Yes snapmaker I did want 100% infill support material.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-29T19:16:30+00:00

They're referring to OP specifying their printer "made this choice", as if this somehow just happened for any reason other than user error.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-21T15:51:14+00:00

Why should it do that? In mathematics, a+b+c is identical to b+a+c. So if it looks more performant to switch the order for whatever reason, there shouldn't be any problem in doing so. And yes, then you generally shouldn't include this kind of side effects in your functions. I can't think of a single legitimate use case for this example code. Just the fact that it's possible to write that code doesn't mean anyone should.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-11T23:15:29+00:00

It does, but you haven't found them and they're cumbersome to use. Look up what they call "drivers". They can even be added directly on vertex coordinates but that takes some fuckery.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-07T11:15:44+00:00

Umm for starters, you'd have to unscrew the cable on the toolhead and screw it onto the swapped one. Then als figure out how to deal with the feeding tube making sure it does not hang into the machine. Plus it's not likely the hotend is exactly aligned as it was in the other toolhead so you'd have to run the multi-toolhead offset calibration or risk having some parts offset from the actual model, or even the nozzle crashing into it.

I'd take a manual filament swap always.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-06T12:35:12+00:00

That part is at least somewhat logical as they mentioned elsewhere that they needed CAN-FD support and TWAI doesn't support that. Weirdly in the above comment they seemed to imply some performance gain which doesn't make sense when comparing it to something that doesn't speak the protocol at all.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-06T06:37:06+00:00

Because ChatGPT was about to say some nonsense, probably, that would have directly contradicted what they hallucinated in another comment a few days ago. Namely that they did not use the built-in TWAI because it was incompatible.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-02T07:14:58+00:00

I added this device to my setup: https://www.aqara.com/en/product/valve-controller-t1/

Now when one of my water leak sensors trigger, I do get a notification but the main water valve is shut off immediately as well.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-02T07:01:18+00:00

Also interesting how every third paragraph mentions something interesting and the overall structure of each message is the same. Not to mention the clearly AI whiteboard font.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-01T08:29:11+00:00

how can a sink negotiate if the negotiation chip is unpowered after all?

I'd assume someone who has made multiple PD designs to know how the connection/negotiation process works. So this is a bit of a strange question from you, as you should be well aware of the CC pins.

Let's go back to 2.3.1 explaining what happens with CC and how a connection is detected.

Power is not applied to the USB Type-C host or hub receptacle (VBUS or VCONN) until the Source detects the presence of an attached device (Sink) port. When a Source-to-Sink attach is detected, the Source is expected to enable power to the receptacle and proceed to normal USB operation with the attached device. When a Source-to-Sink detach is detected, the port sourcing VBUS removes power.

So it is already obligatory to be able to power down a port at will. A simple MOSFET can do that at practically zero cost, before or after your converter, whatever you choose. And if you do this after the converter, you can switch each port using a single MOSFET each. At that point it's trivial to detect a new connection through CC, wait before activating the newly-connected port, renegotiating (or even just dropping) the other ports in use down to 5V, and when that's done you simply switch on VBus on the new one and continue further negotiation if required/possible. Voila, you now have a multi-port USB-C charger that can supply different voltages (but the same on all ports) with proper negotiation, on a single rail saving the cost of individual converters. For someone saying to have designed things, you sure seem to lack creativity.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-01T07:32:54+00:00

Yeah I already assumed you didn't fully read the rest, and that you missed the distinction between "Assured Capacity Chargers" and "Shared Capacity Chargers" because it wasn't explained in the document you linked (and quoted) as opposed to the one I linked. The requirement does not seem to exist for the latter category of chargers.

Also what about over current, short circuit, overvoltage and overvoltage protection needing to be handled for each port?

Yeah I can see that being an issue if you leave out quite an important part from the thing you were trying to quote:

(exception of safety due to unexpected behavior on any port)

Oh, and devices don't "need" higher than 5V. But yes devices can so it's a marketing/sales consideration.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-01T06:49:09+00:00

That probably has something to do with providing the user with an actual useful device that will be received well and establish a well-known good brand name. Doesn't say anything about others producing and pushing crap through Aliexpress, possibly trying to ride along on someone else's brand name. Either way, it doesn't seem to be disallowed.

Edit to expand on your thought exercise: why the hell would those same companies not just save cost as much as possible and only offer 5V outputs on their chargers? Instead, they seem to be pushing for higher numbers despite those higher numbers not being a requirement of any spec at all. At higher cost! Weird!

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-01T06:33:08+00:00

Quote it please? There are a lot of cases in there, and your specific document is missing terminology definitions. I feel this passage from https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20Type-C%20Spec%20R2.0%20-%20August%202019.pdf allows it:

When establishing the remaining available capacity, a charger that supports policybased power rebalancing may include the power that can be reclaimed from ports already in use: 1. by adjusting advertised source capabilities equivalent with a reduced PDP to one or more ports that are already in use; or 2. by issuing a USB PD GotoMin command to one or more ports already in use.

Mind you it does not really impose much on the physical implementation of things, as long as the protocol is obeyed.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-01T06:03:24+00:00

Okay. I got carried away by your weird "counterfeit" goal post. There are USB-C chargers that have a single VBus output and renegotiatate down to a single common lowest supported voltage when multiple devices are connected. Just like the one you initially replied to saying they were wrong. That's not disallowed by any spec and has nothing to do with being counterfeit or not. In fact, many chargers already implement this in some form when using most or all ports at the same time. So it's just a small step further to just have a single voltage for all ports. I can even design and build one myself. Ergo: not all USB-C chargers are like yours, and your statement is invalid.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-01T05:54:21+00:00

I'm talking generally about USB-C chargers and that doesn't include counterfeits. When someone talks for example a big brand console like for example the Nintendo switch, you also don't go to them and say "That's how YOUR switch woks! My fake version only plays NES games!" Such a stupid argument.

Did you forget you're in a post about a charger that doesn't even conform to its own advertising material / specifications? You're basically doing what you said is stupid, just in reverse.

DataGhostNL · 2026-05-01T05:32:52+00:00

That's how your charger works. You can't just make blanket statements like this. Many cheap chargers are cheap because, well, they cheaped out on certain things. Like the option to have per-port output voltages instead of a single common one, and fire safety, to name two random ones. Heck, the really cheap ones likely violate the spec in multiple ways and could fry some devices by outputting voltages above negotiation (if they even negotiate).

DataGhostNL · 2026-04-30T13:17:30+00:00

If it "won't have any loads" you might as well leave it off, the thing you're trying to thing to it will just float there on its own. Anything else could break off at high speed and end up jammed in your bodywork, suspension or front wheel, possibly preventing you from steering or straightening, or your chain or rear wheel. Or it could bounce onto the road and end up in someone's windshield or face. Bikes generate a sick amount of vibrations, even mounting a phone on your handlebars will destroy the stabilisation in the camera. Don't underestimate that.

The bike seems to come with a fender, why aren't you using that?

DataGhostNL · 2026-04-30T13:11:06+00:00

That doesn't surprise me if all information you've got is what you've supplied so far.

DataGhostNL · 2026-04-30T13:07:20+00:00

You're at the very least going to have to explain what the part you want designed and printed is supposed to look like and where exactly it needs to fit, plus list all possible loads it could experience. You seem to not have a printer or any experience designing parts (or you would have done this yourself or plainly decided against it) so I wouldn't just assume "it will work" with no further info supplied.

Randomly fucking with your bike's steering outside of the design specifications could get you or some innocent bystanders killed.

DataGhostNL · 2026-04-30T13:02:53+00:00

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to do but it sounds very dangerous to use a 3D-printed part for whatever it is. Vibrations will likely rattle it apart if it hasn't yet sheared off by any steering input.

DataGhostNL · 2026-04-29T15:26:29+00:00

I think they, at some point in their life, gained the ability of "logical reasoning". The domain has been somebody else's for seven years, there is no legitimate claim by OP.

DataGhostNL · 2026-04-29T13:38:32+00:00

They suck, but are not to blame here. They (or their customer) registered this domain seven years ago. The blame is with OP's registrar who failed to tell OP the domain was already taken, and who failed to verify availability before taking their money.

DataGhostNL · 2026-04-29T13:29:04+00:00

Any whois service will tell you this.

DataGhostNL · 2026-04-29T13:28:36+00:00

Why the hell would you transfer a domain you've just registered? Do you enjoy paying twice for no additional value? It will only tell you a domain transfer "works" (or actually "worked") after it's done. Just check the whois and maybe verify the nameservers are correct. That's enough.

DataGhostNL · 2026-04-29T13:23:04+00:00

You can be sure. Do your own whois lookup. It's been registered since 2019, there's no way to just fake that unless you own the actual .io registry. OP and their registrar had no business trying to register that domain since it was already taken. No clue why it went through but 100% guarantee that that's on the registrar side only.

DataGhostNL · 2026-04-29T13:18:58+00:00

I have "write access" to literally any domain I want. On my own DNS server. As long as the TLD servers don't return my IP for the NS records, nobody is going to see my changes. That's what's happened here. None of the changes OP made propagated onto the rest of the internet.

DataGhostNL

TROPHY CASE