You cannot compare the raw thermal conductivity of a fluid like air (that pulls heat via convection) to a solid material like plastic (that pulls heat via conduction). Especially when the fluid is being actively moved with the intention of cooling down the plastic.
On top of that, the lattice structure of the infill will mean that heat will not conduct away from the channels well regardless of the material used.
> But you can definitely get printers to dump a blob of filament out without worrying about cooling problems
Yes, but we're not talking about dumping a blob of filament. We're talking about injecting filament into a well-insulated channel where it's physically impossible for it to receive any active cooling whatsoever.
That's not a situation where you can just ignore cooling.
So I'm pretty skeptical about this as well (see my other comment on this), but the particular failure mode you're discussing is not what's happening in reality.
> Anyone who has ever cleaned blobs of filament off of a nozzle after a print failure can tell you what happens when you try to pump hot filament into empty space. Filament cools below the melt temperature quickly, especially when it comes into contact with your print.
That's completely irrelevant because this isn't printing into empty space at all. This is injecting molten plastic into confined channels, with no active cooling, made from material that doesn't conduct heat well. You're saying that the plastic will cool too quickly, but I believe the opposite will be true.
The problem that the author is describing is that the plastic is actually far too hot when injected and causes wall collapse. This is because the author isn't taking into account that FDM walls don't handle the required pressure near/above glass-transition points.
The failure mode you're describing is the complete opposite. If you were correct, it would result in cold plugs or extruder jams. It wouldn't result in wall collapse or layer delamination.
I've seen this technique a lot, but mostly as a post-processing technique where resin, fiber, or some other type of plastic is injected into the channels after printing is completed. It would be interesting to see this done during the normal printing process.
I am a little skeptical on the technique though. FDM printed walls are known to not handle pressure well, especially during printing when its past its glass-transition temperature. This process essentially uses the pressure from the extruder to inject a channel with molten plastic. Will this pressure could cause the walls to delaminate from each other or deform?
And how does this affect plastic that tends to warp significantly during printing? The molten plastic is injected into insulated channels that will not receive any active cooling. You're also parking the nozzle at the injection points, which will cause a lot of uneven cooling at the surface as well. For high-warping plastics like ABS, that could cause a lot of issues.
So I guess the underlying question should be, does this actually work? What is the measured difference in tension strength between parts printed normally vs with MAGMA infills? Specifically when using the same amount of plastic. There's no data or even pictures that indicate this is working.
Don't Look Up is about ignoring expert consensus on a clear threat, not about rejecting benefits out of fear. For the analogy to land, you'd need overwhelming evidence that these data centers are net-positive for host communities, but that's exactly what's in dispute.
You're right that there's tension between 'not enough power' and 'no new heavy loads' but it's not hypocritical to argue that megawatts of power should be allocated towards 7k jobs rather than a few dozen if possible. That's exactly the kind of tradeoff a power-constrained state should be explicitly making. The logic behind it is not satirical, it's just triage.
On top of that, this is not a blanket ban of AI datacenters. It's a temporary blocking of any new datacenters that require more than 20 megawatts until late 2027 pending a PUC study on how these datacenters will affect their existing grid. It also creates a new council for researching and coordinating the creation of new datacenters, so this really doesn't seem like any sort of NIMBY action here.
Honestly the only major issue I have with the bill is that it neglects to distinguish self-powered facilities that don't provide much strain on the grid. Though it could be argued that water consumption of these centers might be the reason for it.
> Pursuant to Section 7(b) of the License you must retain the original Product logo when distributing the program. Pursuant to Section 7(e) we decline to grant you any rights under trademark law for use of our trademarks.
> Pursuant to Section 7 § 3(b) of the GNU AGPL you must retain the original ONLYOFFICE logo in the upper left corner of the user interface when distributing the software.
IANAL, but from the wording above it appears that OnlyOffice has modified it in a way that makes it impossible to fork as a new project.
> 1. OnlyOffice is claiming that the license was violated
The part of the license violated was the removal of OnlyOffice's trademark and branding. Yet their license does not provide a right to use their trademark and branding. Those rights are still fully reserved by OnlyOffice.
This allows OnlyOffice to use legal means to shut down any fork or changes they are not comfortable with.
The sharp edges are exclusively an issue with the Framework 16 due to the spacers that allow you to change the alignment of the trackpad. It's definitely been one of my main annoyances with my F16 that I didn't experience with my F13. I've been scratched by them and had my arm hair caught and pulled.
However, Framework has already indicated that they are looking into providing an input module that spans the entire width of the device to eliminate the need for the spacers.
I don't really know what the "creaking screen" is about though. IMO the F16 screen and hinges are a higher build quality than the F13. I had to upgrade my F13 hinges to the 4kg hinges to keep it from bouncing and moving.
Damn, I apparently missed the memo that the backend service for Mozilla Monitor was shady while I used it.
Are there any actual services like this that work properly? I've noticed whenever it indicated that a service has removed my data, that same service would come back online as having my data a few weeks later.
Sorry for being pessimistic, it's just whenever I see a health related app I immediately look at the data collected and data shared sections and get concerned. Especially if it's being shared with insurance companies.
Quick edit: That "messages" part might be only in-app ones. Google does not word that well in the summary.
Looks more like an ad for your app though... Which for some reason collects tons of data unrelated to health, like messages, location data, and photos/videos/files?
Well it can't be known for certain without performing benchmarks to test it, but I would presume a hardware-accelerated renderer is far more efficient than a software-based one.
Not defending the author, but aren't you totally misunderstanding the fact that Nvidia providing excellent CUDA support is irrelevant to this conversation? The fact is Nvidia has a long history of providing the bare minimum to Linux desktop users, even on X11.
Hell, I can't even fix the screen-tearing or get Optimus to work with Nvidia's proprietary drivers with X11 on my GTX 1050 Ti Max-Q laptop. It may be 'usable' in a sense that it doesn't crash, but the number of graphical glitches that I run into every single day (literally opening my laptop requires me to refresh every window) that I never run into with Intel or AMD kind of proves to me how much Nvidia cares about desktop usage.
Drew Devault might be a jerk (not my words) and have a lot of fallacies in his arguments, but that doesn't mean you should be doing the same thing.
On top of that, the lattice structure of the infill will mean that heat will not conduct away from the channels well regardless of the material used.