• 0 Posts
  • 115 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

help-circle
  • The XL is indeed corexy but it’s also marketed to professionals who would be able to navigate any issues. I’ve seen some mixed reviews on if it’s good.

    FWIW, Prusa has definitely had some major failures. The MMU2 was fundamentally broken on release with sensors that were unreliable at best and the community had to step in with replacement models to get it even somewhat reliable.

    Just be wary of trusting the brand. I like Prusa too but they aren’t immune to misses.

    For me, pre-purchasing a Phrozen resin printer that every single YouTube influencer assured me was the absolute best printer ever made only for it to be an absolute mess that just sits on my shelf unused because it is complete garbage, was my lesson to wait for the reviews.


  • I advise against getting the brand new thing. My experience has been that frequently the reliability and feature set of yet-to-be-released things tend to be highly overstated. The CORE looks cool but I would give it six months after release before you consider buying one so you can see some real reviews.

    Prusa has a pretty decent track record but they are really branching out of their comfort zone now and I would be cautious.

    If you don’t want to wait, the Bambu P1S is a phenomenal printer. I wish they were more open along with everyone else but I have many, many, many hours on mine and has been an excellent purchase. It was a massive upgrade from my Prusa Mk3S.







  • The vitriol over this topic is humorous. We charge our phones and watches daily, nobody is losing their minds over that. However, asking for the mouse to be plugged in one night a month is outlandish and absurd.

    The best part is that this minor issue overshadows the real issue: the ergonomics are terrible. I have large hands and simply can not hold onto the thing properly. Narrow and flat is poor design for something you need to get a grip on to slide around.






  • It’s hard to have a discourse on a topic if you insist that the scope of that topic must by default be infinite.

    X isn’t being threatened with litigation because they’re freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses; they’re being threatened with litigation because they are a billion dollar business sustaining themselves by selling ads along with content that Brazil argues was misinformation and hate speech.

    On the topic of freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses: it may be moral in some extreme examples to defy the government, but there are means of doing that completely removed from the scope of microblogging on a corporate behemoth’s web platform. For example, there is an international organization who’s sole purpose is perusing human rights violations.


  • I don’t think it’s the responsibility of X to know the laws of every country; I expect them to respect the wishes of other countries when it is brought to their attention if they want to continue doing business there.

    Also, I think we both know that the misinformation we are talking about here has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The context of the linked article clearly indicates that harmful mistruths leading to harmful actions is the subject here.


  • I’m not sure why it’s so tempting to think of internet content as a special entity that defies otherwise established rules. Maybe it’s simply because no special effort is needed today to get the content across the border?

    Regardless, we aren’t talking about your geocities page, we’re talking about billion dollar businesses. Would it be appropriate to take your physical storefront across international borders and insist that the government there should have zero say as to what products you sell? If not, why is it appropriate to do the same with web content? X is selling content in the form of ad distribution, countries should get to decide if that content is appropriate for distribution.


  • I’m going to challenge your assertion that you’re not talking about what should be considered harmful by pointing out that you are loading your argument substantially by asserting that people need “help” protecting them from “harmful” censorship. Remember that the issue addressed in this thread is Brazil banning X for its promotion of misinformation and hate speech.

    Censorship isn’t harmful by default. It is ok to ban people from shouting “fire” in a theater for example, because the shout may result in real harm. Now you can argue that some censorship may be harmful because of its impact on society, such as the removal of books from school hampering fair and complete education or banning research texts that expose inconvenient truths.

    But, again the issue here is specifically an attempt to ban misinformation and hate speech; are you going to make an argument that these things are a positive to the community and should be defended as a moral imperative? Frankly it’s a pretty silly stance to take.




  • Disinformation campaigns are specifically designed to undermine the reasoning capabilities of people by inveigling them into believing (usually emotionally provocative) falsehoods, turning them into misinformation conduits in the process.

    It’s like saying that meth should be legal because reasonable people should just chose not to use it, ignoring the social and mental health issues that drive people to consume it against their best interest.

    Sometimes the right thing to do is to cut off the head of the snake before it can bite you.