monotremata

joined 2 years ago
[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

Mitchell and Webb have a bit about this. Mitchell's character gets annoyed that Webb's character keeps talking about how "we beat you in the playoffs." He eventually asks "Hey, do you remember that time WE defeated the nazis and recovered the Ark of the Covenant? That's right, you see, I enjoyed watching the film Raiders of the Lost Ark, and so now I have decided that I was in it, and deserve credit for participation in the events of the story."

(Not exact quotes, I'm paraphrasing from memory)

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago

"I've got" seems particularly strange to me because without the contraction Americans would still just say "I have." (There are some circumstances where they'll say "I have got" without a contraction, but it's mainly when they're drawing a contrast with what they "haven't got." E.g., "No, I don't have a baseball... oh, but I have got a lacrosse ball, will that work?")

I think the rule is probably closer to "you don't contract a stressed verb," but that's not terribly useful since there are so few rules about stress patterns. Verbs at the end of sentences are typically stressed, though, so you're right that ending with that kind of contraction is going to sound wrong to most people.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think it might be more common in British English? Like "I've a fiver says he muffs the kick." Or "I've half a mind to go down there myself." (Curiously in American English this latter would probably still have the contraction but add a second auxiliary verb: "I've got half a mind to..." English is such a mess.)

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The cutoff between GenX and Millennial is usually given as 1980, which means there are some 46-year-old GenXers. Sometimes 1978-1982 is described as a "microgeneration" called "Xennials," so if you're making that distinction, you'd still have 49-year-old Xers from 1977.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 weeks ago

I think "ct" on this receipt is short for "count" rather than "cent."

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah. At least I managed to pick up a used 3070 a couple years ago. I'll just jolly along my old i7-7700k system for a few more years...

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

GPUs at least are actually not that expensive right now. Aside from the 5090, they're mostly close to MSRP, which is a pretty novel situation. I was waiting to upgrade my whole system for that, though, because my CPU would be a bottleneck at this point, and that's not really an option now because of the crazy RAM prices. The past few years have been super frustrating for PC builders.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean, it is also that OpenAI cornered the RAM market, which is a typical price gouging scenario; it's just weird that OpenAI wasn't trying to make money directly through the maneuver. It does seem like they wanted prices to rise, though, to increase the barrier to competition.

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 weeks ago

Huh, I was misinformed about that. Thanks!

[–] monotremata@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Do we know it plays a role? I thought we basically just knew it was an associated biomarker. I kinda thought the research was leaning towards the underlying problem being some kind of issue that kept glial cells from clearing debris effectively, and that the amyloid plaques were mostly another consequence of that same cause, rather than a key mechanism in the chain that led to the dementia.

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

Note that it's not an RPG, though.

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

Yeah, my current (aging) motherboard also has gotchas like that you have to choose in the bios where to allocate PCIe lanes, so you end up not being able to use some of the SATA drive connections if you want to use both M.2 slots. And there's the thing about putting the RAM sticks in the right slots to run in dual channel mode. And the switches and LED connectors for the case are all just random 2mm header pins in a clump, so you have to look up how the cables are supposed to tetris in there.

I'm not saying it's challenging; it really is pretty straightforward. But it's definitely not just "that's right! it goes in the square hole!" level stuff.

74
Moire/Vernier Radius Gauge (www.printables.com)
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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 ›