Heh, I just got a waveshare RLCD to play with sunlight visible higher refresh rate, but then I compared it side by side with the exact e-paper display for this project and I felt buyer’s remorse; the contrast is soooo much worse on the LCD.
Maybe it would have fared better if I was out in sunlight viewing them, but seeing this thing in person sold me on e-paper for this use case
Gas tax has always been a proxy metric for mileage in order to implement usage based costs to help offset the many billions of dollars California spends maintaining roads every year.
Gas as a proxy for mileage breaks down with widespread EV usage, so even though they are a benefit for many reasons with incentivizing, they still require expensive road upkeep so should not be immune from usage taxation.
Or, spitballing here, let the gas tax reprieve be the incentive and don't offer a rebate for EVs. Regardless, gas tax is a stupid way to pay for roads. Everyone uses roads, whether they drive on them or not.
And, they won't be repealing the gas tax. They'll be adding a mileage tax on top of the gas tax.
> And, they won't be repealing the gas tax. They'll be adding a mileage tax on top of the gas tax.
If that incentivizes more people to buy EVs and drop their gas vehicles, that's great. And I say this as a driver of a gas-powered car with not-the-best MPG.
Of course, the problem with this is that new EVs are expensive, and the kinds of people who drive older, inefficient ICE cars are the kinds of people who probably can't afford a new EV. (Not sure what the used market is looking like, though.)
I’ve been building a plug-and-play controller to use motorized faders with ESPHome and other microcontrollers easily, called FaderBuddy.
It’s a small board with a ATtiny1616 and motor driver that mounts to the bottom of Behringer MF60T replacement faders and provides an I2C interface for reading the position, moving to a specific spot, and even setting up haptic detents, like a linear version of my SmartKnob project.
Perfect for making an intuitive smart light dimmer switch or a macropad.
Just need to find some time to finish making a proper video about it…
I think the big question here is how effective can you make training and monitoring across a widespread population in practice?
In aviation, commercial pilots have very strict and extensive training and monitoring and as a result are generally able to utilize automation effectively while keeping up their manual skills. There are very rarely CFIT incidents in major commercial airlines.
The opposite is true in general aviation (small private Cessnas, etc), where it’s extremely common for pilots to buy more plane than they can handle and then rely on automation to bridge their skill gap. CFIT is much more common in general aviation, along with incorrect actions in response to real system failures that should have been recoverable. Automation complacency regularly kills in general aviation.
A key thing to notice is that automation isn’t outright prohibited in either commercial or general aviation, but there are distinct regulatory frameworks based on potential impact.
We accept looser rules for general aviation because the failures are societally less severe and because the population is much larger so effective training and enforcement would be significantly harder. In commercial airliners where failures are catastrophic, we have much stricter policies and require training and testing regularly to avoid automation complacency.
Will we start to see this practice in software? Probably, but only if/when the societal cost of NOT doing it becomes more clear. We regulated aviation because crashing planes are obviously bad. We license structural engineers because collapsing bridges are obviously bad. Will automation-induced software failures hit a similar tipping point?
Some of the proposed 3d printer laws will require printers being sold to be capable of evaluating what you are using them for and blocking “bad” usages. I’m not aware of any such legislation around firearms.
You can be entirely in favor of the open source ethos, even as a commercial entity, but then certain actors can take advantage of that ethos and just directly commercialize your R&D investment and take all the proceeds of your investment, whether or not they comply with attribution or share-alike requirements.
It’s tough seeing an open source project you’ve poured tons of care and effort into (and WANT people to share and remix and build cool things) get more or less “extracted” for profit without contributing back (code or money).
At the end of the day, none of it really matters unless you’ve got money and time to actually try to enforce your licenses, or have enough customer mindshare to effectively change the behavior of bad actors without needing legal action.
I’ll probably use licenses like Prusas in the future for similar reasons, even though I generally prefer to use less restrictive ones. Bad actors, or even just non-benevolent actors, can really sour the open source ethos, and it sucks but there’s no way to legally enforce “don’t be a jerk” without restricting a legal document in slightly unpalatable ways.
Nothing in Prusa's OCL stops anyone from cloning and selling their printer.
It only stops the honest people from doing that (and possibly much more, like manufacturing and selling replacement parts or mods).
Creating 3D models from existing products is relatively fast and easy. The hard parts have always been the actual design process, materials selection, and setting up the supply and manufacturing chain.
Prusa took what was practically a non-issue (cloning of their modern printers which have multiple custom parts and are overall not easy to clone cheaply anyway) and used it to restrict the freedoms of end users and small businesses while crying about how they are the victims.
I lost a lot of respect for Prusa when they came out with the OCL.
A damn patent would have been both more effective and less restrictive for reasonable commercial purposes.
Can you explain how releasing model files under a restrictive license vs not releasing model is a net restriction of the freedoms of end users and small businesses? The impression I'm getting is that if they locked away those files and never released them, you would have nothing to complain about.
This is like complaining about Valve letting game developers generate free Steam keys (=Valve doesn't get fees) that can be sold on other storefronts with the caveat that the developer must sell the keys for at least the same price he set on steam. Being allowed to sell those keys is a sign of goodwill, but the goodwill is conditional upon the source of goodwill not destroying itself. If you buy a game on the Humble Store, Valve won't get a single cent, most of the money goes to the developer, and yet Valve still has all of the ongoing infrastructure costs.
What you’ve said is true but also misses the point. Licenses have never been about stopping bad actions because a bit of text can’t prevent someone from buying materials and building things, just like a speed limit sign has never stopped someone from speeding (unless they crash into it).
They ARE however deterrents to bad actions from less-than-scrupulous entities, and enforcement mechanisms against fully-unscrupulous entities.
I suspect (but will admit I am just guessing here) that Prusa would prefer not to get to the enforcement stage because it is both costly and annoying, but having that in your back pocket is, sadly, necessary in a litigious society with some number of unscrupulous actors, and the deterrent effect alone is likely enough to achieve most of their goals.
Even if the unscrupulous entities cared about the license, they would just get their (already paid for) CAD person to reverse engineer every single necessary model over the course of a week. If an amateur like me can reliably do that in his spare time, imagine what a professional could do during an 8 hour shift.
But it doesn't matter either way because no unscrupulous entity is going to be dumb enough to publicly announce that they used the models to produce their clone.
If I manufacture a clone of a Prusa, there is no way for anyone to prove that I used the original 3D models. If it were possible to prove that, it would also be possible to "prove" that I copied 3D CAD models that I've never seen, which could put me in legal trouble. Reverse engineering is not a crime, and reverse engineering (and all the costs associated with manufacturing and prototyping[0]) likely _can_ reproduce a near identical Prusa printer.
As an aside, if you've seen the average Prusa clone, it's often quite far from the original design. Almost nobody 1:1 cloned Prusas back when that was a thing, because the Prusa design didn't cut corners. Those clones would often use designs which were probably derived from the original, and were unpublished. Why didn't Prusa go after them for this? He should have had just as much luck given that those manufacturers were potentially in breach of the GPL.
In summary, the OCL cannot actually stop clones, because if it did, we'd have some serious problems with our legal systems, prohibiting perfectly legal reverse engineering (irrespective of if the cloners did the reverse engineering or not).
It _only_ stops people who are honest enough to state that their designs are derived from Prusa's models. People who weren't a threat to begin with, and who now are voluntarily subscribing to legal issues if they ever felt like selling a Prusa modification without Prusa's approval.
The real deterrents are:
* Design complexity
* Extreme amounts of competition (almost nobody would buy a prusa clone these days unless they _wanted_ to have an almost broken printer to force them to learn how to make it work reliably). We have cheap, good, first party 3D printer designs.
[0]: To clarify, when I say prototyping, this needs to happen irrespective of if you reverse engineer or not. Once you have the models, which will be true to life, you still have to "reverse engineer" the tools/dies/materials/etc, for which Prusa sensibly does _not_ offer the models.
Correction is one of many signals, and it’s better than ignoring pushback, but it’s still usually worse than not needing the correction in the first place.
Sure, a manufacturer that didn’t need to course correct yet doesn’t mean they won’t change their stance in the future, but the same is true for one that already course-corrected.
We see this with privacy eroding laws continually - legislators will “listen” and course correct if there’s pushback, only to reintroduce the bill in the next legislative session, repeatedly, until it gets passed.
I’d prefer the one that hasn’t yet signaled a desire to do something negative in the past to one that has, even if they walked it back later.
Someone who isn’t racist because they grew up in a progressive family just means they were lucky. They often have never been tested under pressure.
On the other hand, someone who grew up in a racist family and ends up not racist means their beliefs are battle tested. This is a real test of character — it also tells me how they process information.
What you’re describing is a third case where someone pretends to correct but has no intention to, which I do not think Bambu’s original act of opening of LAN access qualifies.
Now I think the other dimension here is that people are expecting Bambu to believe in open source. They might not actually, which is their own opinion to have, but that’s a different problem altogether. I believe in local access but not necessarily open sourcing of everything so from my PoV, Bambu’s stance is perfectly consistent.
You are conflating two things: appeasement and actual change in principles. Externally it can be hard to distinguish these, but it is easier to get a sense of it with more signals.
From Bambu’s historical and continued actions, specifically including the orca slicer actions that this blog post was about, there is additional signal that LAN mode backpedaling was more likely an appeasement action than a shift in principles to embrace a more open ecosystem.
I have the original CC. It’s a fine budget machine for single color - plenty fast and good quality prints.
They rubbed people the wrong way launching the CC2 with multi-color support before they developed the multi-color add-on that was promised for the original CC. I didn’t plan on multi-color with the CC, so that didn’t personally bother me too much.
I recently got a Snapmaker U1 for multi-toolhead prints and love it so far - much less waste than a filament changer and I’m using it for more exotic prints like a mix of conductive and regular PLA in a single part that wouldn’t work well in a filament changer single toolhead printer.
And I still use my CC for occasional single color prints (recently it’s been dedicated to TPU but I’m probably going to move that over to the U1 so I can do “over molded” TPU+PLA prints).
In short, if you’re willing to spend more I’d highly recommend the U1 if you know you’d benefit from the toolchanger. CC is probably a fine budget machine but there are a lot of other similar budget corexy machines to consider these days as well (I got CC when it was groundbreaking for features at its price but competition has caught up by now).
I wouldn’t recommend this outright without recommending some research first. Some brands put the over-discharge protection into the tools instead of the batteries, so using one of those batteries in other tools may permanently kill the battery pack.
They’re incredibly wasteful due to inefficient power transfer which is a huge issue with wireless charging.
And it’s not just wireless that’s inefficient; with a usb connection you’ll typically lose at least 15% in a good buck/boost stage and there’s 2 involved in a usb battery pack: one in the battery pack itself to step up/down from pack voltage to the negotiated PD voltage, and then another lossy stage in the phone stepping down to 3.7v.
Maybe it would have fared better if I was out in sunlight viewing them, but seeing this thing in person sold me on e-paper for this use case
reply