hEy, yOu lEaRnEd A bUzZwOrD aNd rEcEnTlY dIsCoVeReD tHe sHiFt KeY!!! cOnGrAtS!?!

hEy, yOu lEaRnEd A bUzZwOrD aNd rEcEnTlY dIsCoVeReD tHe sHiFt KeY!!! cOnGrAtS!?!

hEy, yOu lEaRnEd A bUzZwOrD aNd rEcEnTlY dIsCoVeReD tHe sHiFt KeY!!! cOnGrAtS!?!

But this issue wasn’t found because of code analysis per se, but because of microbenchmarking.

Oh, we play dumb ad-hominem without any basis in reality?

I can play this too: Was your last school homework hard?

If the vulnerability is in the wild, what other security mechanisms do you have until it’s patched?

The only real downside on the open source side is that the fix is also public, and thus the recipe how to exploit the backdoor.

If there’s a massive CVE on a closed source system, you get a super high-level description of the issue and that’s it.

If there’s one on an open source system, you get ready-made “proof of concepts” on github that any script kiddy can exploit.

And since not every software can be updated instantly, you are left with millions of vulnerable servers/PCs and a lot of happy script kiddies.

See, for example, Log4Shell.

That would indeed be very helpful. But if all the other usages keep draining the supply, it will only help extend artificial reserves.

Stuff only becomes valuable when it’s mostly gone…

I got the 6 million from this link: https://www.chemanalyst.com/industry-report/helium-gas-market-578

The issue is not how much can be produced right now, but the rate at which we are depleting it.

I found different estimates on how long earth’s helium supply will last, and most of them are between 10 and 100 years. That’s not a long time, considering that it means we will lose access to a whole element.

But not nearly the required amounts. We currently use about 6 million metric tons of helium per year.

If fusion plants ever become a commercially viable thing (and that’s a big if), they will never be able to supply anything close to that.

There’s quite a large amount of the usage which could be labelled “for fun”.

But we are consuming about 6 million tons per year (https://www.chemanalyst.com/industry-report/helium-gas-market-578).

The 3000 tons are just a drop in the water and it’s pretty much impossible to get to all that.

Not in a way that could be scaled up to even cover the childrens birthday parties of a medium sized city.

One relevant part that I couldn’t really find in the article is that helium is so light that it escapes Earth’s atmosphere when released into the air.

So any helium that is released to the air is permanently gone.

There is also no known way to synthesize helium, and it also doesn’t renew itself at all on Earth.

It’s also the only substance we have to cool stuff really far down. That’s why e.g. MRIs depend on it.

And we put this precious, finite and often life saving substance into kids’ balloons to make them bobble nicely through the air.

Yeah, that’s more due to need than due to technical difficulty.

Even in 2024 it’s still common that you have to print out documents to sign them or tickets for some event or something like that. All these (quite relevant) use cases just don’t work if you don’t have a 2D printer.

As much as I like my 3D printer, and as much as I recommend everyone to have one, is not nearly as necessary.

In regards to how difficult they are to make, consider the price.

2D printers have an advantage due to their much higher sales numbers (economy of scale) and they are subsidized by the manufacturer selling expensive ink. And still, a half-decent inkjet costs €100 or more, and a color laser easily costs €300 or more.

3D printers usually have much lower sales numbers and people usually buy 3rd party filament, so the printer needs to be expensive enough to generate money for the manufacturer. And still you can get a decent Ender 3 for as low as €150.

What’s different? Basically the whole thing.

A 3D printer (talking here about FDM because SLA really shares nothing at all with a 2D printer) is basically a tiny hot glue gun being moved on three axies by stepper motors. Of course, the temperature and extrusion controls are much more accurate than a hot glue gun, but that’s the basic principle. You got a single “printing point” that gets moved around and it only extrudes filament from that single point.

An inkjet printer has one stepper motor that moves the paper and another that moves the print head from left to right. So there too are axies moved on stepper motors. A very simple trait also shared by e.g. CD and disk drives, slot machines, camera lenses and many other things. All these things are as close to a 2D printer as a 3D printer.

The real magic of an inkjet printer is the print head. A print head doesn’t have a single nozzle but an array of many nozzles. This way, a printer cannot only print one dot at a time, but instead a few lines at a time. These nozzles are much tinier that the nozzles on a 3D printer, and they also are much more complicated to operate.

A 3D printer just uses a stepper motor to push filament into the printhead, where it melts and is then pushed out of a hole.

On an inkjet printer, you need to either rapidly boil the ink, so that a single vapor bubble appears that pushes just a tiny drop of ink on the paper, or you have a tiny piezoelectric transducer that creats a vibration that then pushes out ink.

This is orders of magnitude more difficult than a 3D printer, and much tinier. You won’t be DIYing a working 2D printer from scratch, while that isn’t all that hard for a 3D printer. With access to a decent toolshop, you can make all relevant parts of a 3D printer. The same is not true for 2D printers.

To rephrase your question: Why is it that so many people build DIY desktop PCs, but nobody is making a DIY flagship smartphone? What’s the difference?

Basically everything.

Happens in most languages.

Also, many languages have a link between deafness and lacking intelligence, e.g. dumb meaning “not able to speak” and “not intelligent”.

In general, being sensitive to people with disabilities (both physical and mental) is a rather young concept, hence anything that would make someone not be able to be part of society is often also an insult.

That’s also why e.g. terms linked deafness/muteness are often an insult to someone’s intelligence, while e.g. terms linked to blindness are not. Blind people might be unable to perform some things seeing people are able to, but blindness doesn’t necessarily limit someone’s ability to be part of a society unaccomodating to people with disabilities.

Yeah, same here. I was just making a joking advocatus diaboli argument.

I dodged it as a youth, no point starting it now.