|
I checked where the studs were; they didn't line up as they should have; so I didn't. Try and hold you TV at arms length and consider what is happening on the wall end. I was considering something "in between"; but it would have been too "unsightly" / too much work for a "hanger".
Actually, most people mount them where you're always "looking up". A "low" console table where the screen is "arm chair" eye level is perfect, IMO. So, I'm actually happy I didn't mount it "up" (in the living room).
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
I would not consider using ANY drywall anchor. I have installed two TVs on walls, one with a swing arm, and I made certain to utilize the wall studs. I would not do it any other way.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Kenneth Haugland wrote: drywall
It's probably been said already, the list of glomers-on right now is as long as my forearm, but this link to a "drywall anchor" video is missing the point. One doesn't have to view that video either to know that despite any other thing in the world of cheap beads and Rocco the DW assitant ... and a taper ... and a footstool/ladder ... that fastening ANYTHING to a vertical "wall" requires support from behind the sheetrock.
Don't you watch "This Old House", man?
|
|
|
|
|
If you are short term in the space,
buy a 3/4in 18mm plywood.
Cut it just wide enough to span the studs behind the sheetrock. You might need to span two full studs. about 32 inches. Depends on if the center of your mounting falls across one stud.If you are lucky, you will only need to span 16 inches.
Paint to match the wall.
Put some of the thin sticky non skid feet on the back where it will hit the studs.
This will stop it from messing up any texture on the wall.
Drill the screw holes through the plywood and into the studs. 4 holes or 6 holes if you had to span two studs. Drilling all of the holes first makes it easier to find any problems. (like missing the studs)
Wait 30 minutes in case you hit a pipe. Check for leaks! Plumbers should put metal plates on studs that have plumbing, but older houses wonβt have them.
put in some strong screws.
mount the TV on the plywood.
When your lease is up, back out the screws and fill the holes with color matching toothpaste!
|
|
|
|
|
So true: Language vs Consciousness[^] - well the end is bang on, anyway.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
So very true!
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 944 4/6*
β¬π¨β¬π©β¬
β¬π©β¬π©π¨
π©π©π©π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 944 3/6
β¬β¬β¬β¬π¨
π©β¬π©β¬β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 944 3/6
β¬β¬β¬π¨β¬
π¨π¨β¬π¨π¨
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 944 4/6
β¬β¬β¬π¨β¬
β¬β¬β¬π©β¬
π©π©π©π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 944 2/6*
π©β¬β¬β¬β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
Another lucky guess
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music. -Frederick Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 944 6/6
β¬β¬π©β¬β¬
β¬β¬π©π©π©
β¬β¬π©π©π©
β¬β¬π©π©π©
β¬β¬π©π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 944 4/6*
β¬β¬β¬β¬β¬
π©β¬π¨π¨β¬
π©π©π©π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
I think you went for the same #3 as I did?
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
β¬β¬β¬π©β¬
β¬π¨β¬β¬β¬
β¬β¬π©π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 944 6/6
β¬β¬π©π©β¬
β¬β¬π©π©π©
β¬π©π©π©π©
β¬π©π©π©π©
β¬π©π©π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
What the heck, I simply didn't see it and my second and third guess are questionable, but my fourth and fifth guess are just plain nonsense.
It certainly had me spoiler[^] and spoiler[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 944 6/6
β¬β¬β¬π¨β¬
π¨π¨π¨β¬β¬
π©π¨π¨β¬β¬
π©π©π©π©β¬
π©π©π©π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
βThat which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.β
β Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 944 4/6
β¬β¬β¬β¬β¬
β¬🟨β¬β¬β¬
🟩🟩🟩🟩β¬
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Ok, I have had my coffee, so you can all come out now!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 944 3/6
π¨β¬β¬β¬π¨
β¬β¬π¨π¨π¨
π©π©π©π©π©
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I just switched IEnumerable to IList and removed foreach (preferring for) and cut my execution time in my test from 65ms to about 45ms.
I've put a stripped down version of the code here. The first argument of each emphasized routine was IEnumerable<fa>, is now IList<fa> with no foreach.
This, ladies and gents, is why I don't like LINQ.
IList<FA> initial = FA.FillEpsilonClosure(this._fa);
IList<FA> next = new List<FA>();
IList<FA> states = new List<FA>(initial);
this.capture.Clear();
if (this.current == -2)
{
this.Advance();
}
long cursor_pos = this.position;
int line = this.line;
int column = this.column;
while(true) {
next.Clear();
FA.FillMove(states, this.current, next);
if (next.Count > 0)
{
this.Advance();
states.Clear();
FA.FillEpsilonClosure(next, states);
} else {
int acc = FA.GetFirstAcceptSymbol(states);
if(acc>-1) {
return FAMatch.Create(
acc,
this.capture.ToString(),
cursor_pos,
line,
column);
}
while (this.current != -1 &&
FA.FillMove(initial, this.current).Count == 0)
{
this.Advance();
}
if (capture.Length == 0)
{
return FAMatch.Create(-2, null, 0, 0, 0);
}
return FAMatch.Create(-1,
capture.ToString(),
cursor_pos,
line,
column);
}
}
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
modified 18-Jan-24 14:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Depending on the project, I might prefer to loose 20ms execution time (especially in background threads that run for 10 secs or more) and have better readability of the source code.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is why I dislike micro optimizations. If you want something that is fast, then use a language without a garbage-collector. Delphi goes quicker through a list of pointers than .NET with a for-loop gets its object-references.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not 20ms. it's a 30% improvement in overall execution time. If I increase the test size to run for 90 seconds, it would run for about 60 after the optimization. If you get even 20% off the execution in critical code paths it's generally worth the optimization. I mean, of course it depends on the circumstances, and is less true of business development, or development with large teams or teams with with a lot of turnover, where you can't afford the additional maintenance overhead, limited knowledge transferability and cognitive load of optimized code.
That is not a microoptimization. 30% off total execution time is a significant savings.
Adding, I used to use garbage collection in my ISAPI applications because it prevented nasty heap fragmentation due to all the string processing required of web servers. It made things faster. GC isn't always a losing performance proposition. When the situation calls for it, it can increase overall performance.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
30% in overall execution time? Does your code consist mostly of enumerations and while loops?
No, it doesn't go from 90 to 60, unless all your code is enumerate. Real world code is more than just retrieving a list. Sorry Honey.
VS shows you the place where it spends most time. "Limited knowledge trans...", aight, you're allowed to your views, I have mine.
And yes, mucking about a for loop vs enumerable in an VB6 runtime (which .NET IS) is not even a microoptimization, it is purely whining. Write in a goddamn real language if it is that important an link to it from .NET where you need it.
You have fallen, my angel, and very deep. Time critical stuff isn't worth .NET, and it isn't worth my time to read about 20 ms savings in a different loop that is less readable.
When the situation calls for it, you want someone who works with pointers, not with .NET. I would write a library for you to link to that does the heavy lifting, "if the situation calls for it". Because .NET is just an evolution of VB6, it is just a runtime interpreting with a memory manager. It is vbruntime600 with additional libraries. Any compiled language with pointers laughs out loud.
This is not even an argument honey.
EVERYONE can use a profiler and see how much your micro optimization may help them. If it does, then yay for them for writing ineffcient code.
My code does not consist of merely enumerations, it deals with a lot more stuff. Real world code consist of more than "looping".
And if speed is that paramount then why are you using .NET? Are you really blabbing about how to do a for loop in a VB-variant? That is what C# is, VB6 in a new interface, but that translates 1 on 1 to VB. You really whining about the performance of BASIC code (by any other syntax, but still a rose/VB)?
And you prove it by throwing some unreadable code, that saves me 20 ms? That is going to impress, really. You will shave of some ms, sacrificing readability for some code that takes more than 2 secs? Did you know that humans only see 48 frames per second? The END USER will not even notice, but the manager that pays someone to update your code WILL.
You're gonna go far kid.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
> 30% in overall execution time? Does your code consist mostly of enumerations and while loops?
In this case yes, in fact I posted the code, which is a regex matching algorithm.
> And yes, mucking about a for loop vs enumerable in an VB6 runtime (which .NET IS) is not even a microoptimization, it is purely whining. Write in a goddamn real language if it is that important an link to it from .NET where you need it.
I wasn't whining. I was making an observation. You're looking for a fight. I have better things to do with my time. Grow up.
Also VB.NET and VB6 runtimes have nothing to do with each other. You don't even know what you're talking about. Funny how arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand so often.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
A fringe case, as most of us do not write regex-libs, and anyone who would doesn't use an interpreter but a compiler. No, not a byte code compiler, that's just a fancy marketing sh*t for an interpreter that doesn't compile to native.
And yes, I'm looking for a fight; you are implying that some loop in an interpreter is interesting. It isn't.
VB.NET and VB6 are ridiculously the same. I've done that discussion a thousand times, where a manager imagined C# to be superior to VB.NET. It is a different syntax for the same VBRUN300.DLL, a fakkin interpreter that does bytecode like VB6 did with the same memory manager.
C# is marketing, but under the hood it is just VB7 with a different style of writing. Which is brilliant from an MS perspective btw, which proves MS is still the best.
Now, get off my lawn.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|