|
We use Varidesk[^] here at work. I don't personally use one, but people seem pleased with them and from what I can tell they're pretty stable. My boss has two 24" monitors on his and they haven't fallen off yet 
|
|
|
|
|
I use the Varidesk ProPlus48 with two 24 inch monitors. Well built, no problems, easy install. Hard to say how stable any stand-up desk would be if monitors on reticulating arms were attached. They are not made for such as far as I can tell and it seems it could throw off the balance of the total setup due to leverage of the arms with a heavy monitor. My unit is weighted at about 70-80 pounds, but still... I had a reticulating arm for one monitor and simply gave it up as it ergonomically didn't work well with the stand-up scheme. Never tried to attach it.
|
|
|
|
|
I have the Fully Jarvis Bamboo with 72 x 30 inch top. I have been using it for about a year and it's great. I have 32in monitor, phone, 2 laptops and few other things. The desk does not wobble but there is some vibrations from my hard typing which shakes my monitor a bit.
No other complains. I have also used a Varidesk for about 10 days but didn't fit my desk due to height of the desk. I had a the cubicle model and found the height between keyboard/mouse tray and monitor shelf was a bit tight.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Joan,
I purchased an iMovr sit/stand desk and have been very happy with it. I needed one that was able to fit in a relatively small space, had programmable heights (up/down), and could withstand a dual monitor holder for 24 inch screens. Shop Standing Desks, Sit-Stand, Stand Up and Adjustable Workstations - iMovR[^]
I don't know whether they ship to Spain, but it's worth asking.
Good luck!
Laura
|
|
|
|
|
I purchased the business edition from Autonomous. This has great height range, along with dual motors to handle the weight smoothly. The price is great and I've been extremely pleased with the quality. Many versions are available on Amazon as well.
|
|
|
|
|
I second autononous. I've got one at home and I love it.
|
|
|
|
|
Two people who sit near me have the desks that allow you to stand up and sit down
(VARIDESK 49900 - Height-Adjustable Standing Desk - Pro Plus 36 - Black [^] )
The first person probably changes his to stand position about once a week. It's very loud so you notice it.
The 2nd person who has had it for only 2 months max, was standing for about the first 2 weeks.
Now, I haven't seen her change it to standing position in at least 1 month.
EDIT
There is an issue with these desks (every standing desk I've seen) that isn't often pointed out.
When you stand you are supporting your hands (keyboarding and mousing) via your shoulders since they have no place to rest. If someone really did this over a few years she would most likely suffer from shoulder pain from the stress of it. It's just not ergonomically correct to support your arms like that. It's better to allow them to lay on the desk.
|
|
|
|
|
I have this desk (with a custom-built desktop that could be molded perfectly to your belly):
2-Leg Height-Adjustable Desk Frame | Shop UPLIFT Desk[^]
And two of these arms (for two 27" monitors):
Single Monitor Arm | UPLIFT Desk[^]
Uplift also has dual monitor arms (that apparently support two 27") but the two separate arms allow more flexibility. The monitors don't move/wiggle at all when I type. If you pound the keys, maybe the monitors wiggle a bit but it isn't noticeable. If you regularly pound your head on the desk, the monitors will wiggle quite a bit, however, your face will be on the desktop so monitor movement still won't be noticeable! Note in all of these "normal use" scenarios, the monitors don't actually move, they just wiggle. Rest assured, these arms are well made and include adjustable friction at every joint of the arm so you might be able to eliminate the head-bang-on-desk wiggle.
The desk itself has been flawless. I've maybe had to reset it once after a long power outage but this doesn't happen with every power outage (where "reset" finds the desktop's fully lowered, zero, position). It's also fast -- fully raises or lowers in ~15 seconds.
|
|
|
|
|
At work they gave us standing desks and tall ergo chairs similar to this one. The reality is that I never lower the desk, and only sit on the tall chair when I am tired, and that works great for me. So at home I ended up getting a tall desk from craigslist and an ergo chair which works the same in the end but at a much better price.
---------
Andre Sanches
"UNIX is friendly, it's just picky about its friends"
|
|
|
|
|
I took a few pieces of scrap wood and some screws and built a stand for my monitors and another for my keyboard and mouse. I placed these on top of a table, and voila! It works fine for me. I've been using it for a couple years now. Total cost $0. (BTW, I work from home.)
|
|
|
|
|
Either my coworker or me did this in c++ before about 15 or more years:
double factor= exp(-21.0 * log(2.0));
where
a.) double exp (double x) returns the base-e exponential function of x.
b.) double log (double x) returns the natural logarithm of x.
Do you recognize what exp(-21.0 * log(2.0))?
Do you have an idea why one have the idea to calculate this in that way?
 
[Edit]
If I think again about it...: Maybe we were trying to invent "source code obfuscation"
[Edit 1]
uuups, exp(-21.0, log(2.0)) should be of course exp(-21.0 * log(2.0));
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You have just give the proof of why good comments are important.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking more proof why good naming is important.
|
|
|
|
|
The value calculated is approximately 2^(-21). This contains 21 significant decimal digits, and it is (barely) possible that the compiler ignored digits after the first 16 (the accuracy of a 'double'). The calculated value may actually have been more accurate.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: The calculated value may actually have been more accurate
That is also my idea. But no idea based on what knowledge that time we decided for this. And more, how I can prove that the above mentioned equation was/is perhaps more precise than pow(2.0, -21.0). Not really a big Thing, but if you have an idea it will be very welcome. This especally to Keep my old brain alive 
Thank you very much for your comment.
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: Do you have an idea why one have the idea to calculate this in that way?
Two reasons:
1 - You didn't want to type in all the digits by hand and maybe get them wrong.
2 - Rather than creating some magic number, the code expresses how the magic number is calculated, which must have some now lost meaning.
Now, given #2, the only thing that's missing is a comment (or having a function that returns this calculation) that actually describes the intent of this magic number!
Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Three possibilities:
1.
I really think you should be explicitly declaring 2.0d and -21.0d.
With your arguments, the compiler should use the overloaded pow(float, float) which returns a float which is then coerced to a double. This value may not have been as accurate as you desired.
2.
Maybe the library in use at the time did not allow negative numbers for the second parameter?
Googling "c++ pow function negative exponent" has a lot of hits and shows the work around you provided.
3.
Pentium CPU floating point bug?
|
|
|
|
|
The math I learned in school didn't really cover what I usually work with: uint and int. Most math tools are all about the Real numbers or maybe Complex numbers, so they will happily tell me that x * 2 / 2 = x. I vaguely heard about SMT solvers but they seemed hard to use.
So I made my own thing, the first versions in 2013, but I think it's useful enough now that other people may occasionally find it useful: haroldbot.nl. Completely free of course, including ad free, I wouldn't spam the lounge with my commercial products. It also works offline if you save a complete copy of the page.
There are some fun features in addition to equality checking, such as some limited simplification (for example x * 2 / 2 can be simplified to what it really is, and it isn't x), and detecting invertibility, sometimes it even finds the inverse so for example you can put in x * 5 to find out how to "un-multiply" by 5.
By the way I wrote that entire thing in JavaScript and I still don't actually know JavaScript. It's a weird language.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: and I still don't actually know JavaScript
I am not sure anybody "knows" JavaScript. But every single one of them have written JavaScript apps. That's the magic.
|
|
|
|
|
That's very cool. I tried a few things, like x * 4 / 2 and I really like how you show the simplified version and the proof. Nice work!
Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
What you talk about here is the usage of Abstract algebra. Fields, Integral domains, Euclid's factorization method (the same as continued fraction algorithm) etc. Gauss doctoral thesis was about this subject (Disquisitiones Arithmeticae).
|
|
|
|
|
That all sounds pretty scary. By the way I use Hensel's lemma to find multiplicative inverses.
|
|
|
|
|
Believe it or not but Algebra was actually created to make things easier for you
I didn't know about Hensel's lemma, but It kinda reminds me of Rouché's theorem - Wikipedia[^] which I find very cool.
|
|
|
|
|
Post it in Free Tools Discussion Boards[^]
This way your post won't be relegated to the limbo after a few hours.
By the way, thanks. It looks pretty cool.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
