monotremata

joined 2 years ago
[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

I'd much rather just have an artichoke with a lemon and garlic and melted butter dip. Or a Lion's Mane mushroom, cut into slices and pan-fried in butter and salt, then topped with lemon juice. Or, for that matter, a Dutch Baby pancake. All of these strike me as being in the same overall flavor family as lobster, but I find them tastier, and they also avoid the cracking process, which I find messy and unpleasant.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Does it support adoptable storage for its SD card?

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

I think you've read a lot into that person's comment that wasn't actually in the comment. What they said wasn't that the government should spend with abandon; they said it shouldn't be arbitrarily limited. And insisting on zero deficit spending at all times is indeed arbitrary.

If, for instance, they issue bonds in order to pay for better public education, that has a significant positive effect on the growth of the local economy a few years in the future, which they can reasonably expect to result in increased tax revenue at that time, and indeed a larger increase than what they're spending in the present. Borrowing money to spend in this way isn't fiscally irresponsible; quite the opposite. It pays for itself over a slightly longer time horizon and improves the city.

There are often similar effects with programs to support low-income residents, because support to these residents has a higher "velocity" than aid for higher-income residents. Infrastructure spending is also frequently justifiable.

Conversely, giving tax cuts to AI datacenters doesn't become responsible stewardship if you offset the cost by increasing payroll taxes.

Budgeting for a government is really complicated, and oversimplifying that, whether it's by saying "we need zero deficit!" or by saying "we have infinite money!" is gonna lead to bad decisions. But "we have infinite money" being false doesn't make "we need zero deficit" true. Both are oversimplifications, and the right has been using the latter as a propaganda bludgeon for at least 40 years now.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's because in the US pixel phones are one of the only ways to get a phone with an unlocked bootloader. Or, in other words, to actually own a phone.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Also do it when nobody else is around.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

Yeah, I certainly wasn't saying these would be hard to get. And yeah, a lot of cheap laser pointers are also dangerous. What I'm saying is basically, "Hey, this is potentially dangerous, read up on this before you reach for your credit card."

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

For me the best tech purchases aren't really the ones that bring me joy. They're the ones that become invisible because they take away points of friction.

So I would say my Brother printer is one. It's been incredibly reliable for more than a decade now.

Switching over to Ubiquiti Unifi access points for wifi has been worth it too. It's a pain to run wires for them, but having a solid signal everywhere in the house in all kinds of weather is just amazing. They've been running for a decade too, though I did just replace one so I can have a 6GHz connection in one room. Not really sure that particular upgrade was actually worth it, but the system as a whole has been so nice. There's just never anything to fix about the wifi anymore. (Well, okay, occasionally there's something to fix with the Internet, but it's usually just "Comcast is down," and we have to wait until they fix it, and sometimes also reboot the modem. The wifi itself is pretty bulletproof.)

So yeah. Tech that works reliably and invisibly for years on end is what I find really valuable. Gadgets can certainly be fun, but great tech is just there in the background making things easier.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

I think they may have fixed the app switcher thing? Or at least one of them.

Here's the scenario I kept running into on my 6. I'll give the apps names to simplify the description, but the problem was generic. So let's say I'm in Firefox, and I want to glance back at something in signal. So I double-tap "recent" to switch to my previous app, but what comes up is instead WeatherBug, because I forgot I glanced at that between Signal and Firefox. So I still want to go to Signal, but when I get there, I want my previous app to be Firefox, not WeatherBug, so I double-tap recent again to get back to Firefox as an interim step. Then I hit recent yet again, and this time the whole screen freezes up and won't respond to touch. The workaround I found was that if you interacted with the screen on WeatherBug--usually I'd just scroll it down and back up a tiny bit--it wouldn't lock up. So I got in the habit of doing that.

Recently there's been a change, though, and it seems to fix that bug. Unfortunately, it also screws up the "switch to last app" functionality sometimes. Now I'll be in Firefox, open recent apps, scroll past Weatherbug to open Signal, and when I double-tap recent, it'll switch to WeatherBug.

So it's still a screwy mess, but at least it's not locking up as often anymore.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 50 points 1 week ago (3 children)

A laser pointer is supposed to be limited to a maximum of 5mW, so these are really freaking powerful (200 times stronger). I don't have experience with lasers that strong, because I value my eyesight, and that of my pets. Please learn more about lasers than I know before purchasing something like this.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago

The photo in the OP would beg to differ.

74
Moire/Vernier Radius Gauge (www.printables.com)
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by monotremata@lemmy.ca to c/3dprinting@lemmy.world
 

I previously posted this on Reddit, since it reaches more people there (and I didn't want to post everywhere at once, as it makes it harder to keep up with the comments). Sorry about that.

This is a tool for measuring the radius of a circle or fillet from the outside; it uses a moire pattern of slots and lines to enable a direct reading of the values from a vernier scale.

A video of a broken-open version makes it a little easier to see how the moire and vernier features operate: https://i.imgur.com/Ku2nBkq.mp4

More photos of a slightly earlier version are here, including the tool being used for actual readings: https://imgur.com/gallery/moire-vernier-radius-gauge-design-3d-printing-ajy0GBg

I was inspired by this post: https://makerworld.com/en/models/1505553-adjustable-chamfer-gauge#profileId-1575605

which is a gauge which measures chamfers using a sliding probe. The same user had also posted a radius gauge, which worked similarly, but it was much larger, using gears and two racks in it to amplify the motion, which I didn't initially understand. I asked about it, and he pointed out that, because of the geometry of the probing, the slider only moves a small proportion of the length of the actual radius being measured--about (sqrt(2)-1), or 0.414mm per mm of radius. Since we're drawing the marks with a 0.4mm nozzle, it's not really possible to make marks that close together and still have them readable.

So I thought, I bet you could fix that with a vernier scale. And then I had several thoughts all at once--that a lot of people are kind of scared off by vernier scales, and also that I bet you could fix that with 3d printing using the relationship between moire patterns and vernier scales. I don't think I've seen this done before, but it probably wasn't really practical before 3d printing. Arguably it's not entirely practical now, as the deep slots and parallax effects can make it a little hard to actually see the markings. But it was a fun experiment, and I think the result is eye-catching enough that it's probably got some educational value in getting people to actually think about how it is that vernier scales work. (It might even have educational value for things like number theory...e.g., it's important that the vernier factor involve relatively prime numbers, in this case 9 and 10. Can you see why?)

Anyway, hope folks here find it interesting too.

 

Bear with me for a moment, because I'm not sure how to describe this problem without just describing a part I'm trying to print.

I was designing a part today, and it's basically a box; for various reasons I wanted to print it with all the sides flat on the print bed, but have bridges between the sides and the bottom to act as living hinges so it would be easy to fold into shape after it came off the bed. But when I got it into PrusaSlicer, by default, Prusa slices all bridges in a single uniform direction--which on this print meant that two of the bridges were across the shortest distance, and the other two were parallel to the gap they were supposed to span. Which, y'know, is obviously not a good way to try to bridge the gap.

I was able to manually adjust the bridge direction to fix this, but I'm kinda surprised that the slicer doesn't automatically choose paths for bridging gaps to try to make them as printable as possible. I don't remember having this issue in the past, but I haven't designed with bridges in quite a while--it's possible that I've just never noticed before, or it could be that a previous slicer (I used to use Cura) or previous version of PrusaSlicer did this differently.

Is there a term for this? Are there slicers that do a better job of it? Is there an open feature request about this?

Basically just wondering if anyone has insight into this, or any suggestions for reading on the subject.

Thanks!

view more: next ›