I wonder how you ever could “upload” a consciousness without Ship-of-Theseusing a Brain.

Cyberpunk2077 also has this “upload vs copy” issue, but doesn’t actually make you think about it too hard.

yeah, but it’s not nearly as good as it seems.

ion thruster with a tiny bit of extra thrust snd ISP because of fusion reactions.

Curious if this will fix my one issue I have with Finamp.

I have some quite large playlists I’d like to listen on shuffle. Finamp doesn’t do that well at all. (It seems it only shuffles what it has cached or something, as it seems to shuffle “only” the first 100 or so songs. of 3000+)

I think that 3d printing is not food safe because of the layers.
One can decide for themselves if they want to take that risk, but commercially selling medical stuff with those issues would not be my cup of tea.

/e oops, replied to the Not instead of OP.

so I’m hoping we’re finally getting close to a version that’s a little more robust.

Well, the Ondsel team which (claims to? I don’t know) work closely with FreeCAD hoped in October 23 to maybe get Topological Naming done by February 2024 (FOSDEM 2024 is 03rd and 4th of February

We think that these goals are within reach and it should be possible to release FreeCAD 1.0 in time for the next FOSDEM. Here’s our thinking behind this goal.

Since FreeCAD still seems to be in the beginning stages of phase 3, I doubt they’ll make that target.

Well, all of these companies intentionally try to lock the users into them, by making their files as unreadable as possible.

No Company wants to lose access to all of their models.

There are also still a lot of QoL issues with the GUI and no real attempt to bring in influences and widgets from direct modeling. FreeCAD is pure of heart and pure of thought, but I’m not sure I’m quite there, though I can at least imagine it now

fyi, there is now ondsel
based on FreeCAD, their release introduction reads:

So our thinking was: we should focus on a polished user experience and features that are essential to professional use. Let’s build something we feel good about recommending it to someone working on a deadline. And let’s build a service for vaulting and collaboration.

…

Our primary objective is to provide polish and sorely missing features — that’s a large part of the added value. We’ve made big and small changes in the upstream project, but the four vital projects for us have been toponaming, integrated assembly workbench, UX/UI, and collaboration.

full Article / release notes

So working exactly on what most consider FreeCADs weaknesses I’d say

Unfortunately toponaming is still not done for either. That will be a huge leap in usefulness for me.
(fixes models breaking when their topology changes)

Infill has massively diminishing returns. I don’t think 100% is required. Usually it’s much better to increase the number outer layers.
That said, depending on the cost scaling, the possibly positive effects of extra mass, and how much I want to avoid a second attempt, massive objects can make some sense.

PLA becomes brittle with moisture (from your hands and/or air). I would recomment PETG / ASA / ABS (ascending order).

Yes, basically all CAD and slicers (3d-printer software) can mirror. PrusaSlicer for example can mirror and then save to stl again.

A lot of people seem to to think that bedslingers are inherently worse than core xy kinematics.
Core xy is definitely more compact.
In return the belts are longerz tightening them more complex (x and y can become unaligned).
Core xy can be easier for input shaping, as only the z axis mass changes.

Those have gotten rather expensive.

But maybe the 4 will become available and cheap now?

I mean Teslas marketing here is totally predatory, and imho this is where they should be severely punished.

once it became kinda publicly known that Teslas “Autopilot” doesn’t mean hands off driving, they changed to Full Self Driving ^capability

If you are relying on T&C as a get out of jail free card for your safety system, then it isn’t a safety system.

That’s how every safety system works.
You define the necessary conditions in which it works, and guarantee (with testing and validation) that in those conditions it does its job.
Nothing works unconditionally.

The Conditions in this case are in fact, that it is an assistance system, and not a safety system, because everybody knows it can’t be relied upon. It probably works >99% of times, which just isn’t (nearly) enough for driving.

Then it should not be called “Autopilot.” The AI required to make real autopilot work does NOT exist now and probably won’t exist for decades.

Well, in Aviation, where I believe the term “Autopilot” is most commonly used, at least before tesla, an Autopilot is actually exactly what Tesla offers.
When everything is fine, it can keep the plane going.
If issues come up, it disengages and the pilot has to be able to receive full control

/e: also, waymo and cruise already have completely autonomous cars, which generally work.

Except that Tesla does claim that they’re autonomous self-driving. They’re even among the group pushing to be allowed to sell cars with no driver controls.

https://www.tesla.com/en_eu/support/autopilot

they really don’t say that. I mean they advertise with it, sure. But always when it actually comes down to it, tesla admits it’s an assistive feature that requires constant attention.

Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot and Full Self-Driving Capability are intended for use with a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment. While these features are designed to become more capable over time, the currently enabled features do not make the vehicle autonomous.

and you get warnings source (or here ) when you first sign up, as well as reminders when the car detects that you don’t follow the requirements.

if it disengaged a few seconds before, the crash is still the fault of Tesla’s software.

I actually disagree, because it’s not self driving, it doesn’t actually claim to have any autonomous features. The driver has to be aware all the time.
The way all of this is worded when facing the public is… horrible, that’s true. But since the warnings once in the car seem to all be there, I’d say that’s more a false advertising issue than a “is your product actually safe?” issue.

Really interested in how this comes out, even more data would be interesting to me.

not 100% sure, because weather is a bit device specific.
But usually you should be able to install either weather notification or quickweather (use an API key for OpenWeatherMap) and have that data sync via gadgetbridge to the watch.

And ZeppOS watches (most/all Amazfit watches) are well supported!
Can’t recommend it enough, for anyone privacy conscious at least

Google would likely still bid, but lower, so that Firefox may change over for bing, and still get ~80% of what they got from google. Google has an interest to not make it cheap for microsoft, even if they don’t want to pay a dime themselves.

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/09/are-self-driving-cars-already-safer-than-human-drivers/

It seems that both Waymo and Cruise are more likely to already surpass average human driving safety, than not.

I’m really curious on how the next FSD version (which apparently completely relies on neural nets for driving) play out.
Not that I think it’ll be particularily good, just particularily interesting.

Well, it’s a beta for “full self driving” and it’s really quite easy to argue that it even is capable of doing that. It’s just not really close to the required certainty. It propably acts fine in 99%+ of decisions. It’s just such a bitch to get that last percent filled in as much as required