That's a really great point and another reason I've really enjoyed the Garmin experience -- Garmin doesn't try to sell your own data back to you.
Getting anything more than the absolute most basic of real time data out of a Fitbit requires an annual subscription. With Garmin, it's just there.
Something like a body panel is going to expand/contract a couple of orders of magnitude more than 10 microns just from the weather changing day-to-day.
Chiming back in here to say that yes, that was exactly my point.
To maybe make it a little clearer, a hypothetical: imagine a Republican-controlled state enacts a law banning late term abortions and makes it punishable with jail time for women to receive one.
That hypothetical law includes a clause defining a late term abortion as one taking place at any time past 37 weeks from conception.
A woman has an abortion at 36 weeks pregnant. Anti-abortion activists insist that she should be culpable under the law; an abortion at 36 weeks is functionally the same as an abortion at 37 weeks and 36 weeks is very obviously late term pregnancy, they claim.
If the local sheriff then arrests that woman, is the sheriff behaving lawfully?
That's why the government being bound to the letter of the law is so incredibly important. A law can be stupid, harmful, regressive, or otherwise bad in any number of ways, but if the government must act within the law as written, then at least we know what rules we're playing by and can work to change them.
If the government is allowed to arbitrarily and capriciously ignore the letter of the law in favor of what the people enforcing it wish the law were, that will be abused by bad actors. That sort of thing is more or less a universal component of authoritarianism.
tl;dr - we shouldn't do it because allowing it will allow it to be used against us.
If the law says you can’t kill people by driving into them, and then someone slides into them (intentionally), is that illegal?
It depends on how it's defined in the law. States generally don't write laws that define vehicular homicide solely as striking a person specifically with the front of a passenger car for exactly this reason. Further, the need for precision in law is why intentional acts and negligent acts are generally defined separately e.g., murder vs manslaughter.
Beyond that, judges exist and are given sentencing discretion (or at least should be) because there are mitigating circumstances… in other words shit happens.
Discretion in enforcement/prosecution is not the same thing as enforcing something that isn't defined in law. One is arguably a necessary component of real justice, the other is how authoritarianism functions.
The National Firearms Act has very specific language defining what constitutes a machine gun. It does not include language giving the executive branch power to expand that definition. Either something meets that legal definition and is legally a machine gun or it isn't.
I'm not even saying that it's impossible for an enforcing agency to be given those powers -- the FDA, for example, has been given pretty sweeping authority to classify drugs. In fact, they have the explicit authority to classify analogs of illegal drugs as illegal. That's basically the parallel to what's being discussed here with the NFA and the ATF.
The difference is that Congress hasn't given the ATF the authority to do so. If you want the law to grant the ability to enforce a less specific definition than what exists in the current law then you need to either change the law to carry a more expansive definition and/or give the enforcing agency the power to make that definition outright. Either of those things would allow the sort of enforcement the other commenter was calling for, but it would be within the letter of the law.
The point wasnt that you can't enact a particular law or even that you can't allow for enforcement to be adaptive -- it was that rule of law requires that adaptiveness to be defined within the law itself. It's totally okay if the law says "it depends and here's who decides." It's not okay to decide to enforce the law on the basis of "this is what I feel like the law should do" even if the actual language of the law doesn't support it.
He had a medical condition that left him more or less unable to speak that was only corrected through a risky surgical procedure that could have left him permanently mute.
Being unable to communicate with other humans in person is a different level of isolation, and I definitely believe it likely contributed to him breaking entirely.
That said, the rest of the BtB series mentioned in this thread also made it pretty clear that he sucked for a long, long time before that. It just went all gas no brakes at that point.
That's inconsistent extrusion.
As others have mentioned, the first thing I'd look at is thoroughly drying the filament. TPU is very hygroscopic and will become nearly unprintable within a couple of days of coming out of the dryer.
Beyond that, you may be trying to run it faster than your hotend can melt it. TPU is pretty resistant to melt and cranking temp doesn't help a whole lot. Actual flow can vary pretty wildly between brands depending on their exact blend but I've seen TPUs that refuse to flow more than around 2mm³/s through a standard 0.4 nozzle. (Volumetric flow is roughly layer height * width * linear speed).
FedEx ground are all contractors. It depends on who has the contract for your area, but they tend to be pretty bad IME as well.
I also can't see this part surviving appeal:
Large capacity magazines “are not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment,” Immergut wrote.
Oregon set the capacity limit at 10 rounds. Practically every handgun commonly used for self-defense has a capacity of at least 15.
Restricts Freedom to Use the Software
I've always found this particular one somewhat frustrating. It's essentially the intolerance paradox repackaged into a software licensing analog:
"You are restricting the freedom of users by taking away their ability to close the code and restrict the freedom of other users!"
It's always read very "I got mine" to me.
That said, while I lean copyleft, I also don't find just barring commercial use entirely interesting. The goal is to ensure source code remains available to users; I think there are better ways of addressing that than trying to delineate and exclude commercial use.
PLA will mostly get brittle over time as it absorbs water. Biggest issue is that if it becomes more likely to break while feeding. Drying will help some there. On the whole, it's fairly low in hygroscopicity compared to a lot of other materials.
Drying is part of the process when raw plastic pellets are used in injection molding. The only reason it's not more common in 3DP is that common materials like PLA and ABS arent particularly hygroscopic. PETG is slightly more hygroscopic, but materials like TPU, PET, nylons, etc are highly hygroscopic and definitely need drying to print well.
Also remember that PETG needs more room between the nozzle and the build plate (higher z offset) so that the filament doesn't stick to the nozzle and make a mess
This is one of those pieces of 3DP lore that isn't correct. If Z offset is set accurately, it doesn't need to be changed for any material, but extrusion multiplier/flow does.
The reason why bumping z offset bandaids the problem is because PETs are highly incompressible, i.e., they don't respond well to being squeezed and will displace under pressure. Raising the z offset means you're putting the same amount of material into a larger physical volume. This effectively lowers EM for the first layer, but introduces accuracy issues in the rest of the print.
Instead, it's better to make sure z offset is dead on accurate and then adjust EM down so that flow is correct throughout the print.
The USDA and FDA, which both lean conservative in their recommendations, consider whole cuts of pork safe down to 145F (roughly equivalent to cooked to medium):
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2011/05/25/cooking-meat-check-new-recommended-temperatures
https://www.fda.gov/media/107000/download
This has been the case for over a decade. Pork should be cooked but the old 160F recommendations have been gone for a long time now because commercial pork is relatively safe.
Also note that this is the one-minute pasteurization temp; meat can be held at a lower temperature for longer to render it safe.