Some people are busting out "definitions" of "End to End Encryption" but people were already using that as in informal descriptive term long before your formalized technical jargon was made up. Nobody should be surprised if there are mismatches. Have faith in our faithlessness.

I personally view the term as an attempt to call semi-bullshit on SMTP and IMAP over SSL/TLS. In the "old" (though not very old) days, if you sent a plaintext email (no PGP!), some people would say "oh, it's encrypted anyway, because the connection is encrypted between your workstation and the SMTP server, the connection from there to some SMTP relay is encrypted, the connection from there to the final SMTP server is encrypted, and the recipient's connection to the IMAP server is encrypted."

To which plenty of people, like me, complained "But it's still plaintext at every stop where it's stored along the way! You should use PGP, because then, regardless of the connection security, or lack of security on all the connections, it is encrypted end to end. Never trust the network, baby!"

Keep in mind that even when I say that, this is without any regard for key security! When I say E2E encrypted, it is implied that the key exchange may have been done poorly/incorrectly, mainly because few people really get to be sure they're not being MitMed when they use PGP. You can exchange keys correctly, but it's enough of a PITA that, in the wild, you rarely get to. You usually just look up their key on some keyserver and hope for the best. Ahem. And I say "usually" as if even that happens often. [eyeroll]

Indeed, every time I hear about some new secure messaging app/protocol, the first thing I wonder is "how do they do key exchange?" and I'm generally mistrusting of it, by default. And sometimes, I'm unpleasantly unsurprised, err I mean, cynically confirmed.

But anyway, if my E2E definition matches yours, great! And if it doesn't, well, that's ok and it's why we descend into the dorky details, so that we can be sure we're both talking about the same thing.

The merger is a bad idea, but the comment "threatening to force Americans into higher subscription prices and fewer choices over what and how they watch, " is a bit too far.

You don't have to pay for the service after all.

Sailing the high seas may be more popular, but given how little is worth watching it's a minor issue.

Right-wing operatives have long been pushing that ALL government work should be done by hiring contractors from private industry. This was an example.

I've done my first test of buying a whole pallet of filament straight from a Chinese manufacturer. It's a risk - it could be all junk - but if it's usable, the price advantage is insane. Like $3/kg for PETG at the factory gate (like $5/kg after sea freight and our 24% VAT). Versus local stores which sell for like $30/kg.

The contractor they had been hired by was a company called Opexus; they were hired as engineers working on projects for various agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Energy, Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General.

Obviously Opexus didn't do a good job at background check.

A few more sites: https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
  https://arstechnica.com/inform...
  https://cyberscoop.com/muneeb-...

I'd love to see someone try to 3d print with a filament that melts at 162K. Where do you even buy xenon filament? ;)

Yeah, if you had injected moulded PLA, it would have been just as terrible

Early on, I was overdoing chamber heating, and later discovered that was part of my problem. A blanket and a duvet can get a P1S's chamber over 70C. But if you do that, in my experience, like half an hour or so into the print you'll get heat creep problems and the filament will split & the extruder will just dance around in the air as though it were clogged (though maybe my filament was just garbage... it certainly was *wound* terribly). I ended up using a meat thermometer stuck in through one of the holes to measure temperatures, and then I'dadjust the positioning of one small blanket over the chamber to try to keep it in the mid to upper 50s, and was able to finish big prints that way.

But yeah, whatever means you use, you need some sort of raft and very strong reinforcements.

As was mentioned earlier, this isn't talking about a turbine blade, it's talking about an air intake. Also, "millimeter level"? This isn't the early 2000s. I usually print with a layer thickness of 100 microns, and the printer's control of the Z axis is well finer than that.

The problem is that they made an insane choice of a material for the intake. It was supposed to be ABS-CF, but instead it was apparently PLA. Corn plastic. The stuff people make Warhammer figures and the like out of.

I mean, the fact that PLA's chain is vulnerable to scission by water is in a way nice - not just from a compostability perspective, but from a health perspective too. I don't mind sanding PLA, for example, because PLA microplastics aren't going to build up in your body the way that, say, PETG or ABS might. At 60C, PLA microparticles decompose fully in just 10h. It's significantly slower at lower temperatures, but still, they don't persist. Also, a lot of people like that it's made out of corn rather than petroleum (personally, I don't care).

But yeah, it's pretty insane to use a PLA part on a plane.

It's pretty counterintuitive for those used to working with macroscopic fibre composites. For example, glass fibre fill adds more strength than CF fibre fill (CF fibre fill adds more stiffness). Because it's not so much about the strength of the fibres themselves, but rather how well the polymer matrix grips the fibres.

an aquantance made one from PLA ... ... WHY?

There's literally no reason you shouldn't at least use PETG. PETG is even *easier* to print, and *cheaper* than PLA. Was this long ago, when PLA still had a stranglehold on the market?

Aviation has a lot of rules, but it's not for pointless reasons. When things go wrong in aviation, they tend to go very wrong, and you sent some big heavy mass carrying hundreds of people travelling at many hundreds of kph crashing into a building.

Jesus. PLA has *no business whatsoever* being *anywhere* on a plane. Even in the cabin. It can melt in a hot car on a sunny day. It's hard but brittle. It's not entirely water-stable. It's fine to make a *model* of a plane, but making actual plane parts out of it? That's insane.

For any non-printers in here: PLA is "corn plastic". You know those compostable grocery bags? Those are mainly PLA , plus some PBAT (another biodegradable polymer, added to make it flexible). Imagine a rigid version of those bags - that's what PLA is like. They made a part out of that and stuck it on a plane.

The fumes thing is overrated - typical measured levels in a room printing ABS are in the ppb range, whereas the PELs are in the ppm range. That said, don't sit right next to your printer for a long time while it's printing if you don't want to breathe a lot of styrene.

Main annoying thing is that ABS is hard to print. I mean, it's far from the hardest, that'd be something like polypropylene or whatnot - but vs. say PLA and PETG, there's a learning curve. Big thick ABS cantilevers and the like can accumulate some really significant thermal stresses. It takes practice learning how to control them (using a raft and an appropriate plate coating for the base, going way-overkill with really frequent, very sturdy supports on cantilevers, etc).