Bug reporting doesn’t usually have a lot of visuals. Not so with the visionOS bug [Ryan Pickren] found, which fills a user’s area with screeching bats after visiting a malicious website. Even better, closing the browser doesn’t get rid of them! Better still? Doesn’t need to be bats, it could be spiders. Fun!

The bug has been fixed, but here’s how it worked: the Safari browser build for visionOS allowed a malicious website to fill the user’s 3D space with animated objects without interaction or permission. The code to trigger this is remarkably succinct, and is actually a new twist on an old feature: Apple AR Quick Look, an HTML-based feature for rendering 3D augmented reality content in Safari.

Leveraging this old feature is what lets an untrusted website launch an arbitrary number of animated 3D objects — complete with sound — into a user’s virtual space without any interaction from the user whatsoever. The icing on the cake is that Quick Look is a separate process, so closing Safari doesn’t get rid of the pests.

Providing immersive 3D via a web browser is a valuable way to deliver interactive content on both desktops and VR headsets; a good example is the fantastic virtual BBC Micro which uses WebXR. But on the Apple Vision Pro the user is always involved and there are privacy boundaries that corral such content. Things being launched into a user’s space in an interaction-free way is certainly not intended behavior.

The final interesting bit about this bug (or loophole) was that in a way, it defied easy classification and highlights a new sort of issue. While it seems obvious from a user experience and interface perspective that a random website spawning screeching crawlies into one’s personal space is not ideal, is this a denial-of-service issue? A privilege escalation that technically isn’t? It’s certainly unexpected behavior, but that doesn’t really capture the potential psychological impact such bugs can have. Perhaps the invasion of personal space and user boundaries will become a quantifiable aspect of bugs in these new platforms. What fun.

Most one-handed keyboards rely on modifier keys or chording (pressing multiple keys in patterns) to stretch the functionality of a single hand’s worth of buttons. [Dylan Turner]’s PS-OHK takes an entirely different approach, instead putting 75 individual keys within reach of a single hand, with a layout designed to be practical as well as easy to get used to.

The main use case of the PS-OHK is for one hand to comfortably rest at the keyboard while the other hand manipulates a mouse in equal comfort. There is a full complement of familiar special keys (Home, End, Insert, Delete, PgUp, PgDn) as well as function keys F1 to F12 which helps keep things familiar.

As for the rest of the layout, we like the way that [Dylan] clearly aimed to maintain some of the spatial relationship of  “landmark” keys such as ESC, which is positioned at the top-left corner of its group. Similarly, arrow keys are grouped together in the expected pattern.

One-handed keyboards usually rely on modifier keys or multi-key chording and it’s interesting to see work put into a different approach that doesn’t require memorizing strange layouts or input patterns.

Want to make your own? The GitHub repository has everything you need. Accommodating the 75 physical keys requires a large PCB, but it’s a fairly straightforward shape and doesn’t have any oddball manufacturing requirements, which means getting it made should be a snap.

The Frame AR glasses by Brilliant Labs, which contain a small display, are an entirely different approach to hacker-accessible and affordable AR glasses. [Karl Guttag] has shared his thoughts and analysis of how the Frame glasses work and are constructed, as usual leveraging his long years of industry experience as he analyzes consumer display devices.

It’s often said that in engineering, everything is a tradeoff. This is especially apparent in products like near-eye displays, and [Karl] discusses the Frame glasses’ tradeoffs while comparing and contrasting them with the choices other designs have made. He delves into the optical architecture, explaining its impact on the user experience and the different challenges of different optical designs.

The Frame glasses are Brilliant Labs’ second product with their first being the Monocle, an unusual and inventive sort of self-contained clip-on unit. Monocle’s hacker-accessible design and documentation really impressed us, and there’s a pretty clear lineage from Monocle to Frame as products. Frame are essentially a pair of glasses that incorporate a Monocle into one of the lenses, aiming to be able to act as a set of AI-empowered prescription glasses that include a small display.

We recommend reading the entire article for a full roundup, but the short version is that it looks like many of Frame’s design choices prioritize a functional device with low cost, low weight, using non-specialized and economical hardware and parts. This brings some disadvantages, such as a visible “eye glow” from the front due to display architecture, a visible seam between optical elements, and limited display brightness due to the optical setup. That being said, they aim to be hacker-accessible and open source, and are reasonably priced at 349 USD. If Monocle intrigued you, Frame seems to have many of the same bones.

[Benjie Holson] is an experienced roboticist and wrote an interesting article published on IEEE Spectrum about how the idea most people have of non-roboticists is a myth, and efforts to target this group with simplified robotic frameworks tend to be doomed.

Now, let’s make a couple things absolutely clear right up front: He is not saying robots shouldn’t be easier to program, nor is he saying that non-roboticists literally do not exist (of course they do.) The issues he’s highlighting really come down to product design.

[Benjie] points out that programming robots is super hard, but it’s also hard in more than one way and for more than one reason. And when people try to create a product to make it easier, they tend to commit two big product design no-no’s: they focus on the wrong hard parts, and they design their product for a vaguely-defined audience that doesn’t really exist. That group is the mythical non-roboticist.

These are actually very solid points to make in terms of product design in general. Designing a product that solves the wrong problems for a poorly-defined group isn’t exactly a recipe for success. [Benjie]’s advice on making a truly effective and useful API framework that genuinely lowers the bar of complexity in a useful way is similarly applicable to product design in general.

His first piece of advice is not to design for poorly-defined amorphous groups. Your product should serve actual needs of actual users. If you cannot name three people you have actually spoken to who would be helped by your product, you are designing for an amorphous (and possibly imaginary) group.

The second is to design as though your users are just as smart as you are, just less tolerant of problems stemming from rough edges like compatibility and configuration issues. Remove those so that your users can get useful work done without having to re-invent the wheel, or resort to workarounds.

Robotic frameworks like ROS are useful and extensible, but whenever someone attempts to focus on creating a simplified framework, [Benjie] says they tend to step on the same rakes. It’s a mistake [Benjie] has committed himself, and see repeated by others. We think his advice is good product design advice in general, whether for designing APIs or something else.

This ultra-cute tiny LiDAR rangefinder project by [gokux] can be thought of as a love letter to the incredible resources and components hobbyists and hackers of all types have access to nowadays. In fact, it all stemmed from coming across a miniscule half-inch 64×32 OLED display module that was simply too slick to pass up.

To use it, one simply powers it on and the display will read out the distance in millimeters. The VL53L0X time-of-flight sensor inside works by sending out a laser pulse and measuring how long it takes for the pulse to bounce back. We hope you’re curious about what such a sensor looks like on the inside, because here’s a nifty teardown of these fantastic devices. The device can technically measure distances of up to 2 m, but [gokux] says accuracy drops off after 1 m.

The main components besides the OLED display and VL53L0X sensor are an ESP32-C3 board (which handily integrates battery charging circuitry), 3D-printed enclosure, tiny rechargeable battery, and power switch. The whole thing is under one cubic inch. Not bad, and it even makes a passable keychain. Parts list, code, and 3D model files, including STEP format, are all available if you’d like to spend an afternoon making your own.

[Carl Bugeja] finds the engineering behind the Las Vegas Sphere fascinating, and made a video all about the experience of designing and building a micro-sized desktop version. [Carl]’s version is about the size of a baseball and crams nearly a thousand RGB pixels across the surface.

Putting that many addressable LEDs — even tiny 1 mm x 1 mm ones — across a rounded surface isn’t exactly trivial. [Carl]’s favored approach ended up relying on a flexible four-layer PCB and using clever design and math to lay out an unusual panel shape which covers a small 3D printed geodesic dome.

Much easier said that done, by the way. All kinds of things can and do go wrong, from an un-fixable short in the first version to adhesive and durability issues in later prototypes. In the end, however, it’s a success. Powered over USB-C, his mini “sphere” can display a variety of patterns and reactive emojis.

As elegant and impressive as the engineering is in this dense little display, [Carl] has some mixed feelings about the results. 945 individual pixels on such a small object is a lot, but it also ends up being fairly low-resolution in the end. It isn’t very good at displaying sharp lines or borders, so any familiar shapes (like circles or eyes) come out kind of ragged. It’s also expensive. The tiny LEDs may be only about 5 cents each, but when one needs nearly a thousand of them for one prototype that adds up quickly. The whole bill of materials comes out to roughly $250 USD after adding up the components, PCB, controller, and mechanical parts. It’s certainly a wildly different build than its distant cousin, the RGB cube.

Still, it’s an awfully slick little build. [Carl] doubts there’s much value in pursuing the idea further, but there are plenty of great images and clips from the build. Check out the video, embedded below.

Looking for a new project, or just want to admire some serious mechanical intricacy? Check out [illusionmanager]’s Astronomical Clock which not only tells time, but shows the the positions of the planets in our solar system, the times of sunrise and sunset, the phases of the moon, and more — including solar and lunar eclipses.

One might assume that the inside of the Astronomical Clock is stuffed with a considerable number of custom gears, but this is not so. The clock’s workings rely on a series of tabs on movable rings that interact with each other to allow careful positioning of each element. After all, intricate results don’t necessarily require complex gearing. The astrolabe, for example, did its work with only a few moving parts.

The Astronomical Clock’s mechanical elements are driven by a single stepper motor, and the only gear is the one that interfaces the motor shaft to the rest of the device. An ESP32-C3 microcontroller takes care of everything else, and every day it updates the position of each element as well as displaying the correct time on the large dial on the base.

The video below shows the clock in operation. Curious its inner workings? You can see the entire construction process from beginning to end, too.

The Surface Arc is a designed-for-travel mouse that carries flat, but curves into shape for use. It even turns on when it’s bent and shuts itself off when it’s flat. The device isn’t particularly new, but [Mr Teardown] was a bit surprised at the lack of details about what’s inside so tears it down in a video to reveal just how the mechanism works.

The snap-action of the bending is accomplished with the help of a magnetic connection near the bottom end of the mouse’s “tail”, locking it into place when flexed. Interestingly, the on and off functionality does not involve magnets at all. Power control is accomplished by a little tab that physically actuates a microswitch.

There are a few interesting design bits that we weren’t expecting. For example, there is no mechanical scroll wheel. The mouse delivers similar functionality with touch sensors and a haptic feedback motor to simulate the feel and operation of a mechanical scroll wheel.

[Mr Teardown] finds the design elegant and effective, but we can’t help but notice it also seems perhaps not as optimized as it could be. There are over 70 components in all, including 23 screws (eight different kinds!), and it took [Mr Teardown] the better part of 45 minutes to re-assemble it. You can watch the entire teardown in the video embedded just under the page break; it’s a neat piece of hardware for sure.

If you’re in the mood for another mouse teardown, we have a treat for you: an ancient optical mouse from the 80s that required a special surface to work.

[via Core77]

The ULN2003 IC is an extremely versatile part, and with the help of [Hulk]’s deep dive, you might just get some new ideas about how to use this part in your own projects.

Inside the ULN2003 you’ll find seven high-voltage and high-current NPN Darlington pairs capable of switching inductive loads. But like most such devices there are a variety of roles it can fill. The part can be used to drive relays or motors (either brushed or stepper), it can drive LED lighting, or simply act as a signal buffer. [Hulk] provides some great examples, so be sure to check it out if you’re curious.

Each of the Darlington pairs (which act as single NPN transistors) is configured as open collector, and the usual way this is used is to switch some kind of load to ground. Since the inputs can be driven directly from 5 V digital logic, this part allows something like a microcontroller to drive a high current (or high voltage, or both) device it wouldn’t normally be able to interface with.

While the circuitry to implement each of the transistor arrays isn’t particularly complex and can be easily built by hand, a part like this is a real space saver due to how it packs everything needed in a handy package. Each output can handle 500 mA, but this can be increased by connecting in parallel.

There’s a video (embedded below) which steps through everything you’d like to know about the ULN2003. Should you find yourself wanting a much, much closer look at the inner secrets of this chip, how about a gander at the decapped die?

[Sharad Shankar] repaired a broken TV by swapping out the cracked and malfunctioning image panel for a new one. Now, part-swapping is a great way to repair highly integrated modern electronics like televisions, but the real value here is something else. He documented his fix but the real useful part is his observations and guidance on how to effectively look for donor devices when the actual model of donor device can’t be found.

The usual approach to fixing a device by part swapping is to get one’s hands on two exact same models that are broken in different ways. But when it comes to consumer electronics with high turnovers — like televisions — it can be very difficult to actually locate any particular model once it’s no longer on shelves. [Sharad Shankar]’s broken TV was a 65″ TCL R646 purchased in 2021, and searching for a second 65″ TCL R646 was frankly like looking for a needle in a haystack. That’s when he got a visit from the good ideas fairy.

The first insight he had was that he didn’t actually need the exact same model of TV as a donor, he just needed the same display panel. The second insight was that TV manufacturers are absolutely using the same panels across different models of device. So he expanded his search to include similar TV models by the same manufacturer, hoping they contained the same display as the one he needed to replace.

This is more difficult than it may sound, because service manuals or similar low-level information about components in particular models of TV are not easy to find. In the end, [Sharad Shankar] did the following:

1. Collect all the specs for his (cracked screen) TV.
2. Find similar models made by the same manufacturer, preferably within a year or so.
3. Compare the specs and make a short list of models that have the same screen size, screen technology, and display features as the original. (Features unrelated to the display can change.)
4. Expand the search for a donor device to include these other potentials.

As luck would have it, he was able to locate a potential donor device on eBay thanks to his expanded search list. 75$ later, [Sharad Shankar] had the donor home and opened up to reveal some encouraging similarities between it and the broken original. A little part-swapping later, he once again had a working TV!

This method did require a bit of finger-crossing since it was impossible to be entirely certain that the parts would be compatible, but as far as calculated risks and educated guesses go, it was a solid play.

Keeping in mind that technology is designed and created by other humans and that certain things therefore are more likely than others can provide key insights when doing repair work or reverse engineering. Angles are usually clean divisions of 90°, and if calipers say 3.99 inches then it was probably actually designed as and intended to be 4.00 inches. And, as [Sharad Shankar] observed, consumer electronics like televisions are not completely redesigned and remanufactured from scratch with every model and release. Keep it in mind the next time you’re having trouble tracking down a part.

[Peter Holderith] has been on a mission to unlock the full potential of a DIY quad-motor electric go-kart as a platform. This isn’t his first rodeo, either. His earlier vehicle designs were great educational fun, but were limited to about a kilowatt of power. His current platform is in theory capable of about twenty. The last big change he made was adding considerably more battery power, so that the under-used motors could stretch their legs a little, figuratively speaking.

How did that go? [Peter] puts it like this: “the result of [that] extra power, combined with other design flaws, is terror.” Don’t worry, no one’s been hurt or anything, but the kart did break in a few ways that highlighted some problems.

One purpose of incremental prototyping is to bring problems to the surface, and it certainly did that. A number of design decisions that were fine on smaller karts showed themselves to be inadequate once the motors had more power.

For one thing, the increased torque meant the motors twisted themselves free from their mountings. The throttle revealed itself to be twitchy with a poor response, and steering didn’t feel very good. The steering got heavier as speed increased, but it also wanted to jerk all over the place. These are profoundly unwelcome feelings when driving a small and powerful vehicle that lurches into motion as soon as the accelerator is pressed.

Overall, one could say the experience populated the proverbial to-do list quite well. The earlier incarnation of [Peter]’s kart was a thrilling ride, but the challenge of maintaining adequate control over a moving platform serves as a reminder that design decisions that do the job under one circumstance might need revisiting in others.

When something does zero-shot image classification, that means it’s able to make judgments about the contents of an image without the user needing to train the system beforehand on what to look for. Watch it in action with this online demo, which uses WebGPU to implement CLIP (Contrastive Language–Image Pre-training) running in one’s browser, using the input from an attached camera.

By giving the program some natural language visual concept labels (such as ‘person’ or ‘cat’) that fit a hypothetical template for the image content, the system will output — in real-time — its judgement on the appropriateness of such labels to what the camera sees. Again, all of this runs locally.

It’s maybe a little bit unintuitive, but what’s happening in the demo is that the system is deciding which of the user-provided labels (“a photo of a cat” vs “a photo of a bald man”, for example) is most appropriate to what the camera sees. The more a particular label is judged a good fit for the image, the higher the number beside it.

This kind of process benefits greatly from shoveling the hard parts of the computation onto compatible graphics cards, which is exactly what WebGPU provides by allowing the browser access to a local GPU. WebGPU is relatively recent, but we’ve already seen it used to run LLMs (Large Language Models) directly in the browser.

Wondering what makes GPUs so very useful for AI-type applications? It’s all about their ability to work with enormous amounts of data very quickly.

The Valve Index VR headset has been around for a few years now. It doesn’t come with eye or face tracking, but that didn’t stop inspired folks like [Physics-Dude] from adding DIY solutions in elegant and effective ways using a combination of hardware, open software, and 3D printable parts.

This project leverages the EyeTrackVR project (and optionally, Project Babble for mouth tracking) which both have great applications particularly in social VR spaces.

These are open-source, self-contained and modular solutions intended for a variety of hardware platforms. Of course, every millimeter and gram tends to count when it’s something that gets worn on one’s head, so [Physics-Dude] tailored a solution specifically for the Valve Index. His project makes great use of the platform’s hacker-friendly hardware design.

[Physics-Dude] also makes excellent use of a certain widely-available “gumstick” style USB hub as an important part of his build. Combined with with the front-mounted USB port on the Index, it results in an extremely compact and tightly integrated solution that looks great. While it can be risky to rely on a particular off-the-shelf item in a build, doing so absolutely has its place here.

The documentation is fantastic, including welcome guidance on cable routing and step-by-step instructions. If you’ve been interested in adding eye tracking to a project, be sure to give it a look. Already have eye tracking in a project of your own? Tell us all about it!

[Colleen] struggled with using a chef’s knife to cut a variety of foods while suffering from arthritis in her wrist and hand. There are knives aimed at people with special needs, but nothing suitable for serious work like [Colleen]’s professional duties in a commercial kitchen.

As a result, the IATP (Illinois Assistive Technology Program) created the Adaptive Chef’s Knife. Unlike existing offerings, it has a high-quality blade and is ergonomically designed so that the user can leverage their forearm while maintaining control.

The handle is durable, stands up to commercial kitchen use, and is molded to the same standards as off-the-shelf knife handles. That means it’s cast from FDA-approved materials and has a clean, non-porous surface. The pattern visible in the handle is a 3D printed “skeleton” over which resin is molded.

Interested? The IATP Maker Program makes assistive devices available to Illinois residents free of charge (though donations in suggested amounts are encouraged for those who can pay) but the plans and directions are freely available to anyone who wishes to roll their own.

Assistive technology doesn’t need to be over-engineered or frankly even maximally efficient in how it addresses a problem. Small changes can be all that’s needed to give people meaningful control over the things in their lives in a healthy way. Some great examples are are this magnetic spoon holder, or simple printed additions to IKEA furnishings.

Technical work — including problem-solving — is creative work. In addition, creativity is more than a vague and nebulous attribute that either is or isn’t present when it’s needed. A short article by [Anthony D. Fredericks] gives some practical and useful tips on energizing and exercising one’s creativity.

Why would creative thinking be meaningful to a technical person? The author shares an anonymous observation that as children we’re taught to stay inside the lines, while as adults we are often expected to think outside the box. Certainly when it comes to technical tasks, our focus is more on logical thinking. But problem solving benefits as much from creative thinking as it does from more logical approaches.

How can one cultivate creative thinking? The main idea is that creativity is best flexed and exercised by actively looking for connections and similarities between highly dissimilar elements, rather than focusing on their differences. Some thought exercises are provided to help with this process. Like with any exercise, the more one does it, the better one becomes.

Practicing more creative thinking can help jolt new ideas and approaches to a tough problem, so give it a shot. It’s also worth keeping in mind that we all need a feeling of progress, especially during extended times of applying effort to something, so do yourself a favor and give yourself an occasional win.

Fidget toys all have a satisfying mechanical action to engage with, and [uhltimate]’s OTF (out the front) “fidget knife” model provides that in spades. The model snaps open and closed thanks to a clever arrangement of springs and latches contained in only three printed pieces.

Here’s how it works: at rest, the mock blade (orange in the image above) is latched in the closed position. As one presses the slider forward, the bottom spring begins to pull up against the blade until it moves far enough to release the latch. When the latch is released, the tension built up in the spring propels the blade outward where it again latches in the open position. Retraction is the same essential process, just in the opposite direction (and using a latch on the opposite side of the blade, which faces the other direction.)

As you may imagine, effective operation depends on the material. The model is designed to be printed in PLA, but [uhltimate] also provides a part variation with a stiffer spring for those who find that basic model isn’t quite up to the task for whatever reason. Smooth surfaces are also helpful for hitch-free operation, but lubrication shouldn’t be necessary.

If this sort of thing is up your alley, don’t miss the satisfying snap action of this 3D printed toggle mechanism, either!

[Stefan] from CNC Kitchen explored an unusual approach to a multi-material print by making custom PLA filament with a TPU core to make it super-tough. TPU is a flexible filament whereas PLA is hard almost to the point of being brittle. The combo results in a filament with some unusual properties, inviting some thoughts about what else is possible.

[Stefan]’s video covers a few different filament experiments, but if you’d like to see the TPU-PLA composite you can skip ahead to 18:15. He first creates the composite filament by printing an oversized version on a 3D printer, then re-forming it by running it through a Recreator to resize it down to 1.75 mm.

We have seen this technique of printing custom filaments before, which is useful to create DIY multi-color filaments in small quantities right on a 3D printer’s print bed with no special equipment required. This is an effective method but results in filament with a hexagonal profile, which works but isn’t really ideal. By printing his custom composite at 4 mm diameter then resizing the filament down to 1.75 mm, [Stefan] was able to improve overall printability.

That being said, TPU and PLA have very different characteristics and don’t like to adhere to one another so the process was pretty fiddly. TPU-cored PLA might be troublesome and uncooperative to make, but it can be done with some patience and fairly simple equipment.

Despite the difficulties, test prints were pretty interesting. PLA toughness was roughly doubled and under magnification one can see a lattice of TPU strands throughout the prints which are unlike anything else. Check it out in the video, embedded below.

One thing going slightly viral lately is footage of Disney’s “HoloTile” infinite floor, an experimental sort of 360° treadmill developed by [Lanny Smoot]. But how exactly does it work? Details about that are less common, but [Marques Brownlee] got first-hand experience with HoloTile and has a video all about the details.

HoloTile is a walking surface that looks like it’s made up of blueish bumps or knobs of some kind. When one walks upon the surface, it constantly works to move its occupant back to the center.

Each of these bumps is in fact a disk that has the ability spin one way or another, and pivot in different directions. Each disk therefore becomes a sort of tilted wheel whose edge is in contact with whatever is on its surface. By exerting fine control over each of these actuators, the control system is able to create a conveyor-belt like effect in any arbitrary direction. This can be leveraged in several different ways, including acting as a sort of infinite virtual floor.

[Marques] found the system highly responsive and capable of faster movement that many would find comfortable. When walking on it, there is a feeling of one’s body moving in an unexpected direction, but that was something he found himself getting used to. He also found that it wasn’t exactly quiet, but we suppose one can’t have everything.

How this device works has a rugged sort of elegant brute force vibe to it that we find appealing. It is also quite different in principle from other motorized approaches to simulate the feeling of walking while keeping the user in one place.

The whole video is embedded just below the page break, but if you’d like to jump directly to [Marques] explaining and showing exactly how the device works, you can skip to the 2:22 mark.

A common way to visualize that a 3D printer’s extruder motor — which feeds the filament into the hot end — is moving is to attach a small indicator to the exposed end of the motor’s shaft. As the shaft turns, so does the attached indicator.

Small movements of the motor are therefore turned into larger movements of something else. So far, so simple. But what about visualizing very small extrusions, such as those tiny ones made during ironing?

[Jack]’s solution is a Vernier indicator for the extruder. Even the smallest movements of the extruder motor’s shaft are made clearly visible by such a device, as shown in the header image above. Vernier scales are more commonly found on measurement tools, and the concept is somewhat loosely borrowed here.

The usual way these lightweight indicators are attached is with a small magnet, and you can read all about them and see examples here.

This new design is basically the same, it simply has a background in a contrasting color added into the mix. [Jack]’s design is intended for the Bambu A1 printer, but the idea can be easily adapted. Give it a look if you find yourself yearning for a bit more visibility in your extruder movements.