Overdiagnosis can be a problem. On the flip side, I wonder if adding the time dimension to the data (i.e., you could realistically have scans from every few weeks over the course of years) could significantly change that.
Instead of looking at a single snapshot of a person, you're now looking at trends over time. We probably don't have the analytical tools to effectively evaluate medical imaging with that time dimension at such scale (because I assume it would be rare for someone to get MRIs so frequently), but maybe with more data and study, we'll be able to more definitively distinguish benign quirks from real concerns.
Rather than a human comparing a couple of scans five years apart, you're talking about computationally identifying outlying regions in the data (a motion picture of the entire body) that are trending towards areas of concern.
I love my X1C. It's way ahead of any other 3D printer I've owned or built. I stuck it in a VLAN from day 1. Have had it in LAN-only mode for years. Works great. I haven't followed the company's PR statements, but seems a little strange that they would tell people not to get a Bambu Lab printer for any reason.
I'm sorry your experience has been so terrible or that you thought you were buying an open-ecosystem printer. I never got that impression, so I never expected it.
And in 2026, I wouldn't trust access controls on their own even if Bambu Lab did keep them enabled in this situation (who's to say they don't include a back door of their own?). I prefer security at the network level, enforcing access controls before any untrusted hosts can even see a machine that I want to protect on the network.
It sounds like they're doing what people want. People seem to be ascribing a lot of mal-intent to actions that don't seem malicious to me.
> completely exposes your printer by removing existing access controls
If these printers are in LAN-only mode and you want to point 3rd-party software at them, don't you kind of expect the existing access controls (which are probably at least in part tied to cloud services) to be removed? Behind a LAN with developer mode on, you're generally going to (1) not be exposed to the internet anyway, and (2) probably know what you're doing and would be implementing access controls yourself anyway.
If you want a completely open (hardware and software) 3D printer, don't get a Bambu Lab machine I guess? A big part of the value of their printers is that they've managed to make everything so seamless. Some of that relies on a somewhat closed ecosystem. They're the Apple of 3D printers, but everyone keeps expecting them to be the Linux, just because their slicer (or parts of it anyway) is open-source. If openness is more important to you than those conveniences, go with a different brand. It's a good thing we have choices as consumers :)
> they're deliberately working towards removing any other form of access to our hardware
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think that's what is happening. They aren't doing anything to block OrcaSlicer or any fork from working with the printer using LAN-only mode. It's only if you want to use Bambu Lab's servers for essentially a remote-access solution (which, by the way, kind of defeats the privacy-oriented purpose of running some of these forks) that they're saying you should use their own software.
Thought experiment: the core of macOS (Darwin) is open source. Does that mean everyone running Darwin or a fork of it should be able to use iCloud services for free?
All this outrage essentially sounds like "since Bambu Lab's slicer is open-source, the open-source community should be able to point any slicer at Bambu Lab's servers to get free remote monitoring services". And I don't think that's right.
Bambu Lab has made plenty of mistakes, but I don't think this is one of them. And I'm a big supporter of open-source software.
Their cloud infrastructure obviously has real costs associate with running it, and I don't understand why any software other than their own should be entitled to use those resources.
If you buy something and then significantly modify it, you generally tend to void the warranty - and that's not because companies are just greedy; there are real limitations when it comes to a company's ability to support the endless ways a product could be modified.
Publishing something as open-source does not imply that you must operate an optional-but-complementary service at a loss for charity.
That's true if we're correcting OCR of actual output text. In this case, it's operating on the base 64 text, trying to produce chunks that form valid zlib streams and PDF syntax so the file can be intact enough to be opened. "Just accepting errors" would mean not seeing any content in the file because it cannot be read.
So yes, the "fixed" output has errors, but it’s not hallucinating details like an LLM, nor is it trying to produce output that conforms to any linguistic or stylistic heuristics.
The phrase "correcting similar OCR'd PDFs" should have been "correcting similar OCR'd base 64 representations of PDFs".
Letting Claude work a little longer produced this behemoth of a script (which is supposed to be somewhat universal in correcting similar OCR'd PDFs - not yet tested on any others though):
https://pastebin.com/PsaFhSP1
It looks like this does make some things easier, but I'm not sure if it's actually better.
From what I can tell, any time you use this to check something like the customer's subscription state (or anything else payment-related) - either from the front end or the back end - it's going to perform an API request to Flowglad's servers. If you care about responsiveness, I'm not sure that's a good idea. Of course, you can cache that state if you need to access it frequently, but then it kind of defeats the purpose of this layer.
Stripe integration can be tricky, but if you don't want to store anything locally, you might as well just hit Stripe's APIs without the middleman. For the payment systems I've worked on, having cached state in the database is actually really nice, even if it's a bit more work. Want to do a complicated query on your customers based on payment/subscription state and a bunch of other criteria? It's just a DB query. With this, I think you'll be hoping they expose an API to query what you need and how you need it. Otherwise, you'll be stuck waiting for a thousand API requests to fetch the state of each of your customers.
It sounds great, but every time I see this argument, I end up going down the rabbit hole of actually studying how stablecoins operate. And every time, I come to the same conclusion: they always rely on trust in an off-chain oracle or custodian. At that point, a shared ledger implemented with traditional databases / protocols would be faster, easier, and more transparent.
Bitcoin (and possibly a few others) is one of the few uses of blockchain that actually makes sense. The blockchain serves the currency, and the currency serves the blockchain. The blockchain exists to provide consensus without needing to trust any off-chain entity, but the blockchain relies on computing infrastructure that has real-world costs. The scarcity of Bitcoin (the currency) and arguably-fictitious reward for participation in mining is the incentive for people in the real world to contribute resources required for the blockchain to function.
Any real-world value given to Bitcoin is secondary and only a result of the fact that (1) mining infrastructure has a cost, and (2) people who understand the system have realized that, unlike fiat, stablecoins, or 1000 other crypto products, Bitcoin has no reliance on trusted, off-chain entities who could manipulate it.
You trust your stablecoin's issuer that they hold enough fiat in reserve to match the coin? You might as well trust your bank, but while you're at it, remind them that they don't have to take days to process a transaction - they could process transactions as fast as (actually faster than) a blockchain. But I imagine most banks would point to regulation as a reason for the delays, and they might be right.
So what are stablecoins really trying to do? Circumvent regulation? Implement something the banks just aren't willing to do themselves?
Exactly. The only way for this to deliver on its goals would be for it to not be public or permissionless. And if that's the case, then it should really just be a database and/or a shared protocol between financial institutions.
Once it's truly "open", you can't have any sensitive identifiers in there, so you need another protocol/system for correlating opaque identifiers with real-world entities (thus defeating the purpose).
And if financial institutions are involved, they'll want the ability to do what they do now: rewrite history whenever they feel the need (or are compelled by governments). Another strike against using blockchain.
Is this the "new magic" that DHH teased on Twitter, or are we still waiting to see what that is? Also, should we expect this to be included in a future version of Rails?
My first impression is that the API seems a little convoluted, but that might just be me. In an ideal world, I'd love to just build components (similar to React components) on the server side, and let the framework intelligently handle synchronizing state over the network (Phoenix LiveView seems closer to that), but this feels like it involves a lot more framework-specific logic (and markup) with special cases - stuff that's likely to change as the framework evolves, so I'm not sure how I feel about it.
I guess it makes sense in terms of making this easier to add to an existing rails app incrementally (since it's more-or-less "opt-in" for each model, view, and controller), but if I'm building a new project with this and want it on everything, it feels like it will necessitate a lot of code duplication. Either that, or I use it judiciously only when absolutely needed (and use traditional rails behavior for everything else), but that feels like a mess of two very different approaches bundled together in one codebase.
I don't think this will do anything to help with the "crappy iPhone [app] ports to the iPad", at least not for a while. Those apps will still be there, and they'll likely still be approved in the future.
From my understanding, "iPadOS" is essentially just a marketing signal that the iPad-version of the OS will have more features unique to iPad. For developers, Xcode will still have the option to compile the same codebase for iOS and iPadOS. It's up to the developer to take advantage of more screen real estate when available, though SwiftUI will probably make that easier on the developer (i.e., more likely to show up in the apps you use).
Instead of looking at a single snapshot of a person, you're now looking at trends over time. We probably don't have the analytical tools to effectively evaluate medical imaging with that time dimension at such scale (because I assume it would be rare for someone to get MRIs so frequently), but maybe with more data and study, we'll be able to more definitively distinguish benign quirks from real concerns.
Rather than a human comparing a couple of scans five years apart, you're talking about computationally identifying outlying regions in the data (a motion picture of the entire body) that are trending towards areas of concern.