. It would make sense as you would recognise people you interact with more regularly by other things (e.g.: voice, or even body or posture as the grandparent comment mentioned), but unfamiliar people tend to me harder to identify.
What does "simulate exactly" mean? To me, exact simulation is not so much an impossibility as a nonsensical concept. What subset of reality are we simulating, and to what degree of precision, and with what certainty? An "exact" precision as it relates to real world objects is not a well understood or defined concept. For integers, I can say there is exactly one Earth orbiting exactly one Sun, but I think that statement is riddled with assumption, inaccuracy and imprecision. For example, it is assumed that I am referring to the present Earth, but is the statement of when the statement is made or when it is heard? Even the word "is" is inexact.
I agree, exact simulation is nonsensical which is my whole point. Did you read the comment I replied to?
It is nonsensical to claim that anything other than my brain could produce the same consciousness that my brain is producing. It's obviously far beyond anything any conceivable digital computer could ever reasonably simulate, and even if you did create a "good" simulation it obviously wouldn't have the same properties that my brain does because it's an entirely different thing than my brain is.
“To the community of Tumbler Ridge,” writes Altman. “The pain your community has endured is unimaginable. I have been thinking of you often over the past few months.
“When I spoke with Mayor Krakowka and Premier Eby about this tragedy, they conveyed the anger, sadness, and concern being felt across Tumbler Ridge. We agreed a public apology was necessary, but that time was also needed to respect the community as you grieved. I share this letter with the understanding that everyone grieves in their own way and in their own time.
“I want to express my deepest condolences to the entire community. No one should ever have to endure a tragedy like this. I cannot imagine anything worse in this world than losing a child. My heart remains with the victims, their families, all members of the community, and the province of British Columbia.
I am deeply sorry that we did not alert law enforcement to the account that was banned in June. While I know words can never be enough, I believe an apology is necessary to recognize the harm and irreversible loss your community has suffered.
I reaffirm the commitment I made to the Mayor and the Premier to find ways to prevent tragedies like this in the future. Going forward, our focus will continue to be on working with all levels of government to help ensure something like this never happens again.”
I used to attend elementary school on a military base. I didn't feel like a human shield at the time, then again I was more naive and had less life experience than I do now.
You weren’t a human shield. It would have been very easy for the US and Israel to not have blown up a school, the attack was intentional.
Notice they had 0 issues precisely striking the building housing Iranian leadership when this whole thing started. They didn’t “accidentally” hit the grocery store two blocks away.
So you think there was a conspiracy to target a school? Who do you think did it? Why? What was their goal?
I think either an intelligence failure, or a mistake or a miss is more likely. Maybe missiles don't always hit where they were meant to go. Especially if there is anti missile defences (which Iran is likely to have). Maybe Iran anti-air hit the school, or sent a US missile off course?
More than a conspiracy, they actually did attack the school - twice - about 30 minute apart (double tap).
They would have had live video feed from drones, and images sent from the first tomahawk missile for target confirmation. Yhey knew exactly what they were targeting and hitting.
> They would have had live video feed from drones, and images sent from the first tomahawk missile for target confirmation. Yhey knew exactly what they were targeting and hitting.
You sure? IIRC it was one of about 6000 strikes. Was it all a cover to bomb one school?
Forget "rules based order" or any sympathy from US Military/Pentagon/DoD.
When "arabs" bomb "the West" - it's "terrorism". When "the West" bomb "arabs" - it's a "mistake".
Same forces that did laser precision strikes against Maduro or countless military heads of Iran are attacking civilian infrastructure with double tap precision.
I am amazed how since WW2 there wasn't a military coup in USA as many wars from them were against any logic. I guess it just proves year after year, generation after generation that US military from top-to-bottom thinks that they are the only "good guys" and have been brainwashed just as their counterparts (be it Iraqis, Iranians, Chinese or anyone).
It is amazing how readily some people believe we target civilians, often based on the words of actual terrorists.
With this particular incident with apparent US strikes on a school adjacent to a military complex, and formerly part of that military complex, you would think it must be obvious to any reasonable person that we did not knowingly target a school.
And if it was an accident it only gives us more reason to oppose the whole operation. Why should we believe what they think they "know" about uranium stocks or anything else, if they couldn't figure out a building has been a school for 10+ years?
I also wonder if they really should have known by the second or third strike, but I can't readily find whether they had a live visual or anything, so probably did not. Arguably you can't in good conscience strike a target you can't see well, but I'm sure it happens all the time and doesn't usually go this bad.
When terrorists like the Trump administration openly admit to it in some cases and threaten to do it in others, and we see the evidence, it’s easy to believe our eyes and ears over your fantasies.
We are so far past there being any merit to “Israel would never knowingly target civilians/children/hospitals/etc” that you just shouldn’t even bother. Just own it, if your leadership thinks the only winning strategy is the annihilation of another people, or at least their complete displacement, own it. Stop trying to hide behind “it was a mistake” while simultaneously showing you have no issues putting a missile through a singular car window to assassinate people labeled an enemy. Nobody buys it anymore.
For planning Operation Epic Fury, the US military utilized the Maven Smart System, an artificial intelligence software designed to streamline the targeting process and greatly reduce the amount of personnel involved in it. Capable of producing 1,000 target packages in one hour, with the use of the system the US military said it had struck 6,000 targets in Iran during the first two weeks of the war.
...it goes on to say...
The [NYT] inquiry suggested that the school was likely targeted due to outdated coordinates provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency
Advanced rockets bolted onto mainframes guided by data from Palantir.
> For what reason would they attack a single school?
Couldn't it be to terrorise the other side while still being able to claim that it was a mistake? Remember that the school was hit by three distinct strikes.
"The Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' elementary school in southern Minab was attended by both boys and girls, taught on separate floors.[9] According to locals, the school was previously a military facility.[10] Its location was near[c] the Sayyid al-Shuhada military complex which included the headquarters of the Asif Brigade of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN).[13] As of early 2026, the school had existed as a civilian institution more than 10 years, close to but separate from the IRGCN compound."The Shajareh Tayyebeh girls' elementary school in southern Minab was attended by both boys and girls, taught on separate floors.[9] According to locals, the school was previously a military facility.[10] Its location was near[c] the Sayyid al-Shuhada military complex which included the headquarters of the Asif Brigade of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN).[13] As of early 2026, the school had existed as a civilian institution more than 10 years, close to but separate from the IRGCN compound.
For more than ten years. That's Palantir caching for you.
military bases are targets. I don't know how you jump from that to victim blaming like little kids had a say in where to build a school or where to go to school or whether to shoot rockets. it's a tragedy.
Sure. But when they're next to schools, you try to avoid the school or school hours. Not doing that isn't just mean, it's strategically self defeating.
Today on several news media were a story that people of Iran were called by the government and formed human shields at the bridges and power plants that Trump threatened to bomb if no deal reached by the deadline.
No it's not. International law is generally exceptionally clear that one war crime doesn't justify another, and using civilians as human shields is about as core a war-crime as war-crimes get.
> The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations.[18] Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks. The military manuals of New Zealand and the United Kingdom give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.
The situation in Iran is not this. The suggestion was that humans might volunteer to go to non-military sites.
As an extreme hypothetical, are humans living in their homes acting as human shields for those homes? How about people at school? How about people parading on a bridge? Does it become different if someone threatens to blow up a bridge and people parade there in response?
Eh, the quoted text, and also the literal text of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 28 [1], doesn't qualify "certain points or areas" as only "military sites". While the other side should only be attacking military sites I don't see how that could possibly justify protecting non-military sites with human shields.
> As an extreme hypothetical, are humans living in their homes acting as human shields for those homes? How about people at school? How about people parading on a bridge?
Generally speaking I read this as not, because they aren't being "used to" render those points immune from attack, they just happen to be doing so. Hypothetically if you were to rush civilians back to their homes in an evacuated town to protect it from an attack - or as you suggest organize parades on bridges that are threatened - that would seem to meet the "used to" requirement.
Article 54 gives some sites that may not be attacked. Maybe a protected person cannot render at least those sites “immune” since they are already immune.
When Lithuania was fighting for independence from USSR civilians gathered around key government buildings to protect them. in a sense they were human shields as none of them were armed. but they did it voluntarily. this happens when you threaten total annihilation of your homeland.
how do you know that iranians are forced to do this now by their government and not doing this in support of their country? do you think there are gunmen taking them to the bridges?
It was a government call. I grew up in USSR and know very well how those government "calls to volunteer" work in totalitarian regimes. Especially in a wartime country where even in peacetime they would kill people even just for being incorrectly dressed.
Anyway, as i said in the other comment, it is actually not that important how all those people got there. The key thing here is that it was a deliberate government act of human shield creation.
what a coincidence i too grew up in USSR and my parents and friends were part of above mentioned human shield. And i can tell first hand that there was no coercion. just call to action.
Threatening total annihilation was possibly the dumbest move Trump could have made.
“ Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in the heart of a hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard."
Look at recordings from other totalitarian regimes - enthusiastic people doing government bidding. The key is deliberate act of human shield creation, not the specific way to do it.
PID control seems to be lacking overall, the control laws seem to be more basic. In particular, my unit waits until temperature deviation from setpoint exceeds 1C before cycling on. If I want finer control, there are a few options I can think of: 1. Spoof the temperature, add a TEC , heater, cooler or something to the sensor on the remote 2. Manipulate the controller buttons, change the setpoint down or up by 0.5 degrees so the unit kicks on after a 0.5 degree change instead of a 1 degree change 3. Spoof the temperature sensor itself, hack into the wiring with some transistor based circuit 4. Hack into the actual unit, fully take over the compressor and fan control 5. Buy a better unit or off the shelf controller 6. Spoof the remote control, reverse engineer the IR communication temperature signal
This last option seems the least intrusive and cleanest, I see other people have done it, it's definitely a lot of work even with AI.
reply