A bit besides the point, but an FDM printer is definitely not good enough to reproduce these somewhat convincingly. That being said, a cheap-ish resin printer will probably do the job, and they are generally in the same price range.
Please don't resin print at home, especially if you have kids, unless you really know what you are doing. And by that I mean professional experience handling hazardous materials and provisioning a work environment for them.
The internet is rife with influencer content that makes these look OK and "not that dangerous", along with people who want to believe that rather than face buyer's remorse.
It's more dangerous than you think. It's messier than you think. The process steps are more ennui than you think. If you don't respect it you will make unsafe mistakes out of lack of knowledge, or impatience, or lazyness.
This shouldn't really be consumer gear. You can also fuck up on health and safety with FDM printers, but the default beginner lane (printing PLA in common colors) is a lot less risky on zero knowledge entry.
I agree. Kids or animals. Specially dogs that are mindless brutes.
I've been 3d printing with resin for a long time before I had my dog. Now I don't do it, unless I can be sure that I can have the dog out my printing room for several days straight, for the water-washable resin to solidify on the sun after usage, and all the different after-print steps that have to be taken care of.
It's also annoying to clean the plate, and deal with the resin bottles when you stop using them. There's no easily accessible infrastructure to dispose of the waste from the printing process so if you become lazy, you end up creating toxic hazards for anyone in the community. Not a good outcome at all.
Still, safe 3d printing brings me a lot of joy, specially to prepare board games sessions with friends and neighbours. Printing, painting, etc. You just have to be responsible and civic and do the right thing.
There's a safe way to handle this stuff, but you have to be very disciplined about it. Animals and kids complicate that big time.
For hardcore army man enthusiasts, FDM printing will never satisfy their standards.
For my kids, swapping a 0.2mm nozzle into the printer, setting layer height to sub-0.1mm, and reducing print speed to 50% produces surprisingly good results.
I’ve written before on HN about when my employer hired several ex-FAANG people to manage all things cloud in our company.
Whenever there was an outage they would put up a fight against anyone wanting to update the status page to show the outage. They had so many excuses and reasons not to.
Eventually we figured out that they were planning to use the uptime figures for requesting raises and promos as they did at their FAANG employer, so anything that reduced that uptime number was to be avoided at all costs.
Are there companies that actually use their statuspage as a source of truth for uptime numbers?
I think it's way more common for companies to have a public status page, and then internal tooling that tracks the "real" uptime number. (E.g. Datadog monitors, New Relic monitoring, etc)
I don’t know, but I will say that this team that was hired into our company was so hyperfocused on any numbers they planned to use for performance reviews that it probably didn’t matter which service you chose to measure the website performance. They’d find a way to game it. If we had used the internal devops observability tools I bet they would have started pulling back logging and reducing severity levels as reported in the codebase.
It’s obviously not a problem at every company because there are many companies who will recognize these shenanigans and come down hard on them. However you could tell these guys could recognize any opportunity to game the numbers if they thought those numbers would come up at performance review time.
Ironically our CEO didn’t even look at those numbers. He used the site and remembered the recent outages.
It's because if you automate it, something could/would happen to the little script that defines "uptime," and if that goes down, suddenly you're in violation of your SLA and all of your customers start demanding refunds/credits/etc. when everything is running fine.
Or let's say your load balancer croaks, triggering a "down" status, but it's 3am, so a single server is handling traffic just fine? In short, defining "down" in an automated way is just exposing internal tooling unnecessarily and generates more false positives than negatives.
Lastly, if you are allowed 45 minutes of downtime per year and it takes you an hour to manually update the status page, you just bought yourself an extra hour to figure out how to fix the problem before you have to start issuing refunds/credits.
I found GitHub's old "how many visits to this status page have there been recently" graph on their status page to be an absurdly neat solution to this.
Requires zero insight into other infrastructure, absolutely minimal automation, but immediately gives you an idea whether it's down for just you or everybody. Sadly now deceased.
I like that https://discordstatus.com/ shows the API response times as well. There's times where Discord will seem to have issues, and those correlate very well with increased API response times usually.
Reddit Status used to show API response times way back in the day as well when I used to use the site, but they've really watered it down since then. Everything that goes there needs to be manually put in now AFAIK. Not to mention that one of the few sections is for "ads.reddit.com", classic.
Yeah, this is something people think is super easy to automate, and it is for the most basic implementation of something like a single test runner. The most basic implementation is prone to false positives, and as you say, breaking when the rest of your stuff breaks.
You can put your test runner on different infrastructure, and now you have a whole new class of false positives to deal with. And it costs you a bit more because you're probably paying someone for the different infra.
You can put several test runners on different infrastructure in different parts of the world. This increases your costs further. The only truly clear signals you get from this are when all are passing or all are failing. Any mixture of passes and fails has an opportunity for misinterpretation. Why is Sydney timing out while all the others are passing? Is that an issue with the test runner or its local infra, or is there an internet event happening (cable cut, BGP hijack, etc) beyond the local infra?
And thus nearly everyone has a human in the loop to interpret the test results and make a decision about whether to post, regardless of how far they've gone with automation.
They are manual AND political (depending on how big the company is). Because having a dashboard go to red usually has a bunch of project work behind it.
It's very practical when you use a lot of different devices. It's nice to use native built in email apps, but when using multiple different OSes and device types, it can be very annoying to have the different clients play nice with each other.
While I do think that's true, I'd say a more apt analogy is that for humans each model will produce fairly similar results on each prompt, but it helps having 8 billion different models running.
I'd also argue that we tend to have a larger context. What did you have for dinner? Did you see anything new yesterday? Are you tired of getting asked the same question over and over again?
> humans each model will produce fairly similar results on each prompt, but it helps having 8 billion different models running
Yes, that was my point. We don't have 8 billion AI models. Furthermore, existing models are also trained on heavily overlapping data. The collective creativity and inventiveness of humans far exceeds what AI can currently do for us.
I've just recently set off time to have a few extended coding sessions, and the results are all over the place.
Guided in a good way for well defined tasks, it has saved me days if not weeks. Given more vague, or perhaps unreasonable tasks, it will quickly devolve into just delivering something, anything, no matter how "obviously" wrong it is.
It is actually meaningful though, as it says something about the origin of the materials. Synthetic could still mean that it was based off of animal products.
It's meaningful if it's vegan certified. If it's stated by the manufacturer that they're using synthetic leather but in the article 'vegan leather' is used, then probably it's not very meaningful, it's actually misleading since not all synthetic leathers are 'vegan friendly'
If you care that cows only express milk after birth and thus the industry is a combination of forced pregnancy and infanticide (most calves aren't economical), that's a long-winded way of saying "milk is immoral", and people quite often go from "$thing is immoral" to "I will not purchase $thing".
* Or at least, can be non-vegan: there's bacterial sources of casein but I don't know how economically relevant that is.
