I've heard it both ways - Kee-cad is a popular one, but Keye-kad (short i - think aye, or the "ki" from "kite")

So far that's the only two pronunciations I've heard

What's the bat and spider population like near you? Bats and spiders consume tons of mosquitoes. Relying only on birds is insufficient, you need bats and spiders as well, and if you've been chasing those away, then there are no predators.

hey combine hydrogen from with carbon dioxide,

Hydrogen from what or where?
If, like almost all *industrial* hydrogen, it comes from cracking natural gas, that's as something pure magenta (whatever the complimentary colour to green is).
(Our "analytical grade" hydrogen was probably sourced from electrolysis - certainly when we made it on site, it was ; but that was substantial cost of equipment and maintenance time. Our systems really cared about contaminants at the part-per-million level.)

They actually said other tools are regularly used and have been known to find hundreds of issues. So, no, their awesome code is not the reason. Mythos just sucks at finding vulnerabilities.

Or maybe Mythos works and eliminated the the vulnerabilities that aren't. Just because a tool reports 100 errors and another tool reports 5 doesn't mean the latter tool sucks. It could be the latter tool filtered out the pointless issues and returned just the ones that were interesting.

Even cURL had the problem where they kept getting the same hundreds of AI slop bugs over and over again. I'm sure if they got 5 that could be followed up with it would help.

If I had known it wasn't checked, I absolutely would have lied.

Yes, it's something of a really bad secret in Canada. In the US, they did check - usually just making sure you used a .edu address and sending them a copy of your student ID.

In Canada, they couldn't do any of that (privacy laws prevent the school from disclosing your student status, and there's no .edu in Canada, so many schools just use a regular .ca ccTLD or a regular TLD).

So you literally can lie - I've done it a few times after I graduated to get cheaper Apple products - they "asked" your school and student ID number, but you could enter in anything as it wasn't checked (like I said, they couldn't verify).

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

I like their products. I just want printing without fuss and without having to learn every detail about leveling, etc. Their product works for me and I do not care about its openness, it is about as important for what I need it as my headphones being open sourced (not at all). So this product is for my use case, not for people who want to control every aspect of their printer and every software feature.

IF they decide to make it prohibitively expensive to operate their hardware, then I will go back to a less capable hardware kit.

The openness isn't the thing, though it's important. The thing is you're reliant on Bambu Labs to keep your printer working. They could easily decide tomorrow that their cloud slicer will no longer support your printer. And now you're left with a worthless hunk of junk - the software still works, but the cloud software stops supporting your hardware.

Or perhaps your internet goes out - and now you can't print. Again, you're dependent on cloud services.

The whole point was that it works locally without needing an internet connection which is how it did with OrcaSlicer-bambu.

Because right now your 3D printer is basically like all the other app-driven pieces of hardware out there you can get - vulnerable to the app breaking or the vendor no longer wanting to support your printer and wanting to encourage you to buy their newest latest and greatest generation of printers.

They could also close up shop tomorrow, and boom, all printers disabled. Go buy a new printer from someone else.

None of that has anything to do with open-source or freedom. That part comes later, where maybe the slicer can work in a different way to produce better prints, but you're stuck with their software that doesn't do that. Maybe they'll offer a subscription that lets you enable new functionality.

This is further proof that plants are sentient beings with feeling. You vegetarians ought to be ashamed of yourselves!

Time to start eating trees. Most of a tree is dead - it's just the stuff under the bark and the leaves that are still actually living. The rest of the tree is dead cells.

Insider information or insider power. Both work just as well.

Insider information is when you exploit information that isn't public. Insider power is when you influence the outcome to your favor.

Many early sports bets used insider power - the player would get a cut of the profits if they tilted the game like faking an injury.

Anyways, news like this is good. If people know these markets are rigged against them, they'd likely avoid using these platforms. It's why regulations exist - the SEC doesn't go after insider trading because it wants a fair market, it does it because a fair market means more people will participate.

A former head of AT&T back when it was The Phone Company made a comment along the lines that the long distance network had to be built to cope with with mother's day and everything else was free. It was used as an example of how guesses about CapEx vs OpEx can go very wrong. It might have been Fred Kappel who said that.

Kerberos implementations often used MD5 in the early days. It was only earlier this year that Microsoft deprecated using MD5 for password hash storage for various parts of Active Directory because a lot of legacy equipment still used the old protocol.

It's not an easy transition since legacy equipment might only implement MD5, and updating passwords from MD5 requires the user to change their password

The problem is, the tariffs weren't always paid by consumers.

About 50% of the tariffs collected were absorbed by suppliers cutting their prices - are you saying those suppliers should be repaid? Or that they should jack up the prices they now charge customers to make up for the losses they incurred?

About 25% were absorbed by the business themselves - they were not passed on.

The remaining 25% were passed on.

Now, it's likely easy if it was a product manufactured in China and sold as is, but if it's a more complex supply chain - say, raw steel from Canada, imported into the US (tariffs), then made into products down the line it gets more complex - the importer paid tariffs, then they need to rebate people down the line and by the time it gets to you, who knows how the price was affected - someone might have absorbed the price increase, someone else jacked it up because "tariffs" to make more profit, etc.

Now take it as a car part - raw steel from Canada, cast in Canada, machined into parts in the US, assembled into an engine in Canada, and put into a vehicle made in the US. It crosses the border multiple times, incurred tariffs and reciprocal tariffs And now things are twisted so tightly a forensic accountant will take years to untangle the effect.

In the end, just like the whole trade disruption, it's a huge mess. Lots of price jumps were due to people simply blaming tariffs as an excuse to raise prices rather than tariffs themselves. Others choose to absorb the increased cost at lowered margins.

Jeff Bezos wanted to show how much tariffs would add to the price. We thought he chickened out due to Trump - but maybe it was also because refunds are going to be much more opaque - if people knew they spent $100 on tariffs in total, that becomes a paper trail where they would want that $100 back.

Or maybe that's with projections? They have been in the game for decades, so they know what the expected sales are and they know given the first quarter results, what the second quarter results might be.

Sure there's a chance they're wrong and suddenly a bunch of unexpected orders are going to come in late may or june, but given their current sales funnel it's likely only 5 million for the first half.

Knowing the sales funnel and knowing how the market has behaved in the past helps plan out the supply chain which needs to be prepped months in advance. It's likely the middle of the year will be slow so unless there's a sudden run on motherboards, they're predicting a pretty light summer.

A propos not a lot - my BOINC installation of "Asteroids@Home" has just started kicking through computations for the first time in ages. (BOINC is an indirect descendent of the SETI@Home project, generalised for a variety of distributable computation projects ; Asteroids@Home is a project that "uses power of volunteers' computers to solve the lightcurve inversion problem for many asteroids." Lightcurves are brightness versus time ; once you correct for distance asteroid to Sun and asteroid to Earth, the cross-section illuminated and rotation speed drop out - after considerable maths.

Probably someone has posted a new batch of data on something's light curve, and the rotation speed and/ or shape model is being re-analysed.

It's a small contribution.

I just find it absurd to demote Pluto to a non planet and then classify other climbs as Plutino, is pretty inconsistent.

IIRC, the term "plutino" was being used *before* the 2006 (?) IAU definition. Cart and horse sequence race condition.

But then again: you could call them Neptino, or something, or? And Pluto would be a Neptino,too.

There are bodies in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune. And other bodies in a 5:3 resonance (while 6:3 or 3:1 resonances are relatively empty : see "Kirkwood gaps" in the asteroid belt - same physics, different dominant body (Jupiter) and swarm of "test particles". And other bodies in 7:2 resonances. I can't remember the name of such a body (and can't be bothered to research it) so in keeping with other cartoon dogs, let's consider this to have a largest member "Scooby" and call these "scoobinos" (it's a class, not a proper noun, so no capitalisation).

By your naming convention, these too would be called "neptinos" (no capital), with no distinction from the 3:2 "peptinos" generally known as "plutinos". By the naming convention I describe, and which is actually being used, "plutinos" are a distinct (if related) class to "scoobinos".

It's a nomenclature - it's intended to describe meaningful (to a certain class of people, KBO astronmers, for example) differences in a compact, memorable manner.

The previous posts were about periods. You seemed to shift to considering orbital velocities (or speeds ; it's not precisely clear), which is a different thing.

Yes, the tie to the period of Neptune's orbit should also constrain the period of the Plutinos over a suitable averaging period. But when you get to things like "tadpole" and "horseshoe" orbits, that can have significant variations of order-of a percent in period, resulting in the longitude of perihelion (direction of perihelion of the orbit, measured from the Sun) of the Plutino oscillating around the longitude of aphelion (parallel meaning) of Neptune's orbit, and tracing out a "horseshoe" shape (when projected in a co-moving frame with Neptune's orbit) or a tadpole shape. Which means variations in the orbital speed of up to a percent or so and the Plutino moving ahead in it's orbit compared to Neptune, then falling behind. Over some hundreds of orbits (10s of thousands of terrestrial years) the orbital speeds will average out, but there are enough wrinkles to be interesting.

I learned about these wrinkles in orbital mechanics in the mid-90s, when I got a phone line and dial-up internet access, and heard about an object called Cruithne (good grief - it's a 4-digit UID ; I feel old). Just because the physics are simple, doesn't mean the results are simple.

it should take longer than Pluto to complete an orbit but instead it takes a year or two less.

That would be about a 0.5% variation. The perihelion of (I've forgotten the object's name ; doesn't matter ; let's call it "Goofy" because it's not Pluto) the orbit will be reached sooner than Pluto's perihelion, which also means that Neptune's aphelion (they're in a 3:2 relationship, remember) is relatively close to Goofy. Which means there will be a decelerating force on Goofy's orbit (Neptune is the dog, not the tail. Billions of fold difference in in momentum.) reducing it's orbital speed in comparison to Pluto's orbital speed. Which will mean that Goofy starts to fall back in it's orbit compared to Pluto. Yes, that's cyclic. And no, there probably aren't enough counteracting torques for other objects to damp down the motion. (In the Earth - (3753)Cruithne system, all involved bodies experience torques form Venus, Mars and Jupiter of roughly similar magnitudes, which will damp the motion eventually. Or result in an orbital interaction which will put (3753)Cruithne into an Earth-crossing, Venus-crossing, or Mars-crossing orbit, when bad things become much more likely.

Yeah, it gives me a headache too. You remind me, I was trying to help a guy who runs an orbital simulator code set to write a manual for it. It is very headache-inducing. And I don't understand it well either.

What is Tony's tool called ? Orbit Simulator (though the internal scars on the software say it was "Gravity Simulator" in an earlier life.) - which s interesting to play with. But the help files aren't great. It's a complex tool for simulating a complex system.