Learners Live

Did you Know?
Menu

You Know Robots But What About Cobots? by David Shiller

William Attardi on June 24, 2026

Collaborative robots, or cobots, are moving from factory novelty to practical production tools, and the lighting industry is well positioned to benefit from that shift. For lighting manufacturers, the biggest implication is not replacement of people, but a rebalancing of labor: cobots can take on repetitive, precise, or ergonomically difficult tasks while skilled workers focus on assembly, testing, engineering support, quality control, and process improvements. Lighting manufacturing has several operations that match cobot strengths: bin picking, screwdriving, machine tending, packaging, label application, inspection support, and repetitive subassembly work. Cobots are designed to work safely alongside people in shared spaces, which makes them attractive for plants that cannot justify a full fenced robot cell or that need to keep production layouts flexible. Their easier programming and faster deployment also matter for lighting companies that run many product variants and short production cycles. More information is available hereand here. You Know Robots But What About Cobots? | LightNOW

Manufacturing PMI® at 52.7% – March 2026 ISM® Manufacturing PMI® Report

William Attardi on April 3, 2026

US manufacturing activity expanded for a third consecutive month in March, with the Institute for Supply Management’s manufacturing PMI measuring 52.7, up slightly from 52.4 in February. New orders dropped from 55.8 to 53.5, while production rose 1.6 points to 55.1. Supplier deliveries increased 3.8 points to 58.9, and employment contracted 0.1 points to 48.7. Institute for Supply Management

The Creator of Baby Ruth Actually Sued Babe Ruth –The Baby Ruth candy bar was created by the Curtiss Candy Company in 1920 — the same year that baseball legend Babe Ruth hit a then-record 54 home runs. But the Great Bambino was irked that the company was selling a candy bar with such a similar name to his own without offering him any royalties. Rather than take the Curtiss Candy Company to court, the Sultan of Swat decided to make his own candy bar, and in 1926 he debuted Ruth’s Home Run bar. The Curtiss Candy Company responded by turning the tables and taking Ruth to court. They accused the slugger of trying to steal their trademark and capitalize on the success of their brand. In a 1931 deposition, Curtiss founder Otto Schnering insisted the candy was named after “Baby Ruth” Cleveland — the daughter of President Grover Cleveland.  He also attested that the company came up with the name in 1919 before the baseball player had become a household name and that the name was merely coincidental. While the validity of those claims is disputed to this day, the court nonetheless ruled in favor of the candy company, forcing Ruth to end his foray into the world of candy.