…or a tool that will tell you what you can’t print or materials you’re not allowed to use

… and then tell you that you can’t make it print better on your own … or faster on your own… but sell you a subscription to do the same thing.

and a tool you don’t have to throw away when the evil minions who made it tell you that you have to.

devils.

In any problem, every solution that works is a solution, but not every solution is of equal value. In math we use the word "Elegant : Characterised by minimalism and intuitiveness while preserving exactness and precision. " To describe solutions that work well, are concise, and don’t add pain.

Jigsaw puzzle analogy: If you have a puzzle with one piece missing, there are at least a hundred things you can use that will fill that space … sawdust, sand, play-doh, cement, but the most elegant solution, is the puzzle piece made to go there.

With tech, its just more complex- we don’t create solutions in a vacuum ( a world by themselves ), they have to exist and mesh with a preexisting world. We call those limits constraints. And the problem with tech is that often the people who create the technology ignore (don’t care much about) the constraints.

Inventor: Can we do xyz with cameras? Society: And not let them be used for evil? Inventor: Not my problem.

Its easy to solve problems: the cat is sick. kill the cat. people: No that’s awful. inventor: but it did solve the cat problem.

Solving problems in a way that meshes well with the world is not easy. And our inventors are at the moment, shortsighted and greedy.

The link was to the engineering diagrams for their hardware. Literally open.

This would be Microsoft selling ‘Teams’ and including a dvd with the source.

Just adding. This and all the bad things that will happen if they get the green light, is not how this is done or should be done.

‘But all the waste and ineficciency!’ Hog wash.

From the system that is working? and serves thousands of people what they needed every day of every year.

They have to say it’s horribly broken. Its a lie, but they have to justify why.

There are standards, procurement contracts, entire agency’s to make sure — Make sure what?

March 28, 2025 - Make sure that what will happen, doesn’t.

coda: The trick this cabal is using is simple - take a thing most folk don’t understand. Say it’s broken. Open it. Rob it. Say its fixed. Collect profits and praise, leave town.

I think there’s some semantic confusion with that article. That’s not what I see. There are literally kits for sale on the Prusa Site to convert your old prusa into a new Core. imho, What the ‘RepRap Open Source folks’ mean is literally every part is sourced from already available parts or can be printed. And I think this is where the article is going. The other Open Source -is Open Ecosystem. Where there may be proprietary pieces (the steel cage), but nothing about it is purposefully closed. Prusa published the full electronic and hardware schematics before the machine was shipping. https://www.prusa3d.com/page/open-source-at-prusa-research_236812/ This is also ‘Open’. Both are good. Both have valid rationale. But neither is anything like closed source, closed box, only we can touch it companies models.

well put

• this is what going mainstream looks like. Greedy people see profit and they get in.
• greedy people are often sneaky, and they work to take all the can from open and close it in : Apple, Later Redhat
• there are tons of Open Open printers out there
• Open has a problem - it’s hard to maintain ignorance and get the benefit. It requires work - you can’t just easily trade dollars for someone else’s labor. You have to learn and put things together to really enjoy.
• What can you do?

  • This is hard, almost impossible: Don’t do business with people you suspect or know are cruddy. Even if they say they have what you want.

  • Learn how to build the printer you want. Hire a good person to learn and do it for you.

  • Buy a printer from a company that pledges to do right. Even if it costs more.

Yes, I must have misclicked. Apologies. Thank you.

My apologies guys - not a bot, near as I know. And yes, I swear I clicked the “Cybertruck sales slump” Thread. My mistake. I will leave this here as a record of my shame.

More Cybertrucks sold than all other EV trucks combined. Not a Tesla fan. Also not a fan of FUD. https://www.theverge.com/2024/9/18/24247985/tesla-cybertruck-july-2024-sales-deliveries-match-all-ev-trucks

just for history - at this time the core one hasn’t been released. they’ve just shown demos at shows.

The left hand giveth, and the right hand taketh away.

My next printer is a Prusa One. Because Prusa. I’ve watched all the videos on ‘why Bamboo’, and the bias in all of them is people who are running or want to run a business/farm. While that’s a good selection for people who actually use the machines, what is different is how they process costs and inconvenience - because its a business, they can pass costs down to their customers, they can just as a couple reviewers said, “just buy another printer and keep moving”.

This is not my use case. I’m looking for a tool for my house/life. It’s more like buying a pedestal table saw, or a complete set of cordless tools, a lawn tractor or a small pickup truck. I’m the end customer. I can’t ‘pass on maintenance costs’. I want a well-made tool that I can happily use for a long long time.

Between the products is not a heck of a lot of difference, they both ooze plastic. Between the two business philosophies, miles and miles. And I can’t say I don’t want to live in a world filled with bad business philosophies, and then give those same people my business, because they have a cheaper sticker.

I don’t buy devices that aren’t mine anymore. And it while it often initially costs more, over life, will cost me less - in money, in time, in aggravation.

Just clearing up the argument.

1. The files will be scanned
2. They’ve been doing for decades

There’s a difference here in principle. Exemplified by the answer to this question: “Do you expect that things you store somewhere are kept private?” Where, Private means: “No one looks at your things.” Where, No One means: not a single person or machine.

This is the core argument. In the world, things stored somewhere are often still considered private. (Safe Deposit box). People take this expectation into the cloud. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Box, Dropbox etc - only made their scanning known publicly _after they were called out. They allowed their customers to _assume their files were private.

Second issue: Does just a simple machine looking at your files count as unprivate? And what if we Pinky Promise to make the machine not really really look at your files, and only like squinty eyed. For many, yes this also counts as unprivate. Its the process that is problematic. There is a difference between living in a free society, and one in which citizens have to produce papers when asked. A substantial difference. Having files unexamined and having them examined by an ‘innocuous’ machine, are substantial differences. The difference _is privacy. On one, you have a right to privacy. In the other you don’t.

an aside…

In our small village, a team sweeps every house during the day while people are out at work. In the afternoon you are informed that team found illegal paraphernalia in your house. You know you had none. What defense do you have?

I just read up, and I didn’t know this is not so much about stopping new images, but restitution for continued damages.

The plaintiffs are “victims of the Misty Series and Jessica of the Jessica Series” ( be careful with your googling) https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914e81dadd7b0493491c7d7

Correct me please, The plaintiffs logic is : “The existence of these files is damaging to us. Anyone found ever in possession of one of these files is required by law to pay damages. Any company who stores files for others, must search every file for one these 100 files, and report that files owner to the court”

I thought it was more about protecting the innocent, and future innocent, and it seems more about compensating the hurt.

Am I missing something?

thanks

Why use the term ‘conveyor belt’? No conveyor. No belts. Automated cargo containers.

What proof? Facts?

In my language this statement :

The anti-science crowd wins again

Says that science (good) is being defeated by the anti-science crowd (bad). From there it follows, if people are against this product of science, then they are against science.

Therefore, all science must be good. And all people against ANY product of science are therefore ‘anti-science’