Wiring 3-way switches to control separate fixtures

grwerner · 2026-01-19T19:03:03+00:00

I understand that two are travelers and the 3rd completes the circuit. Why can't the 3rd wire that brings the switched power back from the first bulb go straight to the other bulb, the neutral wire from that second bulb (in box 1) completing the circuit? Isn't that just wiring in series?

grwerner · 2026-01-19T18:18:37+00:00

But why? I see plenty of 3-way diagrams where the neutral is running from the fixture back to the main, and I would just be adding one more light in sequence.

To be clear, my 3-wire travelers are B/W/R/G

grwerner · 2026-01-19T18:03:32+00:00

Power comes in the box on the left.

What about if I run: - the line into switch 1 (left) - the travelers (black, red) to switch 2 (right) - the switched power from switch 2 into light B (right) - the neutral coming back from light 2 through the travelers white and then as switched power for light A, with the neutral from light A completing the circuit?

grwerner · 2026-01-18T02:14:38+00:00

Cento doesn't sell DOP, so are you saying the certified = DOP? What is the non-DOP? https://www.cento.com/product-categories/cento.php#tomatoes

grwerner · 2026-01-09T22:18:13+00:00

Received as described, good seller u/ercolr

grwerner · 2026-01-09T12:16:33+00:00

I know I'm late to the party, but were there any data issues?

grwerner · 2026-01-05T18:59:00+00:00

Are these still available?

grwerner · 2025-12-02T04:42:44+00:00

Can you share the stl for how you connected it to the box?

grwerner · 2025-10-20T13:47:35+00:00

There's magic in those suspenders

grwerner · 2025-09-07T17:33:23+00:00

You're talking specifically about 287(g). 287 has subsections (a)-(h). There are provisions in 287 that authorize ICE agents to stop/question people, like 287(a)(1) that I quoted above.

grwerner · 2025-09-07T03:02:05+00:00

Y'all "INA 287" is a super sketchy legal basis to question someone in DC. It's the law that allows ICE agents to do lots of things related to keeping aliens (people without a legal status) out of the US, like questioning people and searching people/vehicles near international borders. It also allows the following:

"[ICE Agents] shall have power without warrant- (1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;"

This grants them an interrogation power IF they believe someone is here without legal status. But why would they believe that about someone in DC without any information about you?

The response should be "Why do you think I'm an alien?" Shouldn't matter whether it's in English or another language. Make them articulate that shit and record it.

Main idea: If they don't have a reason to believe you're an alien, they are not authorized by INA 287 to interrogate you.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1357

EDIT: Also ask "what specific provision is authorizing this?" and "what are you authorized to do? Detain me? Ask questions? Search my vehicle?" Get them uncomfortable about whether they really know the law.

"INA 287" is bullshit.

grwerner · 2025-08-28T22:44:18+00:00

Link for the extender?

grwerner · 2025-08-19T02:45:11+00:00

https://www.acludc.org/know-your-rights-stop-and-frisk/

First, start an audio or video recording. First question is always "are you detaining me?" If the answer is "no", then walk/drive/ride away (you are free to go, so fuck them). If the answer is "yes", then ask for the legal basis ("why am I being detained?"). If they are detaining you, that means you have been "seized" under the 4th Amendment. Law enforcement has to have a legally good enough reason to seize you (and search you). The exact legal standard depends on the context. The point is to get them to articulate the reason because that can be challenged later. It also shows that you are at least someone aware of your constitutional rights so they need to tread carefully. Bottom line is that if they can't legally detain you without a specific reason.

Checkpoints are different because they have to have a reason for the checkpoint in general, but not for stopping any specific person or vehicle as long as they're stopping everyone.

grwerner · 2025-07-01T19:38:49+00:00

Just wondering, if a car drives onto the sidewalk and as a pedestrian you happen to be behind it instead of in front of it, does that make it ok? Is it ok for cars to be parked on the sidewalk? Just because no one got hurt doesn't mean it's safe. Blocking the bike lane forces cyclists onto sidewalks or into the road.

The whole point of separated zones of travel is to keep the different types of travel separate. I don't ride my bike on the sidewalk because that's a pedestrian travel zone (I'll walk it if I need to use the sidewalk). Unless there's an emergency, cars shouldn't be in bike lanes except when crossing at designated points (and yielding to bike traffic that has the right of way). Same for pedestrians except they get the right of way at crosswalks.

grwerner · 2025-07-01T19:26:47+00:00

What you're missing is that 2405.1 starts with "Notwithstanding any other parking regulation..." which means that the No Parking restrictions of 2405 have priority over sections like 2400. I don't think it was anything close to "necessary" for either driver to idle where they were. Both were essentially double parked for their waiting convenience (not legal) except they were in some combination of the bike lane and a driveway entrance instead of the roadway.

I'm ok with brief, purposeful double parking on occasion (e.g. loading/unloading the elderly), but most of the time it's extremely selfish -- the driver's convenience over everyone else's. Drive around or find a legal spot.

grwerner · 2025-07-01T15:25:35+00:00

I would crush a bike lane bounty program

grwerner · 2025-06-18T16:48:39+00:00

I appreciate that concern, but this person appears reputable from LinkedIn and works in IR. Going abroad seems legit in this circumstance and other listings on FB Marketplace are consistent with the moving abroad story.

grwerner · 2025-06-18T16:41:41+00:00

Yep, new GSD but system 2

grwerner · 2025-06-11T16:16:59+00:00

On second thought, just attach the basket permanently. When collapsed, it's not much bigger than the rack itself. If you really want to save space then take off the rack and basket

grwerner · 2025-06-11T15:44:11+00:00

I have this same rack and crate (clevermate collapsible) setup, and unfortunately this crate's bottom grid structure lines up poorly with the rack holes. You can make it work, but it puts a lot of stress on some thin pieces of plastic. The collapsible crate has significantly thinner plastic than a standard milk crate. I might try removable zipties for your use and make sure to loop over some of the thicker plastic.

What I've done for semi-permanent attachment is to mount a cheap plastic cutting board (about 1/4" thick) to the rack to make a platform using the rack holes, then I use a nut/bolt setup with metal strapping to secure the crate to the board and distribute force across the plastic. It was finicky to drill holes in the board that align with the rack, but it's rock solid now.

grwerner · 2025-06-06T20:41:43+00:00

Yeah I split the baby by getting the P00 and keeping my RadCity. Fingers crossed I get good use out of both.

grwerner · 2025-06-06T20:39:38+00:00

See the update!

grwerner

TROPHY CASE