You’re very welcome! Also, look at the shape of handguns prior to the advent of self-contained cartridges. They also tend to have a curve to them for the same reasons. You may also see a tendency in modern large-frame revolvers and some 20th century combat revolvers to sometimes have a straighter grip. The goal there being to make re-acquiring the target for a follow-up shot faster. The former use the mass of the gun and sometimes advanced elastomers to soak up some of the recoil, while the later used the mass of the gun and not giving a fuck about the soldier firing it for that purpose.

Very good questions. While I’m a pacifist, I know a lot about firearms, how they mechanically work, etc (likely an “on the spectrum” thing as a direct sibling has an autism diagnosis).

One of the important aspects of technique of firing a gun is the hold. Handguns are held differently from rifles and different types of handguns, sometimes even models of the same category, must also be held differently. This is both for marksmanship and for safety. For example, holding a revolver like one holds most pistols puts the support hand in front of the cylinder, which can cause burns or potentially digit amputations (I’ve heard of but have but haven’t read any case studies of the later) due to hot gases and metal escaping from the gap between the cylinder and the barrel or holding many models of pistol too high on the backstrap is likely to cause the slide and/or hammer (if present) to “bite” the hand in the web between the thumb and forefinger. “Hammer bite” is painful but not usually a cause for great concern.

Bear with me (rawr) for a bit here because this stuff is relevant to your questions. Derringers, however, are notorious for a number of safety-related issues. First, they are small and seem unthreatening to those who are new to firearms. This is bad because they are also cheap and rather more prone to pose accidental dangers than other types of handgun.

Most basic Derringers are built cheap and simple. This means that, unlike modern revolvers, they rarely have mechanisms like a trigger safeties (mechanism that prevents the trigger from being pulled if a “sub-trigger” isn’t also pulled), safety switch/catch (“normal” safety mechanism found on pistols, rifles, and shotguns that prevents the mechanism from firing until switched to “fire”), or transfer bar safety (a relatively new safety mechanism that reduces the likelihood of a hammer-fired gun going off if dropped). Do note that none of these mechanisms are infallible (see: Tiger King for a disturbing example of a transfer bar failing to function). Additionally, Derringers frequently do not have trigger guards. Their cheap and handy size leads many new owners to put Derringers directly in their pockets, without a pocket holster (a vital piece of safety equipment for ALL pocket carrying). With their lack of safety mechanisms, this has led to numerous and not infrequently fatal unintentional discharges (self-inflicted severing of femoral artery).

In addition to all of these, Derringers are frequently hard to hold correctly, due to their compact size. My thoughts on possible injuries from the .45-70 Derringer in particular are mainly related to the recoil. Because there is only the mass of the Derringer and curved handle to mitigate the recoil would be one getting full-on punched in the hand.

The force is exerted along the bore axis (if you do the physics vector chart thingies, the arrows point straight back down the barrel). The handle has a curve to encourage it to roll but that first impulse is likely going to hit on the tiny bit of the arc furthest back before it starts to pivot. Without extra padding in gloves or another way to deflect, dissipate, or distribute that energy, fractures to hand bones are well within the range of possibility. There are further dangers of holding the firearm incorrectly, like getting smacked in the face and/or dropping it, which could lead to accidental discharge.

Overall, this firearm is a fabulously terrible idea.

That’s the beautiful thing about gifting software with permissive licenses (when one wants to): it’s a gift and anyone can do whatever they want with it for free.

ETA: I DO think that it is important for one who chooses to license software permissively to be informed about their decision and its implications. But, just like consent in other areas, as long as one enters into it intentionally and with the understanding of what the license means, it’s noone’s place to judge (and, like consent in other interpersonal areas, the license can be revoked/modified at any time - with a new version). Honestly, really weird of those that take issue with individuals choosing to gift their software to humanity - there’s way more interesting and useful things to engage in in the FLOSS landscape.

Really more of anachronistic 19th/20th century century jest. There are two components here. The handgun and the cartridge.

The your of handgun depicted is called a Derringer, which is typically a small, concealable gun that typically fires 2 shots before requiring reloading. Generally, Derringers fire small calibers because even something like a full 9mm will cause substantial recoil when there is no semi-automatic action or mass to absorb some of it. We’ll come back to the particular Derringer shortly.

The .45-70 is a copper-cased, centerfire rifle cartridge developed for the US military in the late 19th century. The full classification of the original load being .45-70-405. This meant a .45 caliber (11.4mm) nominal bore diameter, 70 grains (4.54g) of black powder, and a 405 grain (26.25g) projectile. At the time of its adoption, it was recorded as having an effective lethal range of 1,000yds (910m). In 1879, a 500 grain projectile variant was developed with a legal range of 3,500yds (3,200m) - just to repeat this craziness, in 1879, the US military created a blackpowder rifle round capable of causing lethal injuries to those 3.2km away.

In modern times, the .45-70-405 is considered sufficient to hunt all big game in North America, including grizzlies and polar bears.

Now, back to that firearm. It appears to be an American Derringer Model M-4 Alaskan Survival. I highly doubt that any of the designers for a moment thought “a .45-70 Derringer is a good idea” and instead likely made it for novelty or to see if it could be done. I found some fun data on the M-4. It has a 4.1" (104mm) barrel length and, firing a 300 grain projectile, exerts 76.18 ft•lbs (103.29 joules) of recoil energy on its user. By compare, a similarly sized Glock 19 9mm firing a 124 grain projectile exerts 5.77 ft•lbs (7.83 joules) and the iconic Magnum Research Desert Eagle in .50AE only exerts 25.46 ft•lbs (34.52 joules) with a 300 grain projectile. So, the risk of injury to the operator is likely rather high and the manufacture and sale is likely rather irresponsible.

…People who wanted to donate their software to the public with no strings attached could see an uptick in the number of users?

Yeah. That’s different. The way that I’d do it, supposing it didn’t need to be perfect (I’d use a vector-based program like Inkscape for that), would be to create the selection, paint bucket, contact selection by desired number of pixels, clear. Not as good as converting to a path but more intuitive to me having learned PS circa early 2000s.

One can reduce to two steps:

1. Draw elipse selection
2. Fill with paint bucket

I’ll not disagree that it is unintuitive, however. But, that was not the statement.

So does Gimp…

Exactly. Bad actors are going to act badly. Unfortunately, something that we have to accept as reality (and something that some political philosophies fail to plan for). Bad actors will break the rules and, if they are wealthy, they will more often than not get away with it in the current state of affairs.

However, I would say that you bring an interesting point. It would be worthwhile, philosophically to have a “Pacifist MIT” license, being permissive but explicitly denying legal use to MIC.

what would you do if someone used it to hurt people instead? I’d personally feel like shit if my software were used for that, and as others said in this post, they’d prefer to have entities request an exemption rather than have their code used in ways they don’t approve of. So what say you?

I’ve a few thoughts on this:

• Anyone who wants to use anything that I release for harm, will probably do so regardless of license. Bad actors are going to act badly. Plus, chances are that they’d see no legal repercussions as underdogs winning in court is the exception, not the rule. The legal system is heavily stacked against the little guy.
• I tend to specifically avoid working on things that are weaponizable to reduce the chance of ethical conflict.
• The projects that I’ve released or plan to release tend to be pretty esoteric. The one that saw the most interest was years ago and it was an adapter between abandoned gallery plugin and an abandoned social media CMS thing. It would take some great creativity to hurt people with that, other than making them read my horrible code from that era. My current projects are more about FPGA and mixed reality stuff.
• Once I’ve created something and shared it freely, it is no longer wholely mine. I cannot dictate how one uses it, anymore than a musician can dictate how someone listens to the radio. As long as one abstains from creating tools intended to harm (or that can be predictably turned to harm), I don’t see legitimate ethical culpability. We only have control over ourselves.

Where Unix socks?!

It’s a tag from a Beanie Baby.

They are absolutely eating the real costs in order to gain market share. I suspect that there’s going to be a mad dash to rehire humans when the bill comes due and the VCs want profits.

Really?..

Just about every FOSS and Source-Available license that I’ve seen is perfectly valid. As a software developer, one has the option to choose how they wish to license their software. This can be based upon one’s personal philosophical view or what seems most appropriate for the piece of software.

Not everyone is motivated by profit. Most software that I develop personally is permissively licensed because IDGAF as long as I have enough to get by. If I write some code that makes someone else’s life better or easier, that’s more than enough for me.

Wait. What am I saying? This is the Internet and, according to the rules of corpo social media, we’re all supposed to be dicks to each other to further “engagement”. WHICH ONE OF YOU SAVAGES IS USING TAB INDENTATION INSTEAD OF BLOCKS IN YOUR LICENSE FILES?!?;!!!111one

That’s their prerogative. FLOSS is a communal effort of equals. Users are not customers; not entitled to anything as it’s donated freely. If you want to be bannied and not contribute, there’s proprietary software out there but they’ll exact a price (currently more than just financial).

Wugganna

I don’t have any experience with resin printers yet but have been poking around at FDM for the better part of a decade. In that price range (for FDM), I’d likely suggest a Creality K1C. It is not going to likely match the BambuLab printers but it’s a great departure from previous by Creality, requiring little to no tinkering to make it work. If you can spare around $1k, and don’t care about proprietary stuff, BambuLab X1 series is about the most turnkey that I know of. But, again, the Creality is (surprisingly) right there too with the K1C.

Note: It is probably possible to get similar results with mods to a K1 or K1Max - the nozzle brush seems to be critical to the K1C’s reliability.

Yeah. That’s absolutely fair. I would honestly recommend BambuLab for about anyone looking for a turnkey solution (supposing that they have the funds). For me, it’s a primarily philosophical/personal thing.

I will say though that this new gen of printers is pretty incredible and getting to the point of nearly practical for non-3d printer enthusiasts. Even the K1C is remarkably functional out of the box. It didn’t need any mods to print accurately and reliability. The nozzle brush relocation mod, spool relocation mod, and full-fledged Klipper are not necessary - I just prefer textured PEI (no glue stick needed), easy spool changes, and the Mainsail UI (and customizability).

Something that I’ll also give BambuLab, beyond their slick AMS, is their inspiration of more work on forks of PrusaSlicer. I switched to OrcaSlicer with the new printer, after being on Cura forever and the use experience is absolutely incredible.

Not for now, thanks to some YouTubers getting them to reverse course slightly on some of their printers (to be fair, Creality took similar pressure). However, I have less trust in BambuLab at this time. That said, I’m not about to even try to claim that they’re bad printers. Plenty of data out there to say otherwise and their AMS is pretty slick.

I got a K1C a few months back and am buying but delighted with it. I came from a gen 1 Ender 3 with a warped bed. The only complaints that I’ve had are that the spool relocation included should include relocation of the runout sensor and the nozzle cleaner should not be part of the build plate (fixable with an easy mod).

Closed source firmware on a 3d printer is just a non-starter for me. Even if the printer were 10x or 100x better, I’m not dropping that kind of dough on something that will leave me screwed if the manufacturer decides to enshitify or goes bankrupt.