The arrival of spring means longer and warmer days. It’s one of those bittersweet connections we have with wanting a greener lawn but dreading the relentless maintenance under the scorching sun. Every weekend ultimately turns into a tug-of-war between wanting a good-looking yard and a simple, relaxing weekend. If you are a homeowner looking to keep your yard sharper without breaking a sweat, the limited-time Spring Sale on Lymow’s latest robotic lawn mower is the perfect chance to upgrade.

With sales running from March 27th to April 5th, the ongoing Spring deal presents exclusive pricing with special bonuses, making the Lymow One Plus Robotic Lawn Mower a compelling choice for hands-free landscaping. Designed to transform what used to be a tedious chore into an almost luxurious experience, this offer is ideal for homeowners ready to adopt an easier way to upkeep their outdoor routine.

What Smarter Lawn Care Has For You

The true value of a robotic lawn mower is in its ability to simplify time-consuming routines. One of the standout features of the Lymow One Plus Robotic Lawn Mower is its wire-free setup. Personally, not having to bury miles-long boundary wire by hand in the dirt is the most appealing part of the experience. Instead, you simply map your yard in the app, and the rest is all taken care of. 

The Lymow One Plus also excels in avoiding obstacles and handling uneven terrains, including slopes up to 45°, thanks to its smart navigation system. Whether you have a complex or a square landscape, it maintains a uniform cut — something many traditional robotic mowers struggle with.

Ultimately, it saves you from shoveling and mowing the weekend away, letting you enjoy the perks of an automated lawn mower working quietly in the backyard. The result is a consistent and well-maintained green space that seamlessly fits the idea of a modern lifestyle worthy of your aspirations.

Automating Yard Care with Spring Deals

This Spring sale provides the perfect opportunity for a homeowner to make the shift to hands-free lawn care. The Lymow One Plus Robotic Lawn Mower comes in two variants, based on their battery capacity. The Lymow One Plus 5A can cover about 1.1 acres per day and is currently available for $2,699, down from its original price of $2,999. The 5A model uses standard “overnight” charging, making it a solid fit for small to medium properties.

When it comes to larger yards, the break for recharging sessions may slow down the progress if the battery runs out mid-cycle. For households requiring powerful performance, the Lymow One Plus 10A fits the bill perfectly, covering around 1.73 acres per day. The fast-charging upgrade included with this model reduces downtime and gives you more coverage in a single run for bigger properties. Furthermore, the shorter recharging cycle helps homeowners with tight schedules in covering the large yards without needing frequent supervision. This one is also up for grabs this spring at just $2,899, a generous notch lower than its original price of $3,199.

Beyond the valuable discounts, the Lymow One Plus Spring Sales include exclusive bonuses. With each purchase, homeowners will receive 3 extra sets of rotary blades, promising peak cutting performance without making constant hardware store runs. Plus, the 1 Year Accidental Protection plan is bundled as a complimentary perk this season. In a nutshell, Lymow delivers top-tier performance, unparalleled convenience, and added hardware security to go with it. Overall, the combination of spring savings with accessible automation reflects the aim of Lymow to simply reduce the manual effort of lawn care and help homeowners enjoy a tidy yard without the constant burden of maintenance.

Last week, Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri got into a heated exchange during a Senate hearing with Stanford’s Daphne Keller. Schmitt, who, as Missouri’s Attorney General, originally filed the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, was berating Keller over Stanford’s supposed role in helping the Biden administration censor social media during the 2020 election (see if you can spot the time-space continuum problem with that sentence). When Keller pushed back on his characterization of events, Schmitt got increasingly agitated and told her she could “read all about it in Missouri v. Biden.” Keller’s response was instant and devastating: “The one you lost?“

He did not take it well, immediately throwing an embarrassing Senatorial temper tantrum.

And so maybe it’s not surprising that just a week later, Schmitt was doing a victory lap over a “settlement” that his friends in the Trump administration very conveniently worked out with the remaining plaintiffs in the case. The framing, of course, was triumphant. From his post on social media:

Shorter version:

We just won Missouri v. Biden.

As Missouri’s Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent “misinformation” while they pushed their narrative on the American people.

Advertisement

Missouri struck first—and Missouri won big.

And the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented many of the plaintiffs, was even more grandiose in its description of the settlement:

The federal government’s social media censorship was the most massive suppression of speech in the nation’s history, it was profoundly important to resist it.

Even the Washington Post editorial board got taken in, writing about the settlement as a “forceful affirmation of First Amendment principles.” Reclaim the Net went even further, claiming the decree represented a “formal, court-enforceable admission: the federal government pressured social media platforms to silence protected speech.”

There’s just one fairly big problem. None of this is true. The case was a dud. While it is true that the district court hyped it up as (what the NCLA repeated) “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” literally no one else found the same. The Fifth Circuit saw that most of the claims were flimsy and cut back nearly the entire injunction, and the Supreme Court threw it out completely (“the one that you lost”) not only pointing out five separate times that there was “no evidence” to support the claims of censorship, but also calling out the district court’s findings, noting that they “appear to be clearly erroneous.”

It’s quite a misleading victory lap to quote the judge who both higher courts called out for misreading the evidence to say things that the evidence clearly did not say (it was actually worse: the judge fabricated quotes to make it sound like there was evidence when there was not).

As for this “settlement,” anyone who actually reads it would realize that it doesn’t support any of the claims making the rounds.

Now the reason Schmitt claims he didn’t “lose” the case is because, technically, the Supreme Court rejected the case on “standing” grounds — meaning the plaintiffs hadn’t shown they had a legal right to bring the case. But the reason they didn’t have standing was devastating to the plaintiffs’ entire theory. The opinion methodically dismantled the conspiracy theory at the heart of the case:

We reject this overly broad assertion. As already discussed, the platforms moderated similar content long before any of the Government defendants engaged in the challenged conduct. In fact, the platforms, acting independently, had strengthened their pre-existing content-moderation policies before the Government defendants got involved. For instance, Facebook announced an expansion of its COVID–19 misinformation policies in early February 2021, before White House officials began communicating with the platform. And the platforms continued to exercise their independent judgment even after communications with the defendants began. For example, on several occasions, various platforms explained that White House officials had flagged content that did not violate company policy.

The Court further called out how the lower courts had built their case on lies and misrepresentations:

The District Court found that the defendants and the platforms had an “efficient report-and-censor relationship.”… But much of its evidence is inapposite. For instance, the court says that Twitter set up a “streamlined process for censorship requests” after the White House “bombarded” it with such requests. The record it cites says nothing about “censorship requests.” Rather, in response to a White House official asking Twitter to remove an impersonation account of President Biden’s granddaughter, Twitter told the official about a portal that he could use to flag similar issues. This has nothing to do with COVID–19 misinformation.

In other words, the Supreme Court looked at the actual record, found a pile of conspiratorial nonsense, and told the lower courts they got played. This was a loss. A clear, unambiguous loss.

But of course, with Trump back in office and the same crew of ideologues now running the government, it was time to manufacture a win. And so we get this “consent decree.”

On paper, it sounds dramatic. The NCLA breathlessly announced that the settlement “prohibits the U.S. Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) from threatening social media companies into removing or suppressing constitutionally protected speech.” Schmitt claimed the decree means “no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions.”

But if you actually read the consent decree (and I encourage you to do so, because clearly many of the people celebrating it haven’t), you find something remarkable: the decree prohibits conduct that the Supreme Court found no evidence was happening, while explicitly carving out everything that actually was happening.

First (and most importantly), the decree only applies to three remaining individual plaintiffs (Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Jill Hines, and Jim Hoft) and two states, and only on five specific platforms. It doesn’t protect anyone else. If you’re a random American whose content gets moderated on social media, this decree does absolutely nothing for you. That certainly doesn’t match what Schmitt claimed.

Second, and more importantly, paragraph 24 of the decree is where the whole thing collapses:

This prohibition does not extend to providing Social-Media Companies with information that the companies are free to use as they wish. Nor does it extend to statements by government officials that posts on Social Media Companies’ platforms are inaccurate, wrong, or contrary to the Administration’s views, unless those statements are otherwise coupled with a threat of punishment within the meaning of the above provision.

That paragraph basically describes exactly what the Biden administration was actually doing — and declares it fine. The government can still share information with social media companies. It can still tell companies that content on their platforms is wrong or inaccurate. It can still express displeasure. It just can’t couple those statements with threats of punishment.

Which is… exactly what the First Amendment already requires. And exactly what the Supreme Court found was not happening in the first place. The consent decree literally codifies the Biden administration’s actual conduct as permissible while grandly prohibiting a phantom version of events that the Supreme Court found no evidence of.

Even better, paragraph 17 of the decree says the quiet part out loud:

The parties acknowledge that this Agreement is entered into solely for the purpose of settling and compromising any remaining claims in this action without further litigation, and, except as stated explicitly in the text of the Agreement, it shall not be construed as evidence or as an admission regarding any issues of law or fact, or regarding the truth or validity of any allegation or claim raised in this action or in any other action.

So the decree is explicitly not an admission of anything. It cannot be construed as evidence of any wrongdoing. The government didn’t admit to censorship. Reclaim the Net’s headline — “US Government Admits Pressuring Social Media Platforms to Censor Protected Speech” — is directly contradicted by the text of the document they’re supposedly celebrating. Did they not read it?

Yes, the preamble quotes Trump’s executive order making grand accusations about Biden-era censorship. But that’s a political document, not a finding of fact. The Trump administration saying the Biden administration did bad things is hardly the same as the Biden administration admitting it did bad things, or a court finding that it did bad things. In fact, the only court to substantively examine the evidence — the Supreme Court — found no evidence to support these claims.

So what we have here is a neat little trick: the Trump administration negotiates a settlement with friendly plaintiffs (some of whom had to drop out of the case because they joined the Trump administration), quotes Trump’s own executive order as if it were established fact, and everyone involved pretends this vindicates the original claims — despite the Supreme Court (and a clean reading of the evidence) having rejected them.

Speaking of those former plaintiffs, let’s talk about the delicious absurdity of how this case ate itself. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, one of the original individual plaintiffs who claimed he was censored by the Biden administration, had to drop out of the case because he was confirmed as Director of the National Institutes of Health — the agency he claimed (without evidence) had “censored him” even though his lawyers somehow forgot to add NIH as a defendant. Dr. Martin Kulldorff similarly withdrew because of his new role within the Department of Health and Human Services. The supposed victims of government censorship are now running the very agencies they accused of censoring them. And, again, I have to reinforce, that the Supreme Court called out the lack of actual “censorship” for either of these guys.

Both Bhattacharya and Kulldorff were mad that Facebook restricted access to the Great Barrington Declaration, a document they co-authored. But they fail to mention that the person running the Great Barrington Declaration website has publicly revealed that the reason Facebook blocked it was anti-vaxxers mass reporting the site — because they misread the declaration as supporting “forced vaccinations.” (There are more details at the link above).

So naturally, despite all this, the fact that they became top officials in the Trump administration should raise questions about how suddenly the administration worked out a friendly settlement with their friends who were still plaintiffs. What a coincidence.

But the real tell is what’s happening right now, while MAGA is celebrating: the Trump admin is doing far worse than anything Biden was even accused of. Yes, while the Trump administration and its gullible friends are busy patting themselves on the back for supposedly defending free speech from the horrors of the Biden administration sharing information with social media companies, it is engaged in conduct that is far, far worse than anything alleged in Missouri v. Biden.

As you’ll certainly recall, the Trump administration’s FCC Chair Brendan Carr went on a podcast and explicitly threatened Disney with regulatory retaliation over Jimmy Kimmel’s monologues, telling them “we can do this the easy way or the hard way.” Hours later, the show was pulled. That’s textbook coercion — exactly the kind that the Supreme Court in both Murthy and Vullo said would violate the First Amendment if proven. Unlike the conduct in the case that just settled, where the Supreme Court found no such proof.

And then we have the even clearer violation: Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice demanded that Apple and Google remove the ICEBlock app from their stores… and bragged about it! That’s the federal government literally ordering private companies to suppress an application. Not sending mean emails. Not sharing information platforms are free to use as they wish. An explicit demand for removal.

“We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Store—and Apple did so,” Bondi added according to the Fox report.

Where’s Schmitt’s outrage? Where’s the NCLA lawsuit? Where’s Philip Hamburger’s condemnation of “the most massive suppression of speech in the nation’s history”?

Nowhere. Because this was never really about free speech. This was about building a narrative that the Biden administration censored conservatives, manufacturing a legal document that appears to vindicate that claim (despite explicitly saying it doesn’t), and then using it as political cover while engaging in an even more extreme version of the conduct you claimed to oppose.

This perfectly matches the pattern Renee DiResta documented in her Lawfare review of Schmitt’s book — which he subtitled “how to beat the left in court” — where she noted his habit of presenting cases he lost as if he won them. The book apparently describes multiple lawsuits where Schmitt failed to achieve his stated legal objectives but then spun the results as massive victories for the narrative benefit. Missouri v. Biden is the crown jewel of this approach: lose at the Supreme Court, negotiate a meaningless consent decree with a friendly administration, declare total victory.

Even the Washington Post editorial board, which gave the decree far more credit than it deserved, couldn’t quite look away from the obvious:

The unfortunate catch is that the settlement only applies to the specific plaintiffs in this particular case. In other words, only the people who initially sued the Biden administration, and public officials from Louisiana and Missouri, will enjoy the court-ordered protections from government censorship. It’s unlikely the current administration would target right-leaning individuals or states, but the consent decree will apply for 10 years.

The settlement also applies only to government pressure on five companies: Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), Linkedln and YouTube. That means, for example, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr’s efforts to bully broadcasters to toe the administration’s political line will be unaffected.

So even the Post recognizes that the decree does nothing about actual, current, obvious government coercion of media companies. But somehow this is still a “forceful affirmation of First Amendment principles”? How so? A consent decree that protects three specific people from conduct that wasn’t happening, while the government signing the decree is actively coercing media companies in ways that obviously violate the First Amendment?

The consent decree is a press release disguised as a legal document. It prohibits First Amendment violations the Supreme Court found no evidence of, permits everything the evidence shows the Biden administration was actually doing, and was signed by an administration currently engaged in the exact conduct the decree pretends to prohibit.

The one you lost, indeed.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, aaron kheriaty, brendan carr, daphne keller, donald trump, eric schmitt, free speech, jay bhattacharya, jill hines, jim hoft, martin kulldorff, missouri, missouri v. biden, murthy v. missouri, pam bondi, settlement, supreme court

Companies: ncla

Recently [ETA Prime] felt a bit underwhelmed by the raw performance of his MacBook Neo when it came to running for extended periods under full load, such as when gaming. Thus the obvious solution is to mildly over-engineer a cooling solution that takes care of issues like thermal throttling.

The Apple MacBook Neo with its repurposed iPhone 16 SoC seems to have leaned hard into answering the question whether a smartphone can be a good general purpose personal computer. Ignoring the lack of I/O, it’s overall not a bad SoC for a laptop, but like when you try to push the CPU and GPU on a smartphone, they do get pretty toasty. Due to the minimalistic cooling solution in the MacBook Neo it’ll easily hit the 105°C thermal throttle limit.

Technically the ‘heatsink’ for this laptop is the aluminium case, as the SoC is coupled via a thermal pad to the case. This doesn’t leave a lot of space and the case will heat soak pretty fast, while also making retrofitting a cooling solution a challenge.

Amusingly, replacing the existing thermal pad with a thin copper plate already massively reduced the thermal throttling of the A18 Pro SoC by about 20 degrees. In Geekbench 6 this bumped multi-core scores up by 9.7% and single-core by 15.2%. Definitely a promising glimpse at how much performance could still be extracted from this SoC.

For the next step a thermo-electric cooler (TEC) with built-in water cooling loop was used, which happened to be one of those overkill smartphone cooling systems that you’d stick to the back of the phone. Here the cooler was attached similarly, directly to the bottom aluminium of the case.

With this solution in place Geekbench 6 results mostly showed a solid bump for single-core results, while multi-core results showed diminishing returns. For Cinebench results this gave a 19% increase over stock cooling in multi-core and 23.5% for single-core.

Perhaps most interesting of all was that playing a video game for a while without thermal throttling meant framerates of over 80 FPS instead of hitting that thermal wall with 30 FPS. This shows just how much performance is left on the table due to the cooling choices for the system, even with this still rather inefficient cooling solution.

That said, this probably isn’t some kind of nefarious scheme by Apple, but rather the result of designing the thermal solution to not heat the case up to temperatures that are deemed to be unsafe or uncomfortable for the user. After all, if the case if the heatsink, then you don’t want to feel like you’re literally handling one. This is sadly the compromise when venting out hot air is deemed to be an unacceptable solution.

Wesley Treat had his face scanned as part of a collaborative 3D model library project with other makers, and when he saw his own scan sitting in the archive he decided it deserved a more permanent form. The result is a strangely fascinating aluminum portrait, roughly life sized and built from dozens of flat welded panels, that now lives in his workshop and stops people in their tracks the moment they walk past it.

Treat works with aluminum regularly for sign making but had little welding experience with it going in. His xTool MetalFab handles both cutting and welding through a single handheld tool, and after a few practice runs on steel to get a feel for the machine he switched to aluminum and immediately noticed the difference. Aluminum conducts heat aggressively and will melt through without warning if the settings are off, so he dialed in shorter pulses and learned to feed in small amounts of filler wire to build each joint without punching holes through the material. Once the welds were looking consistent off camera, he moved on to the actual parts.

Sale

FLASHFORGE AD5X Multi-Color 3D Printer, CoreXY 600mm/s High-Speed, 1-Click Auto Leveling, 300°C Direct…

• Vivid Multi-Color Printing: Bring your creations to life with vibrant, multi-color prints. This printer supports up to 4 colors simultaneously, giving…
• 1-Click Auto Leveling: Enjoy smooth, uninterrupted prints with the advanced 1-Click Auto Leveling feature that automatically calibrates your print bed…
• Ultra-Fast 12X Printing Speed: The AD5X features a Core XY structure with speeds up to 600mm/s and acceleration of 20,000mm/s². Its stable design…

The process started in Blender, where he reduced the polygon count on his scan until the model had that low resolution video game quality while still reading clearly as his face. He trimmed the body below the neck, tidied up the nose, and broke the hair into smaller sections to make the welding stages more manageable. Once the shape felt right he sent the file to an online unfolding tool called PaperMaker, which flattened the entire head into a series of flat 2D panels, complete with tabs and numbered edges to guide assembly.

Sheets of 0.063 inch metal were placed on the CNC bed next, and the machine cut the outlines cleanly while etching reference numbers right into each piece to keep everything organized. The end result was a stack of flat metal pieces that resembled a puzzle waiting to be assembled. Wesley arranged them all on the workbench and worked from the back of the head forward, tacking each panel into place with quick welds on the inside when possible to keep the outer surface clean.

Fitting everything together proved to be the most difficult part of the build. How so? Some edges needed a quick sanding, while others required some filing to sit flush. Once he found the right angle and travel speed, the laser welder handled the thin aluminum well, with localized heat closing gaps that were clean without warping the surrounding material. The two halves came together with the final seam hidden neatly beneath the hairline, and when the last weld cooled he stepped back to find a remarkably accurate metal version of his own face staring back at him.
[Source]

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The 2026 Microsoft Office Pro Bundle has 8 courses to help you master essential Office skills. Courses cover Access, PowerPoint, Word, Excel, and more. It’s on sale for $21.25 using the code MARCH15 at checkout.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

One thing SEGA’s MegaDrive/Genisis and the Commodore Amiga had in common was–aside from the Motorola 68000 processor– being known for excellent music in games. As [reassembler] continues his quest to de-assemble Sonic: The Hedgehog and re-assemble the code to run on Amiga, getting the music right is a key challenge. Rather than pull MIDI info or recreate the sound by ear, [reassembler] has written a program called Sonic2MOD to automatically take the assembly file music from the MegaDrive catridge and turn it into an Amiga-style MODfile. He’s also made a video about it that you’ll find embedded below.

Of course how music gets made differs widly on the two systems. Amiga, famously has Paula, a custom ASIC designed for sampling, allowing you to play four eight-bit voices. The Sega, of course, has that glorious FM-synthesis chip from Yamaha synthesizing five channels of CD-quality sound and one channel of sample. It’s not as well known, but the Sega also has a bonus TI-compatible programmable sound chip (PSG) that can handle 3 square-wave tone channels and one noise channel. That’s ten total channels to the Amiga’s four, and CD-quality to 8-bit voices. Knowing all that, we were very curious how close to SEGA’s original music [reassembler] could get on the Amiga.

Before he could show us, [reassembler] needed to decode the SMPS files used on Sonic: The Hedgehog and many other MegaDrive games. Presumably he could have gotten a MIDI file online somewhere– there are oodles– but the goal was to reverse engineer Sonic from its cartridge for the Amiga, not download a lot of resources from the web. SMPS is a sort of programing language for sound, telling the Yamaha and PSG chips what to do.

In some ways, it’s not unlike the Amiga’s MOD format, which programmatically specifies how to play the sampled voices also stored in the file. Translating from one to another is a matter of reading the SMPS files, extracting the timing, volume, vibrato, et cetera, and translate that into a form the MOD file can use. Then [reassembler] needed to generate samples, which was an added hiccup because the Amiga can only handle 3 octaves vs the seven of the SEGA’s FM synthesizer. He’s able to solve this simply by generating multiple samples to span the Yamaha chip’s range, though, again, at only 8-bit fidelity. It doesn’t sound half bad.

What about the four-channel limit? That’s where a bit of artistry comes in; the automated tool produces MOD files with more voices, which MOD trackers can handle at increased computational load. Computational load you don’t need when trying to play a game. Scaling down the soundtrack to the Amiga’s limits is something [reassembler] already has practice with from his famous OutRun port, though, so we’re sure he’ll get it done.

All of this effort just to match the Mega Drive makes us appreciate what a capable little computer the Sega console was; why, you can even check your stocks with it! We’ve already featured [reassembler]’s Sonic port once before, but this music tool was interesting enough we couldn’t help ourselves coming back to it. The ability to play MOD files were pretty impressive when the Amiga came out, but nowadays all you need is a ten-cent microcontroller.

Although not really a cost-effective or a required skill unless you have some very specific needs not met by off-the-shelf power resistor options, making your own own wirewound power resistor is definitely educational, as well as a fascinating look at a common part that few people spare a thought on. Cue [TheElectronBench]’s video tutorial on how to make one of these components from scratch.

The resistance value is determined by the length of nichrome wire, which is an alloy of nickel and chromium (NiCr) with a resistivity of around 1.12 µΩ/m. It’s also extremely durable when heated, as it forms a protective outer layer of chromium oxide. This makes it suitable for very high power levels, but also requires the rest of the power resistor assembly to be able to take a similar punishment.

For the inner tube of this DIY power resistor a tube of alumina ceramic was used, around which the nichrome wire is wound. This resistor targets 15 Ohm at a maximum load of 50 Watt, this means a current of about 1.83 A is expected at 27.4 V. The used nichrome wire has a measured resistance of 10.4 Ohm, ergo 1.44 meter has to be cut and wound.

This entire assembly is then embedded in refractory cement (fireproof cement), as this will keep the wire in place, while also able to take the intense temperature cycling during operation. As a bonus this will prevent toasting the surrounding environment too much, never mind lighting things on fire as the nichrome wire heats up.

As explained in the video, this is hardly the only way to create such a power resistor, with multiple types of alternative alloys available, different cores to wind around and various options to embed the assembly. The demonstrated method is however one that should give solid results and be well within the capabilities and budget of a hobbyist.

An important point with nichrome is that you cannot really solder to it, so you’ll need something along the lines of a mechanical (crimping) connection. There are also different winding methods that can affect the inductance of the resistor, since this type of resistor is by its design also a coil. This is however not covered in the video as for most applications it’s not an issue.

Overall, this video tutorial would seem to be a solid introduction to nichrome power resistors, including coverage of many issues you may encounter along the way. Feel free to sound off in the comment section with your own experiences with power resistors, especially if you made them as well.