I wish E-ink displays were a bit more affordable. The 13 inch one is £229.50.
Does anyone know why they are still so expensive, at least at large sizes?
You have to distinguish the fake color e-ink that are used in mass consumer products which are actually black&white e-ink plus an LCD layer and are expensive, and the real color e-ink where each micro capsule embeds 3 to 5 different inks of different colors.
The latest are pretty complex devices, very slow to refresh (hence why they are not used in your e-reader) and also very expensive. But the rendering is way much nicer because it’s real ink that is used to render the colors.
I don't see LCD layer here. Passive color filters, B/W capsules (which reflects or doesn't reflect incoming light, depends on orientation), TFT (thin layer transistors, not LCD — liquid crystal display!) as control to orient capsules.
Yes, it is not 4 color capsules as in Spectra, but where is LCD?
LCD what is caught my attention (and surprise) in your commentary.
I am using my 13 inch inky display for my own birdnet - I also posted this in another thread last week https://i.imgur.com/5XbM6bb.png
I also bought 3 more 4 inch ones. Here is the first deployment next to the fish tank - https://i.imgur.com/nj8nKrS.png - I like this because I can stuff an rtl sdr in that box too, so it picks up nearby radio sensors in addition to BT. Real nice project screen!
I usually only refresh the image on the screen every few hours. I love how the image stays even with no power.
A major provocation? "Oh, you deny using your satellites to supply them with imaging? All right, then it wasn't us who blew up your spy satellite that wasn't supplying imaging."
That is, China's in a bit of an awkward position to complain very much.
China is not Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela or some other third world country that the US has fought in over the past few decades. You can't just destroy one of their satellites for free. And I can bet the US didn't do it, because that would be a major escalation, especially now that Xi is coming to the US and there are rumors that the US wants a deal.
So China's brand new recon satellite that was placed specifically in orbit over Iran just happened to self-destruct weeks after China was accused of giving Iran high-res satellite imagery that was used to kill American soldiers?
And the US just publicly told everyone they have weapons in space?
"The European Space Agency estimates that there have been more than 660 explosions, collisions, or anomalous events resulting in fragmentation. As it stands, there are currently more than 1.5 million space debris objects in Earth orbit.
It’s not clear what may have caused the Yaogan-50 (02) satellite to break apart, but it may have been a propulsion or battery failure, or it may have itself collided with another object or space debris."
So, what solution do you have in mind, if China supplies military support to an adversary? Politely ask them to stop? Let them continue? Seems not so trivial to me, especially since everyone has satellites up there for this purpose, and there's a good chance China would do the same.
If they did supply images, to supporting the attacks, that did or even didn't result in the death of soldiers, then they were first to commit an act of aggression towards a nuclear superpower. This is a measured response to that act of aggression. Asking politely, in that context, doesn't necessarily make sense, especially when you can just burn a few hundred million of their dollars to demonstrate why they shouldn't do that.
I think China would have done the same, but with the usual gaslighting [1].
Don't be naive. If a blind man is asking you where to aim his gun, are you responsible for the death or is the blind man pulling the trigger? In the context of war, BOTH of you are, and both are valid military targets, just as a spotter is, directing a sniper, on the battlefield, because the intention of both of you is to cause death.
You do realize that since the advent of image reconnaissance satellites, imagery has been used to support the wider geopolitical objectives of whoever owns the satellites doing the reconnaissance, up to and including sharing intelligence with geopolitical allies?
In other words: the point of contention here is a tale old as time, and when caught one power usually just registers diplomatic complaints against the other power. Rather than, you know, kick off WW3 by messing with space assets between two nuclear powers.
I'd also like to note that the Soviets literally provided a massive amount of logistical support to North Vietnam. In the Korean War, their own pilots even squared off against Americans. The United States returned the favor when they invaded Afghanistan, our logistical and intelligence support killing scores of Soviets. At no point did either power decide to start blowing up each other's satellites.
It's 2026, Iran I'm sure has a myriad of ways of acquiring imagery via commercial satellite providers. Let alone other intel modalities.
The notion that a giant KC-135 sitting on a tarmac somewhere being otherwise safe were it not for the Chinese sharing intelligence is laughable.
Reads more like incompetent threat assessment and regional asset positioning.
As an aside - the word conspiratorial has become polluted.
If you accept the premise that governments and their military and intelligence agencies aren’t 100% transparent, which is true, then the above comment is simply speculative.
It completely is. Planet names all their constellations after birds (Dove, Pelican, Tanager, Owl - SkySat was an acquisition, so not their naming convention) so they describe their constellations as Flocks. Nothing to do with the other company.
I put it in AI and even that couldn't fix the sentence sufficiently for me to understand it completely.
"So, in ordinary language:"
"One dirty raw ingredient introduced far more spores than expected, and the way it was mixed into the water made the sterilization cycle less effective against them. The autoclave itself was probably not broken."
"The exact relationship to water temperature remains somewhat ambiguous because the HN commenter did not provide the detailed investigation findings."
To be fair I omitted some key information.
The 'dirty raw ingredient' mixed in room-temperature purified water wasn't sterilisable. The same process but mixed in 60°C purified water was sterilisable.
It actually took me a minute to decide whether or not to upvote the AI-content post. But it was informative, you were forthcoming on the origin, and the GP has yet to elaborate. Thank you for posting that.
reply