HN user

mcbishop

665 karma
Posts1
Comments301
View on HN

As a rule, the highest-paid workers at Mondragon cooperatives earn only six times more than the lowest-paid workers.

And I bet these salary-capped co-op leaders are still appropriately capable / qualified. The U.S. billionare situation is ugly.

Thanks, and I agree that a DIY-inverter designer should be able to meet grid-interconnection requirements (e.g. IEEE 1547-2018). With that said, I think case-by-base evaluation from the AHJ would be prudent without a UL listing... something that AHJs don't want to do.

I'd prefer to just put the DIY inverter behind a transfer switch (with an adequate battery bank and maybe a small propane generator)... with the grid as emergency fallback.

Not that this is accepted by insurers or AHJs ("authorities having jurisdiction"), but one can use UL-certified components in an (open-source) _assembly_ that itself isn't UL certified. This at least supports the argument that the overall product is safe if thoughtfully designed and assembled. An example is the OpenEVSE level-2 car charger (which I had a really good experience with).

For me, there's a sharp binary: If I ask AI to "own" a coding-problem solution — with me passing back the failure responses until resolved — my mind gets numb and I learn nothing. If I insist on owning the solution — using AI in my effort to better understand the problem space — my mind is active and I get better at coding. Sometimes I'm lazy and fall into the former. But mostly, so far, the latter.

tl;dr from the bottom of the blog post:

Type-based grouping is great for tech-focused tasks, consistent naming, and large sweeping changes.

Context/process-based grouping shines for domain clarity, team ownership, debugging, and mapping business problems directly to code.