We’re using Microsoft 365 Groups instead of Distribution Lists so that a history of these emails are kept in Groups in Outlook as well.

However, I noticed that Groups in Outlook only shows only up to 1 year of emails. When I look at the Microsoft 365 Group in Outlook on the Web, all the emails are shown.

I’ve set Outlook to sync all my emails but it still only shows up to 1 year for Groups. Performing a search doesn’t return any items which are available online either.

How can I make Outlook to sync all emails from the Microsoft 365 Groups?

We are looking to expand our catalog with hot new Jazz music. We are huge fans of jazz in all its forms, from be-bop to the new, electronica infused tendencies. Please send what you think is the strongest part of your material and if hear something we like, we will ask for more. Please don't submit covers of standards or other people's music. No knock-offs! No demos! No concert recordings! We can only accept professionally recorded, produced and mastered music.

Below are a few examples of the type of music that would be a perfect fit for our catalog:

- Goce Stevkovski Septet - Monday
- Drew Paralic - Down In Soho
- Redman Mehldau McBride Blade - Right Back Round Again
- Nubya Garcia - The Message Continues

We are proud to have a unique business model and an artist-friendly agreement. The music released on Filter Label is instantly included in our catalog for sync licensing which is available to our network of contacts in the film, TV and advertising industry.

Songs by our talented artists can be heard in Legacies, Shameless, The OA, Exatlon, The Matrix Revisited, CSI: Las Vegas, Nikita, in commercials for Samsung, McDonald's, Nike, Masterclass, Philip Morris, Nestle, Alkaloid, Bank Millennium, in shows on MTV, CNN, National Geographic, NBC, NBA TV, Al Jazeera, Esquire, Channel 4 and almost every major TV network in the world.

- Emil Hadji Panzov - Founder / CEO - Filter Label

We are seeking to expand our catalog with hot new Soul, Funk and R'n'B music. We are huge fans of The Heavy, Charles Bradley, Leon Bridges, Sharon Jones and the Dap-Kings, Michael Kiwanuka, Lee Fields... If you have anything similar, please send immediately. No knock-offs! No demos! Only professionally recorded, produced and mastered music will be accepted.

We are proud to have a unique business model and an artist-friendly agreement. The music released on Filter Label is instantly included in our catalog for licensing which is available to our network of contacts in the film, TV and advertising industry.

Songs by our talented artists can be heard in Legacies, Shameless, The OA, Exatlon, The Matrix Revisited, CSI: Las Vegas, Nikita, in commercials for Samsung, McDonald's, Nike, Philip Morris, Nestle Wagner, Alkaloid, Bank Millennium, in shows on MTV, CNN, National Geographic, NBC, NBA TV, Al Jazeera, Esquire, Channel 4 and almost every major TV network in the world.

- Emil Hadji Panzov - Founder / CEO - Filter Label

We need more Singer Songwriter material in our catalog. We are seeking intelligent storytelling backed with masterful instrumentation. Something along the sound of Elbow, Fink, Feist or Bon Iver would be perfect. Please DON'T SUBMIT UNFINISHED DEMOS. We accept only professionally recorded and fully mastered material.

We are proud to have a unique business model and an artist-friendly agreement. The music released on Filter Label is instantly included in our catalog for licensing placements which is sent out to top music supervisors and agents.

We have hundreds of songs placed in ad campaigns (McDonald's, Nike, Bank Millennium, Nestle, Philip Morris), TV series (The OA, Exatlon, CSI: Las Vegas, Nikita, Top Boy), films (Loneliness, Sex and Compassion, The Matrix Revisited, Cherie, Mission: Wolf), and on network television (CNN, MTV, Channel 5, National Geographic, NBA, UFC), etc.

- Emil Hadji Panzov / Filter Label

We have noticed a repeating trend in the music requests we receive from our partners in the advertising world and therefor we would like to enrich our catalog with more songs about human kindness.

The genre is not really important as long as the song has a hopeful, optimistic feel. Possible lyrical directions could be: diversity, inclusion, walking the same ground, love (not romantic), people's kindness, help, togetherness etc.

Below are two great examples of the type of songs we are seeking:

- Birdy - People Help the People
- Brandi Carlile - The Joke

Please submit only professionally recorded and mastered songs. The best submissions will be included in our catalog for licensing which is available to our network of contacts in the film, TV and advertising industry.

As an added bonus, if your song is Selected, we will offer to release your music on Filter Label. The songs by our talented artists can be heard in Legacies, The OA, Exatlon, The Matrix Revisited, CSI: Las Vegas, Nikita, in commercials for Samsung, McDonald's, Nike, Philip Morris, Nestle Wagner, Bank Millennium, in shows on MTV, CNN, Nat Geo, NBC, Al Jazeera, Esquire, Channel 4 and almost every major TV network in the world.

- Emil Hadji Panzov - Founder / CEO - Filter Label

We have noticed a repeating trend in the music requests we receive from our partners in the advertising world and therefor we would like to enrich our catalog with more electronic pop songs.

The songs should be driving, dynamic and memorable. Changes, interesting build-ups and drops which could provide great edit points are most welcome. A mixture of electronic quirkiness and pop accessibility is a big plus.

Here are three examples of the type of songs we are seeking:

- Sofi Tukker - Best Friend
- Jaim - Makeba
- The Knocks - New York Luau

Please submit only professionally recorded and mastered songs. The best submissions will be included in our catalog for licensing which is available to our network of contacts in the film, TV and advertising industry.

As an added bonus, if your song is Selected, we will offer to release your music on Filter Label. The songs by our talented artists can be heard in Shameless, Legacies, The OA, Exatlon, The Matrix Revisited, CSI: Las Vegas, Nikita, in commercials for Samsung, McDonald's, Nike, Mytheresa, Philip Morris, Nestle Wagner, Bank Millennium, in shows on MTV, CNN, Nat Geo, NBC, Al Jazeera, Esquire, Channel 4 and almost every major TV network in the world.

- Emil Hadji Panzov - Founder / CEO - Filter Label

We are looking to add some cross-genre material to our catalog. We are hoping to find brave compositions combining two or more genres, like in the following examples:

- Jazz meets Hip-Hop
Guru ft. Donald Byrd - Loungin’
- Rock meets Electronica
The Prodigy & Tom Morello - One Man Army
- Classical meets Pop
Woodkid - Run Boy Run
- Electronica meets Classical
The Glitch Mob - Fortune Days

Please note that we are not looking for copies of the referenced tracks, they are listed only as great examples of combinations of two or more genres. Filter Label is notorious for discovering new talent and setting new music trends, so please submit your best material and surprise us with what could be the next big thing. Songs with uncleared samples WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. Please submit only professionally recorded and mastered songs.

We are proud to have a unique business model and an artist-friendly agreement. The music released on Filter Label is instantly included in our catalog for licensing placements which is sent out to top music supervisors and agents.

The songs by our talented artists can be heard in The OA, Exatlon, The Matrix Revisited, CSI, Nikita, on ads for McDonald's, Nike, Philip Morris, Nestle Wagner, Bank Millennium, in shows on MTV, CNN, Nat Geo, NBC, Al Jazeera, Esquire, Channel 4 and almost every major TV network in the world.

The purpose of this study was to assess the experiences of 1st-year college composition writing students in a synchronous online remote learning environment. The researcher, through this qualitative study, used a case study design to examine the quality of the learning experiences of the participant....

This item belongs to: texts/godaneinbox.

This item has files of the following types: Archive BitTorrent, Metadata, Text PDF

REVIEW – I’ve had my two Dell monitors for a while, but I’ve yet to find a monitor arm that fits the weight of my 32″ curved screen. I tried my heavy duty work arms, yet no matter how tight I made it, it would slide down and rest on the desk. The LiftSync Dual […]

Cutting days and weeks from design cycle gives Syncroness more time to focus on designing lightweight, high performance products

In a network containing multiple nodes, the need for synchronization between the various nodes is not just instrumental but also a complicated and highly complex process. This process becomes even more tricky if we synchronize the clocks between the Manager and the Peripheral. As we know, in a real-time network, some of the nodes would behave like Managers while some would be a Peripheral. If we must make the communication process smooth, then the local clocks of these nodes must be synchronized. 

The problem with this synchronization is that we have the clock running in the Manager as well. If we send the value of the Manager clock to the Peripheral, the synchronization doesn’t happen as we have a propagation delay of the messages, along with the propagation delay of the electronic circuits of Manager and the Peripheral.  

The cherry on the cake is that these electronic circuit propagation delays are not random and remain constant, so we can add a time offset to it to match the clock. To tackle this challenge, IEEE has come up with a protocol named “Precision Timing Protocol.” 

Operation of PTP: 

To synchronize the clocks, a Sync message is sent by the Manager to the Peripheral, which then timestamps the receiving time of the same. Following this, a ‘Follow up’ message is issued by the Manager stating the timestamp at which the Sync message was sent. 

The Peripheral then finds the difference between the two values and adds this to its current time. After this, the time difference between the Manager and the Peripheral narrows down to only the propagation delay of the messages.  

To overcome this, the Peripheral issues a ‘Delay Request’ to the Manager, and the Manager, in turn, issues a ‘Delay Response.’ Both these messages have the timestamp of when they were issued. The time at which they are received is then noted. Since two messages are sent, one from the Peripheral and the other from the Manager, there are two propagation delays. Then half of this value is our propagation delay. 

The Peripheral then adds this propagation delay to its clock, and hence the clock gets synchronized. 

Advantages of PTP: 

1. It provides accurate time stamping. 
2. It is a well-known clock synchronization protocol. 
3. It provides intensified security inside the premises. 
4. It provides the possibility of setting coordinated actions and synchronized communication. 

There are various versions of PTP that have been developed over time, namely PTPv1, PTPv2, PTPv2_1, and the latest PTP-AS. 

Cadence Verification IP for Ethernet is available to support the newer version of PTP, allowing simulation of the device for efficient IP, SoC, and system-level design verification. Semiconductor companies can start using it to fully verify their controller design and achieve functional verification closure on it within no time. 

As the title suggests I am unable to perform design sync between OrCAD Capture and Allegro. When I add a layout and try to sync to it I am given ERROR(ORCAP-2426): Cannot run Design Sync because of errors. See session log for error details.

Session Log

[ORPCBFLOW] : Invoking ECO dialog.
INFO(ORNET-1176): Netlisting the design
INFO(ORNET-1178): Design Name:
C:USERSDDOYLEDOCUMENTSCADENCEBOARDSREMOTE POWER DEVICECAPTUREREMOTE_POWER_DEVICE.DSN
Netlist Directory:
c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegro
Configuration File:
C:CadenceSPB_17.4 ools/capture/allegro.cfg
pstswp.exe - pst - d "C:USERSDDOYLEDOCUMENTSCADENCEBOARDSREMOTE POWER DEVICECAPTUREREMOTE_POWER_DEVICE.DSN"- n "c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegro" - c "C:CadenceSPB_17.4 ools/capture/allegro.cfg" - v 3 - l 31 - s "" - j "PCB Footprint" - hpath "HPathForCollision"
Spawning... pstswp.exe - pst - d "C:USERSDDOYLEDOCUMENTSCADENCEBOARDSREMOTE POWER DEVICECAPTUREREMOTE_POWER_DEVICE.DSN"- n "c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegro" - c "C:CadenceSPB_17.4 ools/capture/allegro.cfg" - v 3 - l 31 - s "" - j "PCB Footprint" - hpath "HPathForCollision"
{ Using PSTWRITER 17.4.0 d001Dec-14-2021 at 09:00:49 }

INFO(ORCAP-36080): Scanning netlist files ...

Loading... c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegropstchip.dat

Loading... c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegropstchip.dat

Loading... c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegropstxprt.dat

Loading... c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegropstxnet.dat
packaging the design view...
Exiting... pstswp.exe - pst - d "C:USERSDDOYLEDOCUMENTSCADENCEBOARDSREMOTE POWER DEVICECAPTUREREMOTE_POWER_DEVICE.DSN"- n "c:usersddoyledocumentscadenceoards emote power devicelayoutallegro" - c "C:CadenceSPB_17.4 ools/capture/allegro.cfg" - v 3 - l 31 - s "" - j "PCB Footprint" - hpath "HPathForCollision"
INFO(ORNET-1179): *** Done ***

This issue started to occur after I changed parts that exist on previously created PCBs. I changed the following leading up to this:

1. Added height in Allegro to many of my components using the Setup->Area->Package Height tool.

2. Changed the reference designator category in OrCAD Capture to TP for several components on board.

Any advice here would be most welcome. Thanks!

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a major global pathogen, causing lower respiratory tract disease in at-risk populations including young children. Antibodies form a crucial layer of protection from RSV disease, particularly in immunologically naïve infants. Such antibodies are derived from the mother via transplacental transfer and breast milk, but may be particularly low in high-risk infants such as those born preterm. Maternally derived antibodies can now be supplemented by the administration of anti-RSV monoclonal antibodies, while a rising wave of maternal and paediatric vaccine strategies are approaching. The implementation of these prophylactics may profoundly decrease the healthcare burden of RSV. In this article, we review the role of antibody-mediated immunity in protecting children from RSV. We focus on maternally derived antibodies as the main source of protection against RSV and study factors that influence the scale of this transfer. The role of passive and active prophylactic approaches in protecting infants against RSV are discussed and knowledge gaps in our understanding of antibody-mediated protection against RSV are identified.

T-lymphoblastic lymphoma (T-LLy) is the most common lymphoblastic lymphoma in children and often presents with a mediastinal mass. Lymphomatous suprarenal masses are possible but rare. Here, we discuss the case of a previously healthy 3-yr-old male who presented with mediastinal T-LLy with bilateral suprarenal masses. Following initial treatment, surgical biopsy of persisting adrenal masses revealed bilateral neuroblastoma (NBL). A clinical genetics panel for germline cancer predisposition did not identify any pathogenic variants. Combination large panel (864 genes) profiling analysis in the context of a precision oncology study revealed two novel likely pathogenic heterozygous variants: SMARCA4 c.1420-1G > T p.? and EZH2 c.1943G > C p.(Ile631Phefs*44). Somatic analysis revealed potential second hits/somatic variants in EZH2 (in the T-LLy) and a segmental loss in Chromosome 19p encompassing SMARCA4 (in the NBL). Synchronous cancers, especially at a young age, warrant genetic evaluation for cancer predisposition; enrollment in a precision oncology program assessing germline and tumor DNA can fulfill that purpose, particularly when standard first-line genetic testing is negative and in the setting of tumors that are not classic for common cancer predisposition syndromes.

Researchers suspect the marine mammals may have been communicating across the vast distance

Cheltenham Gold Cup winner Synchronised has a chance to complete a rare double after remaining among the Grand National entries.

In children, researchers have discovered warning signs for more severe respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). (!--ref1--) Researchers from the Brigham

GIGABYTE has launched the M27QA ICE Monitor in the Indian market. This 27-inch gaming monitor, featuring a distinctive white design, is aimed at appealing to younger consumers who prioritize aesthetics alongside functionality. The GIGABYTE M27QA ICE Monitor is priced at Rs

In the latest offering from Marvel Cinematic Universe, Loki goes in search of a variant — one creating nexus events

The elephant in the room as far as poll reform is concerned, namely funding of elections, is conveniently obscured

Feedback, in whichever form it takes, and whatever it may be called, is one of the most effective soft skills that we have at our disposal to collaboratively get our designs to a better place while growing our own skills and perspectives.

Feedback is also one of the most underestimated tools, and often by assuming that we’re already good at it, we settle, forgetting that it’s a skill that can be trained, grown, and improved. Poor feedback can create confusion in projects, bring down morale, and affect trust and team collaboration over the long term. Quality feedback can be a transformative force. 

Practicing our skills is surely a good way to improve, but the learning gets even faster when it’s paired with a good foundation that channels and focuses the practice. What are some foundational aspects of giving good feedback? And how can feedback be adjusted for remote and distributed work environments? 

On the web, we can identify a long tradition of asynchronous feedback: from the early days of open source, code was shared and discussed on mailing lists. Today, developers engage on pull requests, designers comment in their favorite design tools, project managers and scrum masters exchange ideas on tickets, and so on.

Design critique is often the name used for a type of feedback that’s provided to make our work better, collaboratively. So it shares a lot of the principles with feedback in general, but it also has some differences.

The content

The foundation of every good critique is the feedback’s content, so that’s where we need to start. There are many models that you can use to shape your content. The one that I personally like best—because it’s clear and actionable—is this one from Lara Hogan.

While this equation is generally used to give feedback to people, it also fits really well in a design critique because it ultimately answers some of the core questions that we work on: What? Where? Why? How? Imagine that you’re giving some feedback about some design work that spans multiple screens, like an onboarding flow: there are some pages shown, a flow blueprint, and an outline of the decisions made. You spot something that could be improved. If you keep the three elements of the equation in mind, you’ll have a mental model that can help you be more precise and effective.

Here is a comment that could be given as a part of some feedback, and it might look reasonable at a first glance: it seems to superficially fulfill the elements in the equation. But does it?

Not sure about the buttons’ styles and hierarchy—it feels off. Can you change them?

Observation for design feedback doesn’t just mean pointing out which part of the interface your feedback refers to, but it also refers to offering a perspective that’s as specific as possible. Are you providing the user’s perspective? Your expert perspective? A business perspective? The project manager’s perspective? A first-time user’s perspective?

When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back.

Impact is about the why. Just pointing out a UI element might sometimes be enough if the issue may be obvious, but more often than not, you should add an explanation of what you’re pointing out.

When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow.

The question approach is meant to provide open guidance by eliciting the critical thinking in the designer receiving the feedback. Notably, in Lara’s equation she provides a second approach: request, which instead provides guidance toward a specific solution. While that’s a viable option for feedback in general, for design critiques, in my experience, defaulting to the question approach usually reaches the best solutions because designers are generally more comfortable in being given an open space to explore.

The difference between the two can be exemplified with, for the question approach:

When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Would it make sense to unify them?

Or, for the request approach:

When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same pair of forward and back buttons.

At this point in some situations, it might be useful to integrate with an extra why: why you consider the given suggestion to be better.

When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons so that users don’t get confused.

Choosing the question approach or the request approach can also at times be a matter of personal preference. A while ago, I was putting a lot of effort into improving my feedback: I did rounds of anonymous feedback, and I reviewed feedback with other people. After a few rounds of this work and a year later, I got a positive response: my feedback came across as effective and grounded. Until I changed teams. To my shock, my next round of feedback from one specific person wasn’t that great. The reason is that I had previously tried not to be prescriptive in my advice—because the people who I was previously working with preferred the open-ended question format over the request style of suggestions. But now in this other team, there was one person who instead preferred specific guidance. So I adapted my feedback for them to include requests.

One comment that I heard come up a few times is that this kind of feedback is quite long, and it doesn’t seem very efficient. No… but also yes. Let’s explore both sides.

No, this style of feedback is actually efficient because the length here is a byproduct of clarity, and spending time giving this kind of feedback can provide exactly enough information for a good fix. Also if we zoom out, it can reduce future back-and-forth conversations and misunderstandings, improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of collaboration beyond the single comment. Imagine that in the example above the feedback were instead just, “Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons.” The designer receiving this feedback wouldn’t have much to go by, so they might just apply the change. In later iterations, the interface might change or they might introduce new features—and maybe that change might not make sense anymore. Without the why, the designer might imagine that the change is about consistency… but what if it wasn’t? So there could now be an underlying concern that changing the buttons would be perceived as a regression.

Yes, this style of feedback is not always efficient because the points in some comments don’t always need to be exhaustive, sometimes because certain changes may be obvious (“The font used doesn’t follow our guidelines”) and sometimes because the team may have a lot of internal knowledge such that some of the whys may be implied.

So the equation above isn’t meant to suggest a strict template for feedback but a mnemonic to reflect and improve the practice. Even after years of active work on my critiques, I still from time to time go back to this formula and reflect on whether what I just wrote is effective.

The tone

Well-grounded content is the foundation of feedback, but that’s not really enough. The soft skills of the person who’s providing the critique can multiply the likelihood that the feedback will be well received and understood. Tone alone can make the difference between content that’s rejected or welcomed, and it’s been demonstrated that only positive feedback creates sustained change in people.

Since our goal is to be understood and to have a positive working environment, tone is essential to work on. Over the years, I’ve tried to summarize the required soft skills in a formula that mirrors the one for content: the receptivity equation.

Respectful feedback comes across as grounded, solid, and constructive. It’s the kind of feedback that, whether it’s positive or negative, is perceived as useful and fair.

Timing refers to when the feedback happens. To-the-point feedback doesn’t have much hope of being well received if it’s given at the wrong time. Questioning the entire high-level information architecture of a new feature when it’s about to ship might still be relevant if that questioning highlights a major blocker that nobody saw, but it’s way more likely that those concerns will have to wait for a later rework. So in general, attune your feedback to the stage of the project. Early iteration? Late iteration? Polishing work in progress? These all have different needs. The right timing will make it more likely that your feedback will be well received.

Attitude is the equivalent of intent, and in the context of person-to-person feedback, it can be referred to as radical candor. That means checking before we write to see whether what we have in mind will truly help the person and make the project better overall. This might be a hard reflection at times because maybe we don’t want to admit that we don’t really appreciate that person. Hopefully that’s not the case, but that can happen, and that’s okay. Acknowledging and owning that can help you make up for that: how would I write if I really cared about them? How can I avoid being passive aggressive? How can I be more constructive?

Form is relevant especially in a diverse and cross-cultural work environments because having great content, perfect timing, and the right attitude might not come across if the way that we write creates misunderstandings. There might be many reasons for this: sometimes certain words might trigger specific reactions; sometimes nonnative speakers might not understand all the nuances of some sentences; sometimes our brains might just be different and we might perceive the world differently—neurodiversity must be taken into consideration. Whatever the reason, it’s important to review not just what we write but how.

A few years back, I was asking for some feedback on how I give feedback. I received some good advice but also a comment that surprised me. They pointed out that when I wrote “Oh, […],” I made them feel stupid. That wasn’t my intent! I felt really bad, and I just realized that I provided feedback to them for months, and every time I might have made them feel stupid. I was horrified… but also thankful. I made a quick fix: I added “oh” in my list of replaced words (your choice between: macOS’s text replacement, aText, TextExpander, or others) so that when I typed “oh,” it was instantly deleted. 

Something to highlight because it’s quite frequent—especially in teams that have a strong group spirit—is that people tend to beat around the bush. It’s important to remember here that a positive attitude doesn’t mean going light on the feedback—it just means that even when you provide hard, difficult, or challenging feedback, you do so in a way that’s respectful and constructive. The nicest thing that you can do for someone is to help them grow.

We have a great advantage in giving feedback in written form: it can be reviewed by another person who isn’t directly involved, which can help to reduce or remove any bias that might be there. I found that the best, most insightful moments for me have happened when I’ve shared a comment and I’ve asked someone who I highly trusted, “How does this sound?,” “How can I do it better,” and even “How would you have written it?”—and I’ve learned a lot by seeing the two versions side by side.

The format

Asynchronous feedback also has a major inherent advantage: we can take more time to refine what we’ve written to make sure that it fulfills two main goals: the clarity of communication and the actionability of the suggestions.

Let’s imagine that someone shared a design iteration for a project. You are reviewing it and leaving a comment. There are many ways to do this, and of course context matters, but let’s try to think about some elements that may be useful to consider.

In terms of clarity, start by grounding the critique that you’re about to give by providing context. Specifically, this means describing where you’re coming from: do you have a deep knowledge of the project, or is this the first time that you’re seeing it? Are you coming from a high-level perspective, or are you figuring out the details? Are there regressions? Which user’s perspective are you taking when providing your feedback? Is the design iteration at a point where it would be okay to ship this, or are there major things that need to be addressed first?

Providing context is helpful even if you’re sharing feedback within a team that already has some information on the project. And context is absolutely essential when giving cross-team feedback. If I were to review a design that might be indirectly related to my work, and if I had no knowledge about how the project arrived at that point, I would say so, highlighting my take as external.

We often focus on the negatives, trying to outline all the things that could be done better. That’s of course important, but it’s just as important—if not more—to focus on the positives, especially if you saw progress from the previous iteration. This might seem superfluous, but it’s important to keep in mind that design is a discipline where there are hundreds of possible solutions for every problem. So pointing out that the design solution that was chosen is good and explaining why it’s good has two major benefits: it confirms that the approach taken was solid, and it helps to ground your negative feedback. In the longer term, sharing positive feedback can help prevent regressions on things that are going well because those things will have been highlighted as important. As a bonus, positive feedback can also help reduce impostor syndrome.

There’s one powerful approach that combines both context and a focus on the positives: frame how the design is better than the status quo (compared to a previous iteration, competitors, or benchmarks) and why, and then on that foundation, you can add what could be improved. This is powerful because there’s a big difference between a critique that’s for a design that’s already in good shape and a critique that’s for a design that isn’t quite there yet.

Another way that you can improve your feedback is to depersonalize the feedback: the comments should always be about the work, never about the person who made it. It’s “This button isn’t well aligned” versus “You haven’t aligned this button well.” This is very easy to change in your writing by reviewing it just before sending.

In terms of actionability, one of the best approaches to help the designer who’s reading through your feedback is to split it into bullet points or paragraphs, which are easier to review and analyze one by one. For longer pieces of feedback, you might also consider splitting it into sections or even across multiple comments. Of course, adding screenshots or signifying markers of the specific part of the interface you’re referring to can also be especially useful.

One approach that I’ve personally used effectively in some contexts is to enhance the bullet points with four markers using emojis. So a red square ???? means that it’s something that I consider blocking; a yellow diamond ???? is something that I can be convinced otherwise, but it seems to me that it should be changed; and a green circle ???? is a detailed, positive confirmation. I also use a blue spiral ???? for either something that I’m not sure about, an exploration, an open alternative, or just a note. But I’d use this approach only on teams where I’ve already established a good level of trust because if it happens that I have to deliver a lot of red squares, the impact could be quite demoralizing, and I’d reframe how I’d communicate that a bit.

Let’s see how this would work by reusing the example that we used earlier as the first bullet point in this list:

• ???? Navigation—When I see these two buttons, I expect one to go forward and one to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons so that users don’t get confused.
• ???? Overall—I think the page is solid, and this is good enough to be our release candidate for a version 1.0.
• ???? Metrics—Good improvement in the buttons on the metrics area; the improved contrast and new focus style make them more accessible.
•  ????  Button Style—Using the green accent in this context creates the impression that it’s a positive action because green is usually perceived as a confirmation color. Do we need to explore a different color?
• ????Tiles—Given the number of items on the page, and the overall page hierarchy, it seems to me that the tiles shouldn’t be using the Subtitle 1 style but the Subtitle 2 style. This will keep the visual hierarchy more consistent.
• ???? Background—Using a light texture works well, but I wonder whether it adds too much noise in this kind of page. What is the thinking in using that?

What about giving feedback directly in Figma or another design tool that allows in-place feedback? In general, I find these difficult to use because they hide discussions and they’re harder to track, but in the right context, they can be very effective. Just make sure that each of the comments is separate so that it’s easier to match each discussion to a single task, similar to the idea of splitting mentioned above.

One final note: say the obvious. Sometimes we might feel that something is obviously good or obviously wrong, and so we don’t say it. Or sometimes we might have a doubt that we don’t express because the question might sound stupid. Say it—that’s okay. You might have to reword it a little bit to make the reader feel more comfortable, but don’t hold it back. Good feedback is transparent, even when it may be obvious.

There’s another advantage of asynchronous feedback: written feedback automatically tracks decisions. Especially in large projects, “Why did we do this?” could be a question that pops up from time to time, and there’s nothing better than open, transparent discussions that can be reviewed at any time. For this reason, I recommend using software that saves these discussions, without hiding them once they are resolved. 

Content, tone, and format. Each one of these subjects provides a useful model, but working to improve eight areas—observation, impact, question, timing, attitude, form, clarity, and actionability—is a lot of work to put in all at once. One effective approach is to take them one by one: first identify the area that you lack the most (either from your perspective or from feedback from others) and start there. Then the second, then the third, and so on. At first you’ll have to put in extra time for every piece of feedback that you give, but after a while, it’ll become second nature, and your impact on the work will multiply.

Thanks to Brie Anne Demkiw and Mike Shelton for reviewing the first draft of this article.

“Any comment?” is probably one of the worst ways to ask for feedback. It’s vague and open ended, and it doesn’t provide any indication of what we’re looking for. Getting good feedback starts earlier than we might expect: it starts with the request. 

It might seem counterintuitive to start the process of receiving feedback with a question, but that makes sense if we realize that getting feedback can be thought of as a form of design research. In the same way that we wouldn’t do any research without the right questions to get the insights that we need, the best way to ask for feedback is also to craft sharp questions.

Design critique is not a one-shot process. Sure, any good feedback workflow continues until the project is finished, but this is particularly true for design because design work continues iteration after iteration, from a high level to the finest details. Each level needs its own set of questions.

And finally, as with any good research, we need to review what we got back, get to the core of its insights, and take action. Question, iteration, and review. Let’s look at each of those.

The question

Being open to feedback is essential, but we need to be precise about what we’re looking for. Just saying “Any comment?”, “What do you think?”, or “I’d love to get your opinion” at the end of a presentation—whether it’s in person, over video, or through a written post—is likely to get a number of varied opinions or, even worse, get everyone to follow the direction of the first person who speaks up. And then... we get frustrated because vague questions like those can turn a high-level flows review into people instead commenting on the borders of buttons. Which might be a hearty topic, so it might be hard at that point to redirect the team to the subject that you had wanted to focus on.

But how do we get into this situation? It’s a mix of factors. One is that we don’t usually consider asking as a part of the feedback process. Another is how natural it is to just leave the question implied, expecting the others to be on the same page. Another is that in nonprofessional discussions, there’s often no need to be that precise. In short, we tend to underestimate the importance of the questions, so we don’t work on improving them.

The act of asking good questions guides and focuses the critique. It’s also a form of consent: it makes it clear that you’re open to comments and what kind of comments you’d like to get. It puts people in the right mental state, especially in situations when they weren’t expecting to give feedback.

There isn’t a single best way to ask for feedback. It just needs to be specific, and specificity can take many shapes. A model for design critique that I’ve found particularly useful in my coaching is the one of stage versus depth.

“Stage” refers to each of the steps of the process—in our case, the design process. In progressing from user research to the final design, the kind of feedback evolves. But within a single step, one might still review whether some assumptions are correct and whether there’s been a proper translation of the amassed feedback into updated designs as the project has evolved. A starting point for potential questions could derive from the layers of user experience. What do you want to know: Project objectives? User needs? Functionality? Content? Interaction design? Information architecture? UI design? Navigation design? Visual design? Branding?

Here’re a few example questions that are precise and to the point that refer to different layers:

• Functionality: Is automating account creation desirable?
• Interaction design: Take a look through the updated flow and let me know whether you see any steps or error states that I might’ve missed.
• Information architecture: We have two competing bits of information on this page. Is the structure effective in communicating them both?
• UI design: What are your thoughts on the error counter at the top of the page that makes sure that you see the next error, even if the error is out of the viewport? 
• Navigation design: From research, we identified these second-level navigation items, but once you’re on the page, the list feels too long and hard to navigate. Are there any suggestions to address this?
• Visual design: Are the sticky notifications in the bottom-right corner visible enough?

The other axis of specificity is about how deep you’d like to go on what’s being presented. For example, we might have introduced a new end-to-end flow, but there was a specific view that you found particularly challenging and you’d like a detailed review of that. This can be especially useful from one iteration to the next where it’s important to highlight the parts that have changed.

There are other things that we can consider when we want to achieve more specific—and more effective—questions.

A simple trick is to remove generic qualifiers from your questions like “good,” “well,” “nice,” “bad,” “okay,” and “cool.” For example, asking, “When the block opens and the buttons appear, is this interaction good?” might look specific, but you can spot the “good” qualifier, and convert it to an even better question: “When the block opens and the buttons appear, is it clear what the next action is?”

Sometimes we actually do want broad feedback. That’s rare, but it can happen. In that sense, you might still make it explicit that you’re looking for a wide range of opinions, whether at a high level or with details. Or maybe just say, “At first glance, what do you think?” so that it’s clear that what you’re asking is open ended but focused on someone’s impression after their first five seconds of looking at it.

Sometimes the project is particularly expansive, and some areas may have already been explored in detail. In these situations, it might be useful to explicitly say that some parts are already locked in and aren’t open to feedback. It’s not something that I’d recommend in general, but I’ve found it useful to avoid falling again into rabbit holes of the sort that might lead to further refinement but aren’t what’s most important right now.

Asking specific questions can completely change the quality of the feedback that you receive. People with less refined critique skills will now be able to offer more actionable feedback, and even expert designers will welcome the clarity and efficiency that comes from focusing only on what’s needed. It can save a lot of time and frustration.

The iteration

Design iterations are probably the most visible part of the design work, and they provide a natural checkpoint for feedback. Yet a lot of design tools with inline commenting tend to show changes as a single fluid stream in the same file, and those types of design tools make conversations disappear once they’re resolved, update shared UI components automatically, and compel designs to always show the latest version—unless these would-be helpful features were to be manually turned off. The implied goal that these design tools seem to have is to arrive at just one final copy with all discussions closed, probably because they inherited patterns from how written documents are collaboratively edited. That’s probably not the best way to approach design critiques, but even if I don’t want to be too prescriptive here: that could work for some teams.

The asynchronous design-critique approach that I find most effective is to create explicit checkpoints for discussion. I’m going to use the term iteration post for this. It refers to a write-up or presentation of the design iteration followed by a discussion thread of some kind. Any platform that can accommodate this structure can use this. By the way, when I refer to a “write-up or presentation,” I’m including video recordings or other media too: as long as it’s asynchronous, it works.

Using iteration posts has many advantages:

• It creates a rhythm in the design work so that the designer can review feedback from each iteration and prepare for the next.
• It makes decisions visible for future review, and conversations are likewise always available.
• It creates a record of how the design changed over time.
• Depending on the tool, it might also make it easier to collect feedback and act on it.

These posts of course don’t mean that no other feedback approach should be used, just that iteration posts could be the primary rhythm for a remote design team to use. And other feedback approaches (such as live critique, pair designing, or inline comments) can build from there.

I don’t think there’s a standard format for iteration posts. But there are a few high-level elements that make sense to include as a baseline:

1. The goal
2. The design
3. The list of changes
4. The questions

Each project is likely to have a goal, and hopefully it’s something that’s already been summarized in a single sentence somewhere else, such as the client brief, the product manager’s outline, or the project owner’s request. So this is something that I’d repeat in every iteration post—literally copy and pasting it. The idea is to provide context and to repeat what’s essential to make each iteration post complete so that there’s no need to find information spread across multiple posts. If I want to know about the latest design, the latest iteration post will have all that I need.

This copy-and-paste part introduces another relevant concept: alignment comes from repetition. So having posts that repeat information is actually very effective toward making sure that everyone is on the same page.

The design is then the actual series of information-architecture outlines, diagrams, flows, maps, wireframes, screens, visuals, and any other kind of design work that’s been done. In short, it’s any design artifact. For the final stages of work, I prefer the term blueprint to emphasize that I’ll be showing full flows instead of individual screens to make it easier to understand the bigger picture. 

It can also be useful to label the artifacts with clear titles because that can make it easier to refer to them. Write the post in a way that helps people understand the work. It’s not too different from organizing a good live presentation. 

For an efficient discussion, you should also include a bullet list of the changes from the previous iteration to let people focus on what’s new, which can be especially useful for larger pieces of work where keeping track, iteration after iteration, could become a challenge.

And finally, as noted earlier, it’s essential that you include a list of the questions to drive the design critique in the direction you want. Doing this as a numbered list can also help make it easier to refer to each question by its number.

Not all iterations are the same. Earlier iterations don’t need to be as tightly focused—they can be more exploratory and experimental, maybe even breaking some of the design-language guidelines to see what’s possible. Then later, the iterations start settling on a solution and refining it until the design process reaches its end and the feature ships.

I want to highlight that even if these iteration posts are written and conceived as checkpoints, by no means do they need to be exhaustive. A post might be a draft—just a concept to get a conversation going—or it could be a cumulative list of each feature that was added over the course of each iteration until the full picture is done.

Over time, I also started using specific labels for incremental iterations: i1, i2, i3, and so on. This might look like a minor labelling tip, but it can help in multiple ways:

• Unique—It’s a clear unique marker. Within each project, one can easily say, “This was discussed in i4,” and everyone knows where they can go to review things.
• Unassuming—It works like versions (such as v1, v2, and v3) but in contrast, versions create the impression of something that’s big, exhaustive, and complete. Iterations must be able to be exploratory, incomplete, partial.
• Future proof—It resolves the “final” naming problem that you can run into with versions. No more files named “final final complete no-really-its-done.” Within each project, the largest number always represents the latest iteration.

To mark when a design is complete enough to be worked on, even if there might be some bits still in need of attention and in turn more iterations needed, the wording release candidate (RC) could be used to describe it: “with i8, we reached RC” or “i12 is an RC.”

The review

What usually happens during a design critique is an open discussion, with a back and forth between people that can be very productive. This approach is particularly effective during live, synchronous feedback. But when we work asynchronously, it’s more effective to use a different approach: we can shift to a user-research mindset. Written feedback from teammates, stakeholders, or others can be treated as if it were the result of user interviews and surveys, and we can analyze it accordingly.

This shift has some major benefits that make asynchronous feedback particularly effective, especially around these friction points:

1. It removes the pressure to reply to everyone.
2. It reduces the frustration from swoop-by comments.
3. It lessens our personal stake.

The first friction point is feeling a pressure to reply to every single comment. Sometimes we write the iteration post, and we get replies from our team. It’s just a few of them, it’s easy, and it doesn’t feel like a problem. But other times, some solutions might require more in-depth discussions, and the amount of replies can quickly increase, which can create a tension between trying to be a good team player by replying to everyone and doing the next design iteration. This might be especially true if the person who’s replying is a stakeholder or someone directly involved in the project who we feel that we need to listen to. We need to accept that this pressure is absolutely normal, and it’s human nature to try to accommodate people who we care about. Sometimes replying to all comments can be effective, but if we treat a design critique more like user research, we realize that we don’t have to reply to every comment, and in asynchronous spaces, there are alternatives:

• One is to let the next iteration speak for itself. When the design evolves and we post a follow-up iteration, that’s the reply. You might tag all the people who were involved in the previous discussion, but even that’s a choice, not a requirement. 
• Another is to briefly reply to acknowledge each comment, such as “Understood. Thank you,” “Good points—I’ll review,” or “Thanks. I’ll include these in the next iteration.” In some cases, this could also be just a single top-level comment along the lines of “Thanks for all the feedback everyone—the next iteration is coming soon!”
• Another is to provide a quick summary of the comments before moving on. Depending on your workflow, this can be particularly useful as it can provide a simplified checklist that you can then use for the next iteration.

The second friction point is the swoop-by comment, which is the kind of feedback that comes from someone outside the project or team who might not be aware of the context, restrictions, decisions, or requirements—or of the previous iterations’ discussions. On their side, there’s something that one can hope that they might learn: they could start to acknowledge that they’re doing this and they could be more conscious in outlining where they’re coming from. Swoop-by comments often trigger the simple thought “We’ve already discussed this…”, and it can be frustrating to have to repeat the same reply over and over.

Let’s begin by acknowledging again that there’s no need to reply to every comment. If, however, replying to a previously litigated point might be useful, a short reply with a link to the previous discussion for extra details is usually enough. Remember, alignment comes from repetition, so it’s okay to repeat things sometimes!

Swoop-by commenting can still be useful for two reasons: they might point out something that still isn’t clear, and they also have the potential to stand in for the point of view of a user who’s seeing the design for the first time. Sure, you’ll still be frustrated, but that might at least help in dealing with it.

The third friction point is the personal stake we could have with the design, which could make us feel defensive if the review were to feel more like a discussion. Treating feedback as user research helps us create a healthy distance between the people giving us feedback and our ego (because yes, even if we don’t want to admit it, it’s there). And ultimately, treating everything in aggregated form allows us to better prioritize our work.

Always remember that while you need to listen to stakeholders, project owners, and specific advice, you don’t have to accept every piece of feedback. You have to analyze it and make a decision that you can justify, but sometimes “no” is the right answer. 

As the designer leading the project, you’re in charge of that decision. Ultimately, everyone has their specialty, and as the designer, you’re the one who has the most knowledge and the most context to make the right decision. And by listening to the feedback that you’ve received, you’re making sure that it’s also the best and most balanced decision.

Thanks to Brie Anne Demkiw and Mike Shelton for reviewing the first draft of this article.

Demand to appoint trained technician for the job; standardised operation of the whole signal network for the urban area sought

National Bureau of Economic Research

IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

IEEE / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Incorporated

In Mumbai to launch The Diwali Edit, Christian Louboutin, the inimitable shoe designer talks about getting the French Olympic artistic swimming team to perform underwater in spiky stilettos

Actor Madirakshi Mundle on playing Sita in “Siya Ke Ram”

Before this, David and his wife Candice were seen grooving to recent Telugu hit track Butta Bomma from Allu Arjun starrer Ala Vaikuntapuramlo.

David Warner, dressed in his SRH kit with a bat in hand, delivered the dialogue with much gusto and asked his fans to guess the movie.

There exists an unauthenticated SEH based vulnerability in the HTTP server of Sync Breeze Enterprise version 10.1.16, when sending a GET request with an excessive length it is possible for a malicious user to overwrite the SEH record and execute a payload that would run under the Windows NT AUTHORITYSYSTEM account. The SEH record is overwritten with a "POP,POP,RET" pointer from the application library libspp.dll. This exploit has been successfully tested on Windows XP, 7 and 10 (x86->x64). It should work against all versions of Windows and service packs.

Compared to using promises directly, not only can async and await make code more readable for developers — they enable some interesting optimizations in JavaScript engines, too! This write-up is about one such optimization involving stack traces for asynchronous code.

Mineral inclusions in natural diamond are widely studied for the insight that they provide into the geochemistry and dynamics of the Earth's interior. A major challenge in achieving thorough yet high rates of analysis of mineral inclusions in diamond derives from the micrometre-scale of most inclusions, often requiring synchrotron radiation sources for diffraction. Centering microinclusions for diffraction with a highly focused synchrotron beam cannot be achieved optically because of the very high index of refraction of diamond. A fast, high-throughput method for identification of micromineral inclusions in diamond has been developed at the GeoSoilEnviro Center for Advanced Radiation Sources (GSECARS), Advanced Photon Source, Argonne National Laboratory, USA. Diamonds and their inclusions are imaged using synchrotron 3D computed X-ray microtomography on beamline 13-BM-D of GSECARS. The location of every inclusion is then pinpointed onto the coordinate system of the six-circle goniometer of the single-crystal diffractometer on beamline 13-BM-C. Because the bending magnet branch 13-BM is divided and delivered into 13-BM-C and 13-BM-D stations simultaneously, numerous diamonds can be examined during coordinated runs. The fast, high-throughput capability of the methodology is demonstrated by collecting 3D diffraction data on 53 diamond inclusions from Juína, Brazil, within a total of about 72 h of beam time.

A simple approach exploits quantum properties to justify the dependence on γ4 of the total synchrotron emitted power. It also clarifies some apparent puzzles and brings to light the underlying, multiple relativistic phenomena.

An analysis of the coherence properties of the fourth-generation high-energy storage rings with emittance values of 10 pm rad is performed. It is presently expected that a storage ring with these low emittance values will reach diffraction limit at hard X-rays. Simulations of coherence properties were performed with the XRT software and an analytical approach for different photon energies from 500 eV to 50 keV. It was demonstrated that a minimum photon emittance (diffraction limit) reached at such storage rings is λ/2π. Using mode decomposition it is shown that, for the parameters of the storage ring considered in this work, the diffraction limit will be reached for soft X-ray energies of 500 eV. About ten modes will contribute to the radiation field at 12 keV photon energy and even more modes give a contribution at higher photon energies. Energy spread effects of the electron beam in a low-emittance storage ring were analysed in detail. Simulations were performed at different relative energy spread values from zero to 2 × 10−3. A decrease of the degree of coherence with an increase of the relative energy spread value was observed. This analysis shows that, to reach the diffraction limit for high photon energies, electron beam emittance should go down to 1 pm rad and below.

Small-animal physiology studies are typically complicated, but the level of complexity is greatly increased when performing live-animal X-ray imaging studies at synchrotron and compact light sources. This group has extensive experience in these types of studies at the SPring-8 and Australian synchrotrons, as well as the Munich Compact Light Source. These experimental settings produce unique challenges. Experiments are always performed in an isolated radiation enclosure not specifically designed for live-animal imaging. This requires equipment adapted to physiological monitoring and test-substance delivery, as well as shuttering to reduce the radiation dose. Experiment designs must also take into account the fixed location, size and orientation of the X-ray beam. This article describes the techniques developed to overcome the challenges involved in respiratory X-ray imaging of live animals at synchrotrons, now enabling increasingly sophisticated imaging protocols.

Serial synchrotron crystallography (SSX) is an emerging technique for static and time-resolved protein structure determination. Using specifically patterned silicon chips for sample delivery, the `hit-and-return' (HARE) protocol allows for efficient time-resolved data collection. The specific pattern of the crystal wells in the HARE chip provides direct access to many discrete time points. HARE chips allow for optical excitation as well as on-chip mixing for reaction initiation, making a large number of protein systems amenable to time-resolved studies. Loading of protein microcrystals onto the HARE chip is streamlined by a novel vacuum loading platform that allows fine-tuning of suction strength while maintaining a humid environment to prevent crystal dehydration. To enable the widespread use of time-resolved serial synchrotron crystallography (TR-SSX), detailed technical descriptions of a set of accessories that facilitate TR-SSX workflows are provided.

True and magnetic north to synch at Greenwich for first time in 360 years  New Atlas

The crystal structure of title salt, C22H46N42+·2NO3−·2H2O, has been determined using synchrotron radiation at 220 K. The structure determination reveals that protonation has occurred at diagonally opposite amine N atoms. The asymmetric unit contains half a centrosymmetric dication, one nitrate anion and one water mol­ecule. The mol­ecular dication, C22H46N42+, together with the nitrate anion and hydrate water mol­ecule are involved in an extensive range of hydrogen bonds. The mol­ecule is stabilized, as is the conformation of the dication, by forming inter­molecular N—H⋯O, O—H⋯O, together with intra­molecular N—H⋯N hydrogen bonds.

The crystal structure of title salt, C14H36N44+·2ClO4−·2Cl−, has been determined using synchrotron radiation at 220 K. The structure determination reveals that protonation has occurred at all four amine N atoms. The asymmetric unit contains one half-cation (completed by crystallographic inversion symmetry), one perchlorate anion and one chloride anion. A distortion of the perchlorate anion is due to its involvement in hydrogen-bonding inter­actions with the cations. The crystal structure is consolidated by inter­molecular hydrogen bonds involving the 1,4,8,11-tetra­methyl-1,4,8,11-tetra­azonia­cyclo­tetra­decane N—H and C—H groups as donor groups, and the O atoms of the perchlorate and chloride anion as acceptor groups, giving rise to a three-dimensional network.

The crystal structure of title compound, (C14H36N4)[CrO3Cl]2Cl2, has been determined by synchrotron radiation X-ray crystallography at 220 K. The macrocyclic cation lies across a crystallographic inversion center and hence the asymmetric unit contains one half of the organic cation, one chloro­chromate anion and one chloride anion. Both the Cl− anion and chloro­chromate Cl atom are involved in hydrogen bonding. In the crystal, hydrogen bonds involving the 1,4,8,11-tetra­methyl-1,4,8,11-tetra­azonia­cyclo­tetra­decane (TMC) N—H groups and C—H groups as donor groups and three O atoms of the chloro­chromate and the chloride anion as acceptor groups link the components, giving rise to a three-dimensional network.

The crystal structure of MgCO3-II has long been discussed in the literature where DFT-based model calculations predict a pressure-induced transition of the carbon atom from the sp2 to the sp3 type of bonding. We have now determined the crystal structure of iron-bearing MgCO3-II based on single-crystal X-ray diffraction measurements using synchrotron radiation. We laser-heated a synthetic (Mg0.85Fe0.15)CO3 single crystal at 2500 K and 98 GPa and observed the formation of a monoclinic phase with composition (Mg2.53Fe0.47)C3O9 in the space group C2/m that contains tetra­hedrally coordinated carbon, where CO44− tetra­hedra are linked by corner-sharing oxygen atoms to form three-membered C3O96− ring anions. The crystal structure of (Mg0.85Fe0.15)CO3 (magnesium iron carbonate) at 98 GPa and 300 K is reported here as well. In comparison with previous structure-prediction calculations and powder X-ray diffraction data, our structural data provide reliable information from experiments regarding atomic positions, bond lengths, and bond angles.

Serial crystallography has enabled the study of complex biological questions through the determination of biomolecular structures at room temperature using low X-ray doses. Furthermore, it has enabled the study of protein dynamics by the capture of atomically resolved and time-resolved molecular movies. However, the study of many biologically relevant targets is still severely hindered by high sample consumption and lengthy data-collection times. By combining serial synchrotron crystallography (SSX) with 3D printing, a new experimental platform has been created that tackles these challenges. An affordable 3D-printed, X-ray-compatible microfluidic device (3D-MiXD) is reported that allows data to be collected from protein microcrystals in a 3D flow with very high hit and indexing rates, while keeping the sample consumption low. The miniaturized 3D-MiXD can be rapidly installed into virtually any synchrotron beamline with only minimal adjustments. This efficient collection scheme in combination with its mixing geometry paves the way for recording molecular movies at synchrotrons by mixing-triggered millisecond time-resolved SSX.