krisoft

> what would I do if this is my first 3D printer

Resin printers are very special type of printers. They are great at some things (tiny intricate details, surface quality). They are absolutely the worst in other ways (soo much faff with post curing). If you need their pros you can’t do much else but suffer the cons. But you should really think through what you want to print before getting one.

Your question is a bit like: “what if my first shovel were an excavator?” Having an excavator is great when you need one. But if you don’t need one it is a complete nightmare compared to other shoveling solutions.

> I don't have the ability to wash and cure

I don’t know what you mean by lacking the ability?

If it is not knowing how, then the simple answer is to buy the wash+cure formlabs sells with the printer and follow the instructions. Best if you watch a video tutorial first before you even buy the printer so you can decide if you have the space, want to bother with resin printing.

Yes! Exactly.

So much of the content around this printer is adressing what resin printing is, and comparing it to fdm printers. I already know what resin printers are and what their general pros and cons compared to a a fillament based one. But they don’t bother answering why should i choose this resin printer over an other one.

So i will just wait until the hype dies down and people who owned resin printers review it.

There are two reason why i’m cautiously optimistic about this printer though:

- i’m a member of a hackspace. And training new members on our elegoo resin printers is a pain. In particular explaining safe resin handling is a battle. In theory this model from Formlabs would require less contact with the resin. So that sounds great. Of course that promise is only good as long as things go well. But there might be benefit there.

- in my private practice i make jewellery. One of the techniques i use is lost-resin casting. The resins involved are tricky. The designs are intricate Because of that there are many print failures. In theory their printers and slicer should be much better engineered to minimise such failures. Does it work that way in practice? Only a review could tell.

> and vat stirring wiper

The printer model in question doesn’t have that feature.

> the player who goes first usually wins

That is the point the game is meant to teach. Literally.

The original game developed by Lizzie Magie is a didactical game to illustrate the problems of monopolies accumulating ever more wealth.

It is crazy that we seemingly forgot the message and keep playing this game. Even on a purely “is this fun” level there are so much better games.

> That people's beliefs about X vary is not evidence that X itself varies.

That works with things where "X" exists outside of people's beliefs.

Like where X is "gravity". It doesn't matter what you believe why an apple falls down, it will fall down the same.

But where X is "ethics" that doesn't exist outside of people's beliefs about it.

In one culture if you have a guinea pig, you kill it and then roast it that is just and proper. A sucullent meal. In an other culture if you do the same you will be forever known as the "monster who eat his guinea pig", will be harassed and likely even reported to authorities. Try it. Get a guinea pig from the pet store, roast it and serve it to your guests. See what they think of you in the Andes, or in California. The apple falls the same in both places, but the guinea pig doesn't taste the same in both places.

There is no "ethics as the ethicometer measures it". Just "ethics as the society around you recognises it".

> 300 hectares = 3 sq km / ~1.16 sq miles

How I managed to imagine it is that it is roughly the size of the Central Park in New York.

Yes! That is the danger. That the model is a “manchurian candidate”. It might be engineered to act against your best interest in some circumstances.

The circumstances can be very narrow. For example the code word you mentioned which activates a whole different personality with different objectives.

It can be also much more broad. Like a model which is engineered to be quite good at web dev but to slip in subtle buffer overflows into any driver code it writes, or to mess up when it is working on multi threaded syncronisation in a way which results in infrequent but serious lock-ups.

Or very broadly, like have correct sounding but dangerous advice about economics policy.

Or even broader. Engineer it to amplify the chanches of AI psychosis in users who are prone to it. Detect when someone went off the rails and push them even further. But perhaps only when prompted in English, not when prompted in Chinese.

Now. Is any of this happening? Eh. Probably not. Not yet at least. We can barelly make these work. But still, probably best to not risk it in sensitive applications, because it is hard to prove an AI is “safe” and “aligned” even when the creators work on your team.

> China will have access to literally everything

So these are open weight models. You can run them on your own hardware. How would they have “access to literally everything”? Or what is the threat model you are thinking about here?

First of all, i don’t know why you are talking about engineers. This is a business decision, not an engineering one.

> I seriously can’t understand why there’s so much respect for anyone that works at Meta.

Is there? Thats new for me.

> yet they’re being praised for being the example of best engineers

Are they? I associate meta with the “move fast and break things” philosophy, not engineering excelence.

I’m sure there are some fine engineers there. But by and large it is just a big company with questionable ethics and lots of money.

> Let’s check in in five years!

Do you have particular predictions we can evaluate in five years?

I don’t think the technical implementation is the barrier.

I would be much more worried about the human element of technology development. Namely that having a web based interface which shows data, but can’t change anything would feel unnatural. I can totaly imagine that you make the choice, implement it correctly. you have your website only showing things but unable to make changes.

A day later a product person asks for the ability to set the temperature on the web interface. You kindly and patiently explain to them that due to safety reasons you can’t implement that feature. They will understand and nod.

A month later one of the execs asks for a similar feature. They might also present the feature as mission critical, or even package it in the language of safety. After all customer X just lost so much money because we couldn’t do this one simple thing via the web interface. You argue with them and your viewpoint eventually wins. But it is a bit hard to argue because you ultimately have to argue that you / your team cannot be trusted to implement the feature safely. So you have to make it sound like you are both competent enough to be trusted with this hard decision and incompetent at making things secure enough the same time. A hard sell. But you win somehow.

Then a month later there is a hackathon. And one of the new hires puts together this amazingly looking new product UI. Everyone is amazed it is genuenly a delight to use. But it completely ignores the data diode principles. You have to kick it into the long grass, or modify it so much that it is barelly recognisable.

Then a month later a new product development start. Your company is hoping to conquer some new vertical, and need to make a cheaper version of the product. So an electrical engineer is tasked to cost optimise the control unit. They correctly point it out that we could reduce the BOM cost by more than half if only we got rid of the data diode and the second set of microcontroller. You have to argue the safety case. People nod. But you are loosing more and more “political capital”. Upper management asks you to work with the EE on how you can maintain the safety while also cutting cost. You know that this won’t be easy and the savings won’t be as much.

And so on and so on. So even if the company implements such data diode, and implements it correctly and safely. Future product and business pressures will work against it. Realistically you are not going to win every single argument about it. One day you will come back from a holiday and there will be someone who circumvented it either because they didn’t know better, or didn’t believe that they cannot be trusted to make the circumvention safe enough. It is a people problem, not a tech problem. If there is even such a distinction.

> Heck, 5 years ago nobody was thinking seriously about AI having the potential to exterminate us.

That's just not true. Nick Bostrom published "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" 12 years ago. The book is clear evidence that people were very much seriously thinking about the potential dangers of AI.

> AI exterminating us has been the realm of science fiction for decades

If we count the Golem stories then the idea of a human made artificial servant rebelling against us because of our hubris is hundreds of years old.

> Just energy inputs to get to orbit are somewhat significant.

You only think that because you had the misfortune to be born down a deep gravity well. While that's the only kind of life we have evidence for, doesn't mean that's the only kind of life which can occur.

Sentients who evolved inside or on the surface of an asteroid would maybe think that getting to orbit is just a careless hop away.

That being said I agree with the general idea that any alien entity who visits us has likely went through industrialisation and related destruction.

> People always get upset when I propose mathematical formalization of law and using e.g. metamath verifier as a judge.

I don’t get upset. I just don’t know what that means. What would that look like in practice?

Lets see some simple example. 18 U.S. Code § 912: “Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

How would you write that in mathematical formalization?

And then how would you make a metamath verifier judge if Robert J. Rippee committed it on January 1, 1991? I’m sure you can google the case(United States v. Rippee, 961 F.2d 677), but a short summary: “On January 1, 1991, officers from the National City, Illinois, Police Department stopped Rippee for making an illegal U-turn. The officers let Rippee go without a ticket, however, when he told them he was a United States Marshal on his way to break up a fight at Fannies' Night Club in Brooklyn, Illinois. […] Rippee stipulated that he was not and had never been a United States Marshal.“

How would something like that look like under your proposed system?

> I’ve often wondered why governments don’t provide a ‘dating’ service for employers and employees, or even better some kind of career development and management service for citizens.

Don’t they? Here in the UK at least participation in programs like that is a requirement of unemployment benefits. One has to attend a job center where one is given advice, sometimes training can get enrolled in trainung and etc. Not saying that they do a great job of it but they seems to at least try to do what you describe. At least nominally.

I would never design a robot which looks like it can walk, but actually can’t walk. That feels fundamentally dishonest to me. If nothing else it will let down plenty of people when they realise that the cool robot has legs only for show.

But it is the fuselage gaps which was leaking, not the engines. After the elastomer filler broke down due to heat cycling. They needed the elastomer because the fuselage was heating up during flight which made it expand.

I'm sure we could "fix" it. But changing the engines doesn't seem to be the right way to achieve that.

> How clear is the uncertainty of the output?

It is not even clear from the article that there were anything wrong with the output. She has a car of that make. And it doesnt appear to be in dispute that she drove nearby.

It simply is the case that “being nearby” in itself is not enough evidence that you were involved in a crash. Especially when the colour doesn’t match and the vehicle is not damaged.

> Play with it! Click/drag everywhere.

It looks cool! But man is it frustrating that nothing is consistent. Some things change when I click. Some things change when I drag. Some things seemingly doesn't do anything at all.

If it is intentionally like that, great. But I just don't find the experience pleasant.

> They wanted to diagnose the issue remotely before issuing a refund.

They were stalling you. You are in someone’s succesfull quarterly KPI metric, as a succesfully avoided return.

> You seem convinced this is somehow my fault

That the printer is not working is 100% Bambu’s fault. That they got away with it is yours.

> As someone who wanted a “just works” solution, what I got instead was something faulty

So there is a misunderstanding here. When people describe a 3d printer as “just works” they mean that it has the sensors and firmware smarts so you don’t need to become an expert to get good quality prints out of it. With previous generations of printers when the print was crap you had to look at the process and tune a ton of parameters to get it okay. Maybe your bed wasn’t flat enough? Or hot enough? Or unevenly heated? Or you needed to tweek an extrusion parameter? Or speed it up or slow it down? Or increase the hot end temp? Or increase the cooling fan rpm?

With a modern 3d printer (like the Bambu ones, but not only them) you don’t have to become an expert. Their engineers nailed down all the parameters which can be nailed down, and the rest which they can’t they added sensors for so the printer can measure them as an in-field calibration.

With the older generation of printers if it is not printing well, oh boy, you should probably get better at tuning it. With the new generation of printers if it is not printing well then the company who made the printer failed you. If it is not printing at all, because it failed the calibration then that’s the printer telling you it is broken.

It is like… imagine that you want a nice picture of your loved ones. Buying an older type of printer was like buying oil paint and a brush. You can’t just hope it will do the picture on its own. You could get the picture you wanted but you had to acquire serious skills first. No art supply shop would accept a return of your paint and brush just because the picture you paint with it are kinda crap.

In contrast buying a new generation of 3d printer is like buying a polaroid camera. It requires way less skill than the oil paint and the brush. You point, you shoot, out comes the picture. If the picture doesn’t come out the polaroid camera is broken and you should return it.

The polaroid camera is “just works” compared to the oil paint and brush even if every second camera is broken comming out of the factory. Because it is not a statement about their defect rate, but a statement about the design philosophy.

> Why do you want machines to replace human intelligence and ability?

Where do you see the commenter say this?

> It’s stuck in the auto calibration stage. It gets halfway through then it stops with a generic error message.

So it was dead on arrival. You should have contacted support who would have figured out if you need the whole unit replaced or just part of it. If they are not responsive enough just send back the whole thing.

What would you do if you buy a laptop and it never passes the Power-On Self-Test? I would just return it to whoever i bought it from.

> I thought it was the more turn key option but it hasn’t been my experience.

I mean it is. For everyone who i know who owns one. Every company will sell an occasional dud.

Either it got damaged in transit, or the fault somehow escaped their QA, or you managed to screw up the assembly by not plugging in something, or leaving a transit fixture in somehow. Either way contacting support is the correct way to get to the bottom of it.

Come to think of it when i bought my Sherline lathe initially the motor didn’t turn on when i plugged it in. I wrote an email to the distributor who got me in contact with someone from Sherline. They asked me to check a thing which fixed the issue.

I'm not sure what you are hoping from "free", "community owned", and "open source".

They make mills and lathes. They are really nice little machines, great for hobby use. We have one lathe from them in our hackspace for example, and it is a delight. Of course you have to understand the limitations of the tool, but that is true for every machine.

That being said, it is just a lathe. There is nothing particularly complicated about it. At least not at their complexity level. If you can manufacture machine tools you can make one very easily. If you don't have the manufacturing capability you won't.

The reason i'm saying this is because "free as in freedom" and "open source" are properties of plans / source code. If you happen to have a lathe factory, the lack of a lathe plan is not going to stop you. You are just going to design one for yourself. And if you don't have a factory which can make a lathe, then why do you care about plans for a lathe being open source?

I guess the factory itself could be "community owned". If you have a business plan, or a large pile of cash, now is the time to approach them that you want to buy everything from them. But I'm not sure how "community owned" would even work for this use case.

Basically what I'm saying this is hardware, not software. The terms you use don't make much sense in this case.

You are correct. The underlying scientific article is clear on the timeline of observations. My problem is with the editing done by the phys.org article.

> They were not around long enough to confirm whether or not it happened for days

And that is perfectly fair. But what is the “possibly days” based on? Did they see the two whales acting weirdly a day later, but then they didn’t see them four days later? Or is it just based on the hunch of the person who made the observation? Or is it the hunch of the researcher? And if it is a hunch is it based on knowledge of similar reported events in the past? Is it based on the observed state of the adult whale or maybe the state of the carcas?

Why possibly days and not possibly weeks?

> but the fact that the mother stayed for at least some hours appears to be confirmed

Is it confirmed? So that’s the problem. The hours are comming from the same sentence which describes the days. Both by a person who did not whitness the event personally. Your reading is that the second part of the sentence (the days) is speculation, while the first is reporting on observed fact. My reading is that the journalist did a bad job separating the first hand observed facts from the second hand speculation. We just simply won’t know until someone asks the Captain what exactly they have seen and writes it down.

> it’s hard to know and prove something with 100% certainty

But it is not hard to describe what was observed, and clearly separate it from what they think or speculate. Also it is not hard to ask the person who actually did the observing to describe what they have seen, instead of it being described by someone else who was not present.

I disagree. Fundamentaly the article is about an observation someone made of an animal’s behaviour. It is very important to be clear about what they seen, who seen it, and when. This article is not clear about that.

What we know from the article that Rescue boat Capt. Andrew Mulville whitnessed the two whales behaving unusually. They also took a video of the behaviour. We don’t know how long they whitnessed it, or if there were multiple separate observations or just the one.

And then we have Dr. Olaf Meynecke who was not personaly present and says that “She remained close to the calf, maintaining eye contact and positioning herself next to her calf over several hours and maybe even days.” It is valid to ask what is that based on? Is Dr Meynecke narrating what Capt Mulville seen? Is he saying that based on his knowledge of other times when behaviour like this was observed? Is it just speculation? There is nothing wrong with speculation but it is better be cleanly separated from the description of what was seen.

The reason why this is frustrating is because something interesting (and likely supremely tragic) happened to these whales. But we are hearing about it in a distorted fashion. It is a game of telephone, where the captain seen it, told about it to the researcher, who told the journalist who is telling it to us. It is fundamentally important to keep it clear which parts are comming from the captain’s first hand account and which parts are speculation or elaboration by the researcher.

> usually by people who are good mathematicians but know close to nothing about teaching.

I higly doubt that. Maybe in university level courses. Most people’s only experience with mathematics is an elementary or high school teacher who were probably themselves at best mediocre at the subject. Simply because of selection factors. Those who are good at math are encouraged to go into STEM. There will be of course exceptions everywhere, but that is not what “usually” happens.

And thats just about being good at maths the school subject, which is distinct from being “ good mathematicians” the science / research topic. Mathematicians are few and far between, simply because it is a specialist subject. There just aren’t enough of them to go around for them to be the formative experience around math for most people.

That feels very optimistic.

Nothing nuclear is easy. People will want to make sure you are not going to contaminate the atmosphere, or the aquifers. Not just on the day of the explosion, but long term. They will want to know your plans about how you will contain the nuclear contamination for thousands of years.

And then everyone and their uncle will sue you for any property damage they think they suffered as a result of your engineering. Which can be everyone who owns real estate for hundreds of miles?

But apart from those things there are really no major legal problems with it.

> Obviously ai still can't play chess

I believe you are wrong on that. Do you mean large language models can’t play chess?