spongebue

In the past I've gotten around this by printing on the left side of the bed, but some things need the space so here I am.

I've got an Ender 3 V2 with some tasteful mods: OctoPrint, BLTouch, a magnetic flexible bed surface, and a few other things people are bound to do with an entry-level printer they got for $100 with a Micro Center coupon. One issue I'm having with it is that any printing done on the right side of the bed seems to have a pretty big gap. I have the G28 and G29 commands in to run the bed level, I try to get it leveled properly with the springs (with help of the bed visualizer plugin for OctoPrint) and no matter what I do, the nozzle drifts just a little farther from the bed on the right side, so the filament does not stick.

I'm open to more mods, but before I spend more time and money on this for what I think is the problem, does anyone actually have a good idea of what's wrong here?

Thanks much!

Looking at a couple receivers. I'm not a huge audiophile or anything, but have some functional things I'm looking for (Zone 2, phono, network control, Bluetooth transmission would be nice). I tend to hang on to this stuff for a while, so 8K would be nice so I don't need to buy a receiver if/when the day comes that I get a new TV (Sharp 1080p sorta-smart TV still going strong 12 years in!)

Anyway, I'm down to two receivers:

• Denon AVR-X1700H (new at Costco)
• Marantz NR1711 (used on Facebook, includes some nice speakers I could probably resell if needed)

On paper, the Denon has a little more power and a few more 8k HDMI ports but otherwise similar. Since they're both run by the same company behind the scenes, I suspect most components inside are identical.

In practice, I know the Marantz is supposed to be the better brand... but it seems conceivable that a lower-end slimline, slightly older Marantz could probably be beaten by a midrange Denon, yeah?

For what it's worth, this is replacing an Onkyo TX-NR709 I've had for about 14 years. It's been a workhorse but I really want proper Zone 2 functionality and it's been giving me troubles there (no HDMI sources work, even with the "source" mode)

Solved!

Solution was to create a group and perform an action on that:

action: light.turn_on
target:
  entity_id: light.kitchen_cabinet_sink
data_template:
  brightness_pct: "{{100*state_attr('light.kitchen_sink_ceiling','brightness')/255}}"

Original:

Trying to run an automation to match one light's state (on/off/dim) to another's. Have this currently:

alias: Sync cabinet lights with sink light
if:
  - condition: device
    type: is_on
    device_id: [something]5710
    entity_id: [something]a438
    domain: light
then:
  - type: turn_on
    device_id: [something]b447
    entity_id: [something]470f
    domain: light
    brightness_pct: 100
else:
  - type: turn_off
    device_id: [something]b447
    entity_id: [something]470f
    domain: light

That works fine to turn the lights on or off, and I have triggers in the automation for that and changes in brightness. But using a non-static number for brightness_pct (yes, I know I'll probably have to math the 0-100 scale instead of 0-255) is giving me trouble. When I try something like this:

alias: Sync cabinet lights with sink light
if:
  - condition: device
    type: is_on
    device_id: [something]5710
    entity_id: [something]a438
    domain: light
then:
  - type: turn_on
    device_id: [something]b447
    entity_id: [something]470f
    domain: light
    brightness_pct: {{state_attr("light.kitchen_sink_ceiling", "brightness")}}
else:
  - type: turn_off
    device_id: [something]b447
    entity_id: [something]470f
    domain: light

I have also tried {{states.light.kitchen_sink_ceiling.attributes.brightness}} instead. Both seem to have the correct value when I play around in the developer tools. But when I put it in the automation, I get an error that a float value was expected. I see some similar issues online, but it always seems to be in a different context and people fix it by changing some value I never had.****

So many instructions to cut an onion are essentially

1. Cut off the top
2. Peel
3. Cut in half
4. Cut horizontally (in parallel to the cut you just made)
5. Cut vertically into strips from just shy of the bottom to top, with the bottom holding things together
6. Cut vertically perpendicular to your last cuts to get little squares

On something like a potato, I'd understand it. You'll be cutting a 3-dimensional object along all 3 axes to get cubes. But as Shrek taught me, onions have layers. Why make that first set of horizontal cuts when the onion's natural layers do the same thing already, albeit a little bit curved?