But it's not malicious. It's not ideal, and it should be addressed, but it's not bad faith or intentional spying or even gross negligence or incompetence.

When you claim you keep no logs yet find out you are keeping logs, what is that if not incompetence or negligence?

Human. And what was their reaction upon having this crime brought to their attention? It was exactly all anyone could ask for.

Shitting on well-intentioned people who merely failed to be perfect is not a great way to get the most of what you ultimately want.

If you think intent doesn't matter then what happens when well-intentioned people decide it's not worth trying because no matter what they will be crucified as murderers even if all they did wrong was fail to clean the break room coffee pot. The actual baddies are still there and have no inhibitions and now not even any competition.

Calling a strike a strike does not blame the batter. It’s simply calling it for what it is. Even if the person corrects the wrong does not mean that incompetence or negligence was not the correct description. This entire being offended for the correct words used to describe things is tiresome. It’s like people being offended at being told they are ignorant. Ignorant does not mean stupid. Just because ignorant people are ignorant of the word does not make people using words correctly mean or bad or full of ill will.

  > it should be addressed, but it's not bad faith

I think this is the part that annoys me about the privacy community. There's nicer ways to deal with these issues and get them resolved rather than just leaping to the pitchforks. Raise the concern and observe the response. That is far more informative of how much one should trust. Because let's be honest, at the end of the day there is still trust. You have to trust that they have no logs. You have to trust any third party auditor. Trustless is a difficult paradigm to build, so what's critical is the little things.

But jumping to pitchforks just teaches companies to ignore the privacy crowd. Why cater to them when every action is interpreted as malicious? If you can do no right then realistically you can do no wrong either. If every action is "wrong" then none are. In this way I think the privacy community just shoots themselves in the foot, impeding us from getting what we want.

It's a lot of work to make models that are useful in real life, but for some things it's worth it because it's sooo nice having 2k of plain text that describes an entire object, and it's even fully parametric, and it even comes with a customizer panel for the parameters, so every model isn't just a model, it's a model generator app, and even has meaningful diffs in git.

The same model in freecad is like 6 megs of zipped xml and realistically not nearly as usefully parametric.

That couple-k of plain text is such a huge deal that it makes all the other difficulty worth it for mechanical/functional stuff.

OpenSCAD is the only CAD tool I use. I can'd figure out how to operate a graphical 3D software with a 2D GUI so it's just easier to describe things mathematically.

I just wish it had operations for subtractively chamfering, rounding, etc. as doing minkowski() with cones and spheres to achieve that result can be unwieldy.

A few years ago I made a little module rounded_cube that generates a cube by drawing 1/8 spheres wrapped in hull, andnsince then I've been using that for everything, making inside fillets by using a rounded cube as a cut shape. Since it can generate a hollow box with a desired wall thickness, you have the shell of an enclosure box in a single call.

Over time I added other things like a single linear fillet, a single radial fillet, both interior and exterior, convenience things built out of those like a screw post with a fillet base etc. But really I always end up just using mirror_copy and rounded_cube a lot.

There is a scifi book series aboit a programmer who gets zapped into a fantasy world that has magic, and he becomes the most powerful wizard in the world because he applies the coding concept of reusable components and building big things out of smaller things and automation, which none of the other wizards ever thought of.

openscad is like that. To get anywhere you first have to build a library of useful higher level things out of the low level things. Like forth or assembly, or really all programming I guess.

Do you know about BOSL2? It can do rounding or chamfering very easily.

cuboid([20, 20, 30], chamfer=5);

I find that I'm often making one-offs. I take a part I designed and I need a slight modification for it for some reason.

Fusion is great for that as long as there's not too many parts. But sometimes I'll want a new variant or a series of new variants.

And reaching for python makes that easy.

You can do that effortlessly right in openscad itself or in freecad for a more visual way, or in every single cad app in existence I think.

In freecad you first just open the stl file, then Part -> Create part from mesh, then you have a solid you can modify.

Sounds great in theory until you actually try it and discover that anytime a STL touches another object the F6 render craps out with "Manifold conversion failed: NotManifold"

I just tried this in OpenSCAD and it crashed:

intersection() { import("3DBenchy.stl"); sphere(30); }

FYI, I just tested this in OpenSCAD version 2025.09.13 and it works fine.

Indeed it does. Looks like their recent dev builds are way better. Good to know.

Yeah you definitely want to use the dev builds for openscad

"feels off mission" exposes how little conviction there is behind this position.

That is a flimsy tissue paper statement about a concept that should be a bedrock principle.

It's irrationally charitable to give it any credit at all. Especially in context where anyone who's awake should understand they need to be delivering an unquestionably clear message about unquestionably clear goals and core values, because this ain't that.

Or rather, it is a clear message, just a different message to a different audience.

yeah, it reads to me like "we probably shouldn't do it"

which is just prep talk for "if we need it, we could do it"

It's definitely testing the waters.

Not to mention, that nova killed anything and everything that might have existed in all other systems for a dozen light-years in all directions at the same time it was depositing the stuff that new things will live on later.

If only they had explicitly defined how they will be using the word effort for the rest of the article, to address exactly this obvious and silly reaction.

I read the article before I commented, and I reread the definition just now, and I still think that effort/exertion/tension/whatever you want to call it, is a necessary stage along the journey to mastery. Maybe Mozart or whatever preternatural prodigy from birth managed to fit this stage into preconsciousness, but I can virtually guarantee that Katie Ledecky had to over-exert in order to build herself into the powerhouse she became. There is no way she expended "zero effort", either by normal use of the word "effort", or by the definition in the article.

No, and what's interesting is why do you think that's what it means or in any way could possibly be interpreted into meaning?

Do we even have an optical transistor yet?

How can a programmer write -P in the titles when the flag is -p?

Yeah I stylistically decided to set my titles in all caps, but now thinking about that I'm not sure if it was a good idea...

And yet the asessment of the quality is still accurate. At least other trash sites have the excuse that they aren't claiming to be Forbes. At least an ai has the excuse that it's an ai.