monotremata

joined 8 months ago
[–] monotremata 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's a British TV anthology series similar to The Twilight Zone, but most of the episodes are about technologic dystopias

[–] monotremata 12 points 2 days ago (5 children)

It was in Black Mirror years ago.

[–] monotremata 34 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I assumed the stunning part was this:

We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.

It's just pretty blatant.

[–] monotremata 4 points 6 days ago

I feel like there's a buddhist lesson about impermanence here.

[–] monotremata 4 points 6 days ago

Thanks, Stefon.

[–] monotremata 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I think so? It's section 3.2 of the paper: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17452759.2024.2404157#d1e604

They don't talk that much about current in particular; figure 5 only shows the resistance in the regulated output path as a function of the voltage on the control path, which isn't enough to actually say whether there's specifically current amplification. (Also, the gain would be negative; does that matter?) But they do discuss the fact that the output channel is much wider, which strongly suggests it's able to pass more current (since they mention the resistivity drops as the cross-sectional area of the trace increases). The wider trace is one that wouldn't have the fuse behavior on its own, because the resistivity is too low for it to heat up enough to trigger that at the voltages they're using, but the close proximity of the very thin fusing wire of the control signal is enough to cause a nonlinear resistivity change in the output path as well. I think that means they're using a single voltage for both kinds of path, and that the control current is thus lower than the output current because the resistance on the control path is higher, but I'm not certain. I am not an electrical engineer, just an enthusiastic amateur.

[–] monotremata 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

They did do the thing that HewlettHackard is describing. Check out the AND gate in the linked article. The input paths are short and use small wires, but also cross the larger paths that normally link the output to ground. If both are active, the paths to ground are interrupted, and the resistor to VCC pulls up the output. So they did make logic gates. In the paper they also demonstrate NOT and OR.

I gather there's a technical sense of "active" that's used in electrical engineering that might not apply here, but to someone like me, with only a tinkerer's knowledge of components, logic gates seem like enough to justify the term in the headline.

[–] monotremata 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

According to Wikipedia at least, there are no members of Congress who even have a net worth over $500 million: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_wealth let alone an annual income that high.

So I think it's that they're beholden to their donors, as usual.

[–] monotremata 2 points 1 week ago
[–] monotremata 2 points 1 week ago

Yeah. I thought it was important context that they had backpedalled, but I did not intend to downplay the severity of the issue.

[–] monotremata 1 points 1 week ago

A minor grammar point: in this context, the word is actually "disbursing," from the same root as "bursar," a job title you may have encountered in school administrations. "Disbursing" means "paying out from a fund." "Dispersing" means "scattering" or "causing to dissipate." So the old system was disbursing funds. The new system will be dispersing funds.

[–] monotremata 10 points 1 week ago

Citizens United would be a decent candidate. Once it was established that donations were protected political speech, it effectively legalized bribery, and made oligarchy essentially inevitable. Most of the missteps since then have been motivated by folks trying to simultaneously play to populist talking points but also placate billionaire donors. The left needed an actual positive message, like the kind Bernie Sanders was pushing, that would energize folks and unite the overeducated with the working class, but that was never going to be acceptable to the donor class, and so candidates like him always had to be shoved aside for someone who would clearly cater to corporate needs. And someone who would clearly cater to corporate needs was always going to be a really tough sell and not really a solution to the needs of the moment.

That doesn't really account for the rise of the tech bro fascist accelerationists like Mencius Moldbug and the Dark Enlightenment, which is a big part of the current moment and accounts for how the far right was able to hoodwink some billionaires into voting for a social collapse that seems very likely to hurt them also. But Citizens United still seems like a fair candidate for a point at which some of the last paths away from this outcome were foreclosed.

 

Bear with me for a moment, because I'm not sure how to describe this problem without just describing a part I'm trying to print.

I was designing a part today, and it's basically a box; for various reasons I wanted to print it with all the sides flat on the print bed, but have bridges between the sides and the bottom to act as living hinges so it would be easy to fold into shape after it came off the bed. But when I got it into PrusaSlicer, by default, Prusa slices all bridges in a single uniform direction--which on this print meant that two of the bridges were across the shortest distance, and the other two were parallel to the gap they were supposed to span. Which, y'know, is obviously not a good way to try to bridge the gap.

I was able to manually adjust the bridge direction to fix this, but I'm kinda surprised that the slicer doesn't automatically choose paths for bridging gaps to try to make them as printable as possible. I don't remember having this issue in the past, but I haven't designed with bridges in quite a while--it's possible that I've just never noticed before, or it could be that a previous slicer (I used to use Cura) or previous version of PrusaSlicer did this differently.

Is there a term for this? Are there slicers that do a better job of it? Is there an open feature request about this?

Basically just wondering if anyone has insight into this, or any suggestions for reading on the subject.

Thanks!

view more: next ›