Thanks!

Thank you. On the 1/8 table saw blade, your concern is that you prefer narrower, lighter blades?

Do you have any particular recommendations for identifying quality router bits?

For what it’s worth, it’s the same with Prusa. The only work I do on my printer is glue stick on the PEI sheet when printing otherwise-incompatible materials.

Well said. It’s just important that when recommending printer models to newcomers that we’re honest about time vs money and printer vs printing.

In practice, I haven’t found the print volume of my MK4 to be too limiting. Occasionally more X/Y would be nice, but plenty of parts that are too big for my printer would be too big for any printer and still need to be cut. The other issue is that even fast 3d printers are slow and I don’t really print things that take entire days. Even printing dactyl keyboard halves takes hours thanks to the need for supports, so I can’t imagine someone frequently doing really huge prints (particularly in height).

I had the same experience the one time I tried it. It seemed like it might be trying to do a “ramming” sequence like used on the XL, but it just jammed my extruder. I haven’t tried it again. If you have the time and motivation, it’d be great to submit a bug report to Prusa.

Interesting, it took me a while looking at your images to figure out why the original design didn’t work. The problem was that there was no solution that could avoid at least one extremely long bridge, and that bridge also forced the adjacent bridges to be “wrong” (though maybe if it printed the super long bridges first, it could’ve made the rest short).

I don’t have much to add besides being surprised the problem was more interesting than it first seemed…and I don’t accept that you were being an idiot because it want immediately obvious to me either. Or I am one too :)

What’s your goal? It’s hard to give a useful answer without understanding that.

especially if it were printed vertically, i.e. you would be pulling the final product into your extruder in such a way that it would be pulling against the layer lines.

I agree that vertically-printed filament would have poor tensile strength, but isn’t most of the load from the extruder going to be compression, shoving it from the extruded gear to the melt zone and nozzle? Other than during retractions, doesn’t the tensile stress just comes from pulling the filament off the spool?

What about printing it in two halves the each have a flat bottom? Since the optical quality doesn’t matter, the line down the middle of the lens won’t matter.

I think the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is much better, and allows for legitimate discourse on apartheid, genocide, et cetera. I actually learned about it on Lemmy!

https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo

That’s definitely the tension I see, but then I’d have expected vet techs to be strongly in favor of it since it’d be a career opportunity for them.

I guess one thing I’ll add is that people with those degrees who work for USDA (i.e. not retail veterinary care for pets) are strongly against 129, which also makes me think it’s not simply an economic motive.

Fortunately it looks like the federal courts don’t allow this any more: https://www.ussc.gov/about/news/press-releases/april-17-2024

But of course the state courts have their own separate rules.

This looks great! I’m super happy with my MK4, and have never had to do anything with it after the initial kit build and re-seating the LCD cable to fix some early screen-blanking issues.

I’ll probably skip this for my own printer since it seems like most (but not all) of the speed up comes from layer height, but $99 is not terrible for anyone who gets value from it. And anyone buying a new printer gets this stuff with no price increase, which is nice and makes the MK4/MK4S even easier to recommend.

I didn’t know how much more dimensionally accurate Prusa’s prints are compared to the competition, but it makes sense now why there are so many calibration models online if that just isn’t the way every printer works. I’ve designed some parts that need an 0.1mm first layer because I’ve never had any failures with that, but I guess if I share the STLs other people might have trouble.

Did you end up trying something?

I do think it’s important to be unassailable, because it’d be easy to say “the libs are making misleading claims” and then people not paying lots of attention will think there’s a “both sides” situation going on. I’m sure we all assumed it was literally on display as an exhibit; I was mislead. If you stick to transparent, honest language, the “both sides” stuff falls apart.

The MAGAs are unreachable, but the poorly-informed are out there too, and making them easier to confuse (by actually also spewing misleading-but-technically-true things) is not a good strategy.

Maybe, but that’s still insincere. When truth is on your side you don’t need to use weasel language.

It was sold in the gift shop, not on display. I know it’s not an enormous difference, but let’s try our best to keep the misinformation just on their side.

The best I have is to be careful to minimize dependencies, and minimize when I change the number of faces an object has, but of course that’s unavoidable sometimes. I don’t buy it that all CAD tools have the same problem or that this is how real professional CAD designers would work, though.

To minimize dependencies for example, instead of drawing the sketch for pad 2 directly on a face of pad 1, I might draw it on the base plane and transform the sketch to line up with pad 1’s face. The main consequence is that I need to manually move pad 2’s sketch if I change the size/position of pad 1. It’s a tradeoff, because I’m giving up some of the benefits of parametric CAD in exchange for easier fix-up.

I agree, mapping a datum plane to a face should have the same topo naming issue as just drawing on the face, so I don’t know why the guide would suggest that. The comment below about mapping datum planes to a simplified skeleton is interesting though.

The good news is that the next release (which sounds imminent) apparently improves it quite a bit.