Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)F
Posts
1
Comments
614
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • No idea, I do not have a Snapmaker... I fell for the Bambu marketing and the lack of availability of good alternatives circa 2 years ago, and hopefully this X1C will serve me for the next two three years - but I am feeling the limitations of a single print head and the build volume.

  • Bambi's contributions are marginal compared to all the prior IP they use (and wasn't Prusa actually suing them for using a number of their patents without the rights?).

    as for open patents: any patent that is expired or where the owner isn't interested in enforcing uniqueness (many a things are patented yet in public domain!). by open I simply mean no licensing is required.

    And yes, that's precisely what Bambu does. Take open designs, public domain parts and bang them together until they got something working. Which is why I recommend people buy Prusa, not Bambu - reward with some extra spending the people who actually do the hard work, not the ones who swoop in at the end and try to undercut the actual innovators.

  • That's where legal actions come into place.

    I've managed to force multiple Chinese companies to release sources that were adamant they don't have to, just by threatening to report them to the FSF and SFC - both bodies have been wildly successful in prosecuting licence breaches.

    Also both the EU and the US have now precedents and laws in place that allow fast-tracking obvious licence violators' blocking from the market. For a small Chinese company whose main target market is the west, it's a major blow if their sales and export are blocked because they won't release the source.

    So they try to play hardball, but it's like modern lifts - the moment you press the right buttons suddenly they do exactly what you want them to.

  • A fully correct statement is categorically a technically correct statement, therefore the two are not contradictory.

  • My next printer is definitely going to be a Snapmaker.

    They one-upped Bambu with the fully open approach of the U1, did a better tool changing printer at a lower cost, and are now supporting the good fight. I really hope it's not a publicity stunt before enshittification begins, but so far, I'm liking them a lot.

    Fingers crossed for a slightly improved U1 - primarily, a larger print volume (I'd be super happy with a ~5cm increase in all directions, making it 320x320x320), which I'm buying the moment it becomes available.

  • Prusa is pricy because they make the de facto standards - including PrusaSlicer which is the base of OrcaSlicer/Bambu Studio.

    Bambu can sell cheaper for two reason:

    • limited research needed to make their own products - they're just copying open patents and software, tuning it a little, and selling the package at manufacturing cost + profit margins
    • the CCP pouring a shitton of money into companies to subsidise them and allow them to undercut western competition. Bambu makes a printer for $1000, CCP pays $600 of it, Bambu sells for $600 - $200 profit
  • AGPL can be closed too, the license bases the right to the source based on the access to the end product:

    • GPLv2/v3 - if you have the binary executable output of the GPLv2/3 covered source, you must be granted access to the exact source used to make the binary. This applies to legitimately sourced binaries only - if you were to hack into a company's servers and get a binary of a modified GPL product, this wouldn't apply. But extracting a binary from a device you own IS a legitimate access (so e.g. if your phone uses U-boot, the manufacturer must grant you access to their modified U-Boot sources used to build the bootloader)
    • AGPL - if you have (legitimate) access to a service you can request the source. This is so e.g. web services can be made into GPLed code where modifications must be released (negating the requirement of possession of a binary, since you can't possess a binary that runs on a remote server). e.g. let's say I run GTK app via browser using kasmVNC - if the app is GPL, I don't have to provide the source, if it's AGPL, I have to provide the source.
  • Small sidenote: distribution of modified source code of GPLv2/v3 covered projects is only mandatory to those who have access to a binary version of the modified sources.

    e.g. if you take a GPLv2 covered project that is a simple HTTP server, and you give the binary nobody, then you're not required to share the source (if the HTTP server is AGPL covered then you need to provide it to anyone who can access the HTTP service and requests the source).

    This is an important distinction, as you can't demand the source of a GPL project from someone who cloned it and made modifications to their own use without distributing a binary of those changes. If I fork Orca and make some changes, and showcase those as screenshots, you have absolutely no right to demand the source for it. If I were to send you a binary of Orca with my changes, then you'd have the right.

    I mean this distinction is obviously not applicable here but I wanted to make sure the GPL summary is fully correct. Which is the best kind of correct.

  • Yeah I guess I should've specified that when I said "bullshit regulations" I meant specifically the regulations that are truly bullshit, not that all regulations are bullshit. Freaking English and its many ways to interpret the same sentence because why could we have specificity, amirite?

  • I'm not talking about the banking regulatory system.

    Fintech - non-bank-certified money institutes - have a lot of duplicate regulatory requirements. Things like: certify PCI-DSS for payment processing, BUT ALSO certified for some kind of local framework which matches PCI-DSS 99% but has its own certification process and expenses etc., so it's not as simple as just "doing what's required".

    Again, there's a ton of regulations that are beneficial for the institutes and their customers, but there is also a lot of them that are hindrances because they're duplicate or obsolete processes, red tape, and so on, stuff that serves little to no actual purpose but are essentially leftover regulations that have been superceded but not officially eliminated.

  • I think a coronary has a higher chance than these staged assassinations.

  • I think one show covers all the cases (if you take Lower Decks then all the good stuff has already happened and you're living in the golden age of the Federation).

    I personally would toss in Stargate Atlantis there too, just to have a selection of futuristic environments.

  • Not just code but infrastructure as well.

    Plex makes it possible to stream remotely even if you're behind double NAT, firewalls and whatnot blocking a simple port forwarding approach. they do that through proxy servers that need to handle a lot of bandwidth, even with the limited streams...

  • When tyrants don't leave on their own accord, what are you to do? Protest even harder while they laugh from their helicopters and private jets, surrounded by private security, isolating themselves from the people they try to rule? What good will protesting harder do?

  • I fail to see how e.g. Obama was more corrupt than Reagan or any of the Bushes...

  • It's quite easy, actually. The entire world of money - e-commerce, fintech, literally any aspect that deals with finances, even a shitty accounting software - requires a SHITTON of money to get going.

    You have to deal with regulatory bullshit that takes up tons of resources and efforts and money. You have to deal with partnerships to make your product viable - also a big money sink. You have to pay for marketing, licensing, accreditation, the list goes on.

    Good fintech engineers - let them be backend, frontend, security, etc. - are also super expensive. I make good money in my current Android engineer job, but I know people with lesser skills and experience whom are making 2-3x as much just because they fit into the whole fintech image (good looking, suit wearing, etc.), and have sold themselves to a company that had the funds for their "skills". So yeah, a fintech company can spend 4-8x as much on just their personnel than a regular tech company...

    Then of course you have the higher leadership and C-suite who also like to pad their pockets. I did a short stint at a fintech company, and came away appalled after the CFO, during a company outing, quite drunk, told me how he's basically pocketing about half a million GBP as his "salary" every month, not to mention the income he manages from providing "certain services" to "certain elements"... heavily implied that these elements happen to be criminal in nature. Mind you this is the same guy who tried to haggle down my annual salary during the initial interview, even though I was more skilled than the role they wanted to fill... so yeah, fintech is either 1, super lucky (see e.g. Revolut), 2, super dirty or 3, dead in the water.

  • That's why you only use the brains of the spiders, not the whole spider!

  • Time to use those 2A rights y'all yanks always scream about.

  • Maybe it's time for you Muricans to stop protesting the Murican way and learn a little bit from 1, your own history circa 250 years ago 2, french history from roughly the same period