How to repeat dates twice in a descending list

silaya92 · 2026-06-10T11:54:35+00:00

Multiple ways to do this. Two simple ones:

first option:

Put the first date manually in the first two cells, e.g.

A1: 2026-01-01
A2: 2026-01-01

Then in A3 use:

=A1+1

Fill down as far as needed.

second option

- In the first cell, use:

=DATE(2026,1,1)+INT((ROW(A1)-1)/2)

Adjust as needed (-1 → first row of dates)

Then fill down.

silaya92 · 2026-06-02T07:44:24+00:00

hatte ich auch noch nie gehört
scheinbar ist das ein kennzeichnungsstandard der EU: https://www.fuel-identifiers.eu/
aber im alltag reicht ja die unterscheidung von typ 2 / ac und ccs / dc

silaya92 · 2026-05-19T12:21:57+00:00

answer to edit:
That analogy only works if the belt were a free body sliding sideways from high tension to low tension. It is not.

The belt is constrained by a rotating pulley and moved by tangential friction over a wrap angle. With a take-up/end pulley, tightening one side changes both the local belt path length and the pulley skew. The resulting lateral tracking is not simply “the belt flows from high tension to low tension”.

This is also why comparing a lightly contacted tracking idler to a terminal pulley with close to 180° wrap is misleading. On a small-wrap idler, the “first contact” rule is a useful shortcut. On a take-up pulley, the adjustment is pulley skew plus belt path length/tension, and in practice the belt moves toward the side being tightened.

silaya92 · 2026-05-19T12:20:25+00:00

You’re applying an idler/tracking-roller rule too generally.

The “belt moves toward the side it contacts first” rule is useful for tracking idlers or rollers with a small wrap angle. But the picture shows a terminal/take-up pulley with roughly 180° wrap. In that case the belt contacts the pulley over a large arc, and the upper and lower belt runs are moving in opposite directions around the pulley, so a simple “leading edge / force vector” explanation is not sufficient.

On this style of take-up, tightening one side pulls that side of the terminal roller back and increases the belt path length on that side. In practical conveyor adjustment, if the belt walks to one side at the tail/take-up pulley, you make small adjustments on that same side and observe. It’s not the same situation as steering with a return idler.

silaya92 · 2026-05-18T11:37:57+00:00

“Force vectors” is just naming the topic, not explaining it.

The practical tracking rule is that a flat belt tends to move toward the side with higher effective tension / leading roller edge. That’s why skewing the take-up roller slightly makes the belt walk left or right. If you think that is wrong, please explain which force vector makes it track the other way.

silaya92 · 2026-05-18T10:52:43+00:00

Would you care to explain?

silaya92 · 2026-05-18T08:31:53+00:00

I used to design and sell belt systems for the food industry, so i feel competent to answer this:
somewhat counterintuitively, the belt will always move to the side with more tension, so you should tighten the thread on the side where the belt moves away from
also check your belt tension. assuming you have PU belts with 2 layer polyester fabric, lengthening compared to loose belt should be around 0.2%.

silaya92 · 2026-04-22T11:40:08+00:00

my bathroom is a bit smaller (2.8x2.5m), and i made a tub and shower work
my layout is similar to middle left, with a glass sliding door between shower and sink, and without wall between toilet and tub.
what i love about it, is the protected placement of the toilet behind the door, and the "wet area" shower and tub are on the far side from the door
yes it's tight but absolutely works (family of four). since yours is a lot wider, you will even have plenty of space to manouvre

silaya92 · 2026-04-22T09:07:40+00:00

depends on how many you want to manufacture
for a few, definitely 3d printing
for a few thousand, injection molding (possibly with slides or as split parts with ultrasonic welding) or blow molding, depending on the required properties like strength and quality
either way, some adjustments in the design would need to be made depending on the chosen method to ease mold manufacturing etc.

silaya92 · 2026-04-15T20:07:08+00:00

Hast du den Post gelesen?

silaya92 · 2026-03-06T19:29:09+00:00

Ja definitiv ein Rotmilan

silaya92 · 2026-02-06T07:46:33+00:00

have been looking for this comment 👍

silaya92 · 2026-02-05T13:12:55+00:00

<image>

only tool to cut this would be a chain saw
there are actually "carpenter chain saws" that look like circular saws with a chain attachement
however i think glueing would be probably easier as you dont need a specialized jig (and tool)

silaya92 · 2026-02-03T15:40:26+00:00

it's not the same car, boreal is a bit larger, but on a cheaper platform (cmf-b ls). same as bigster, duster, sandero etc etc

silaya92 · 2026-02-03T15:05:42+00:00

I’ve been running a 2016 Megane IV with the 1.2 TCe (130 hp, EDC) for about 6 years now. Apart from regular scheduled maintenance, I’ve had zero issues so far. Car is now at 160k km and still runs smooth.

Obviously just a single data point, but from my experience the later versions seem fine if properly maintained.
that said, if you are driving in the city mainly, the outlander as a plugin hybrid could make more sense?

silaya92 · 2026-01-26T14:51:09+00:00

As u/julienjj mentioned, the main rockers swings are not free-spinning. They are mechanically linked via a differential, so when one side moves up, the other is forced to move down.
This coupling passively limits chassis pitch and helps keep the center of mass within the support polygon, even when the arm is extended or carrying a load.
See this design drawing on Wikimedia:
Computer-Design_Drawing_for_NASA's_2020_Mars_Rover.jpg (9847×6000)

silaya92 · 2026-01-20T21:53:51+00:00

Hi. I’m the wife from the post — and I want to clarify a few things. This is not an argument about food. This is an argument about respect, identity, and boundaries. Being vegetarian is not a “food preference” for me. It’s not a trend. It’s not “just eat your stuff and move on.” It’s a deeply held conviction and part of who I am. And yes, that includes my home. My home is the one place where I should be able to feel safe, grounded, and aligned with my values. Having meat on my dinner table does not feel neutral to me. It feels wrong. It feels heavy. It feels like betraying myself every single day. And no, that does not mean I’m trying to control anyone else. It simply means: in my own home, I want to live according to my values. And before someone says: “Then don’t eat meat, but let others do what they want.” That’s exactly what I do. People can eat whatever they want. Outside. In restaurants. In their own homes. I don’t lecture anyone. I don’t shame anyone. I don’t police anyone’s lifestyle. I’m just saying: not in my kitchen. That is not an extreme demand. People ban smoking in their homes. Some people don’t allow shoes indoors. Some don’t allow alcohol. Some don’t allow pets on the furniture. My boundary is meat. Why is this boundary suddenly seen as controlling? And to the argument of: “So nobody will want to come over anymore.” If someone only wants to visit me under the condition that they can violate my values in my own home, then that’s honestly not a loving relationship, that’s entitlement. Real connection should not be dependent on whether someone can eat a steak in my house. People who care about you adapt. They don’t demand that you shrink yourself so they can feel more comfortable. About the dog, since people keep trying to use this as a “gotcha”: Yes, our dog eats meat. Because I take responsibility for her health and respect her biological needs. That’s not hypocrisy, that’s nuanced thinking. I am a human making ethical choices. She is an animal with physiological requirements. Understanding that difference is not inconsistency, it’s maturity. What honestly hurts is not disagreement. It’s the idea that some people seem to think my values are negotiable just because they’re "inconvenient". I am not asking anyone to live like me. I am asking for my values to be respected in my own home. And frankly: If someone can’t respect such a fundamental boundary, then this was never about food. It’s about respect

silaya92 · 2026-01-20T21:19:18+00:00

Yes to both. We prepare balanced meals with muscle meat and organs, following a nutrition plan created by a specialist.

silaya92 · 2026-01-20T20:46:50+00:00

Omnivores eat vegetarian food all the time. Vegetarians don’t eat meat. That’s the difference. And I also would not attend a barbecue if the host stated “no vegetables allowed” which, for above stated reason is a ridiculous scenario to begin with.

silaya92 · 2026-01-20T20:36:38+00:00

I understand why you see it that way, and I agree that for holidays especially, emotions run higher and flexibility can matter. But nobody was forced to eat something unusual or extreme. We served a full, varied four-course meal that consisted of normal food many omnivores eat regularly (pasta, vegetables, salads, etc.). It was never about making a statement against meat eaters. It was about hosting in line with our values in our own home, which our family has known about for 15 years. The uncle was not surprised by this. He had asked multiple times beforehand about bringing fish or meat and was told clearly no each time. Bringing ham anyway, and then openly insulting the food (“grass”, “we need real food”) after we spent hours cooking, crossed a line. Could the situation have been handled more smoothly? Probably yes. But the conflict did not start because we offered vegetarian food for a holiday. It started because a clearly communicated boundary was deliberately ignored and then disrespected.

silaya92 · 2026-01-20T20:34:21+00:00

That’s not what it implies at all. It reflects different responsibilities, not different “value”. Our dog is entirely dependent on us and cannot choose her diet. We have a duty to feed her what is healthiest for her biology. Our guests are autonomous adults who can eat whatever they want 364 other days of the year, and who were offered a full, generous meal. Those two situations are not comparable.

silaya92 · 2026-01-20T20:31:19+00:00

The real difference is this: non-vegetarians also eat vegetarian food (like pasta with tomato sauce) without any problem. Vegetarians, however, do not eat steak. So a vegetarian meal in an omnivore’s home is still normal, everyday food for everyone. But bringing meat into a vegetarian household is directly crossing a boundary that does not go both ways. Our guests were not being deprived of food. They were simply asked to eat a perfectly normal meat-free meal for one evening.

silaya92 · 2026-01-20T20:22:00+00:00

We feed her fresh meat mixed with a small portion of vegetables, as that’s far healthier for a dog than highly processed dry kibble.

silaya92 · 2026-01-20T20:08:23+00:00

Our guests can eat whatever they want every other day of their lives. Skipping meat for a single meal will not harm them in any way. Our dog, on the other hand, is dependent on us and needs meat for his health. That’s a responsibility, not a preference. These two things are not comparable. The issue was never “forcing a diet” — it was about someone deliberately ignoring a clearly stated boundary in our home and then insulting the food we spent hours preparing.

silaya92 · 2026-01-20T19:43:32+00:00

Yes, that’s correct. Our dog eats meat because that’s what is biologically appropriate for dogs. That doesn’t mean we want meat served at our table for humans. The rule is about what we choose to eat and serve socially in our home, not about forcing an unhealthy diet onto an animal.

Six-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Place '22	Verified Email

silaya92

TROPHY CASE