I don't need 1000 miles. 600 (unencumbered) is definitely sufficient, and 500 might be okay. The thing is that I'll lose half to 2/3 of that range when towing my camp trailer, and that's not even considering that I'm typically towing it up into the mountains, gaining ~5000 vertical feet. I also need minimum 12k pounds of towing capacity and I'd like a little headroom, so call it 16k, and the bed payload has to be able to take at least 2000 pounds, because that's how much the trailer puts on the fifth-wheel hitch.

I'm anxiously awaiting an EV pickup that can do this. I'd love to have essentially unllimited electricity to buffer cloudy days (I have 1 kW of solar panels on the trailer and on sunny days they generate way more than enough, but consecutive cloudy days can leave be difficult).

3/4 ton and 1-ton gas and diesel pickups typically have oversized fuel tanks that provide about 600 miles of range, because that's what you actually need when you start hauling or towing significant loads. I don't think an EV pickup needs to have more range, but it needs to be comparable, and to be able to tow and haul comparable loads.

I'm not anti-EV by any means. I bought my first EV in 2011, and have had electric cars ever since. Trucks are a different sort of problem, though.

That's getting there, though I'd like to see some driving tests with a good-sized fifth wheel at highway speeds. The towing capacity is probably okay, though it provides very little headroom for when I'm towing both my camp trailer (~8k) and my boat (~3.5k), which I actually do several times each summer. But I think the payload capacity is too small to tow the trailer, which puts about 2000 points on the truck.

FTFY.

What I'm saying is that if everyone had IPv6 in their homes and offices, remote access wouldn't require all the silly cloud server games. You could just hit the device directly by its IPv6 address, and assuming your router suppoerts UPNP pinholes, you're done. You'd need dynamic DNS and that's it.

An emergency stop button in the app should be able to do the same thing. If that's not possible, it's a rather bad design flaw.

Also, if something jams in a way that could cause meaningful damage (beyond having to brush blobs of filament off of the hot end) and the printer doesn't detect it, that's also a rather bad design flaw.

CHAdeMO to Tesla adapter: $565. If adapters in the reverse direction from NACS to CHAdeMO cost thousands, it's because the market is too small to achieve economies of scale. Yeah, you need some active electronics to negotiate the protocol, whereas NACS uses the CCS protocol, so you can do it with a passive adapter, but the actual DC is still DC.

About the only thing any cloud service for printing provides is a way to monitor the printer and send jobs to it when you're not on the same network. And the only reason this is still an issue at all is that too many folks are still stuck on IPv4.

The problem is that their model works until it doesn't.

Having a good out-of-the-box "it just works" experience doesn't preclude letting people tinker. If anything, letting people tinker results in a better out-of-the-box experience in the long term, because the manufacturer can see what people are doing with their technology and can clean it up and make it more broadly available if it is useful. The key is ensuring that the default experience doesn't require tinkering for the majority of customers. And seeing people tinker shows you where the sharp edges are that need to be polished.

But more than that, locking down this sort of hardware means that when you inevitably run into some limitation, if the manufacturer doesn't provide a way around it, you're stuck. And the problem is that a lot of users of advanced tools like this are in a situation where 90% of their use is common to all other users, and 10% isn't. And different users have different 10% use cases. So you could be in a situation where 80% of your users need one thing that your product doesn't support, but it's a hundred different "one thing"s. This makes support very difficult if you don't allow tinkering.

But the worst part is that you can't know for sure whether you're going to be in that 80% until you run into the use case that they don't support out of the box. It could be a week, a month, a year, or several years. And then you're stuck with this hardware that won't do what you need, with no way to fix it, thus forcing you to replace it with a product from some other manufacturer.

So even if you don't think you will ever want to tinker with your 3D printer, assuming all else is roughly equal, you're better off choosing the printer that gives you the most control of the hardware, because that is the least likely to box you into a corner and make you regret your purchase someday.

Agreed. My sedan has been electric for nearly a decade now, but I'm still driving a diesel pickup (1-ton, though a 3/4 ton would be sufficient) because EV pickup range is inadequate -- and I think it may be inadequate for a while. I need 250 miles of range when towing a trailer, which means I need ~500 -- maybe 600 -- miles of range without.

I'm not generally a fan of hybrids, but I think plug-in hybrids with large-ish batteries may be the sweet spot for a while with pickups. The Dodge Ramcharger is looking really good to me, though I'd like to see them make a 2500.

I'd have gone with "Every web browser is Mozilla", personally, but yes.

If you're using a user agent for any sort of security purpose, you're not just doing security wrong; you're doing security so wrong that somebody is going to write an entire book as a postmortem about your company.

Moreover, if your service can't handle the traffic of a mere thousands of clients (four-digit QPS) hitting it at once, you have much bigger problems than security. I forgot how to count that low a long time ago.

Finally, the elephant in this room is that those "unauthorized" clients are YOUR USERS. They are people who bought YOUR HARDWARE and want to use it with your service. Basically, you're flipping off your paying customers. That's the fastest, easiest way to ensure that you don't have any of those anymore.

Already done. When I was choosing what 3D printer to buy to replace my aging Snapmaker A350 last year, I read about Bambu's questionable commitment to openness, and decided to buy a Creality printer (K2 Plus with CFS) instead. Over the year that followed, I bought a Creality Hi with CFS as a second printer, plus two additional CFS units, a filament dryer, a spare Creality tool kit (since the Hi doesn't come with one), and more than half a grand worth of filament.

I've personally spent well close to $3,700 on Creality products in the last year (not counting third-party filament and the DXC2 extruder upgrade) precisely because Bambu comes across as being a bunch of litigious a**holes who are trying to lock down their products and prevent users from being able to modify the hardware that they bought.

As far as I'm concerned, they've dug their grave in the 3D printer market. Stick a fork in it. They're done.

Then again you wouldn't have unionised workers if they were being treated fairly in the first place?

It is effective at reducing staff cheaply, but it has a huge downside, shared with most attrition-based schemes for reducing payroll: The best employees are also the ones who find it the easiest to leave. The worst employees are also the ones who will grit their teeth and hold on to the bitter end.

It's harder and more costly (in the short term) to do targeted layoffs which allows the company to target low-performers, or those who are low performers relative to their cost. It's the better choice, though.

Lots of the top performers will.

They've had 22 years to figure this out, but now it's a crisis requiring a rush mission because nobody thought it was important enough to do something a year ago, or five, or ten.

There would be some perverse irony if Apple ended up manufacturing cellular baseband hardware with designs from the cellular modem team that they bought from Intel, and did so using Intel's foundries.

It's a good idea in principle. If Intel can actually catch up. Otherwise, it will be like the cellular modems, where Apple second-sourced from Intel, and the product was crap, so some devices had noticeably degraded performance compared with the ones that contained Qualcomm radios.

Except that they would have to presumably reengineer the old silicon for Intel's process, which kind of defeats the purpose of reusing old designs to save money, I would think.

I think you're on the right track with that one. Apple uses a lot of CPUs that aren't the main CPU. For example, every current MacBook Pro has a T2 security chip that handles encryption. The next generation of that could be designed to be manufacturable on multiple processes; it is currently built on a 16nm process.

Apple also uses CPUs in things like the Apple Watch, where absolute performance isn't as much of a factor as temperature and power consumption. I'm pretty sure Intel is already able to make chips in volume that beat the 4nm process that they use for those.