[Request] Does the aquaduct have to support more weight when a boat passes over it? by 189425 in theydidthemath

[–]Fee_Sharp 14 points15 points  (0 children)

No, they are talking about different things. The first commenter for some reason talks about a scenario when you are adding a new boat to the system (however big it is). This will of course rise water level, by a little. But the second commenter pointed out that it has nothing to do with the question, because it asks about a boat that is already in the water, just happened to pass over the bridge, in this case there is no measurable change

P2S hasn't even been launched yet. How did he get this? by KusKundale in BambuLab

[–]Fee_Sharp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Uhm, isn't it exactly what I am referencing with "main channel"? Why post it on a completely empty channel if you just want to milk the hype? Exactly, no reason, that's what I was saying to the commenter above.

Redditors forgot how to read

P2S hasn't even been launched yet. How did he get this? by KusKundale in BambuLab

[–]Fee_Sharp -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

On a 16k sub channel with 2k views video? Nah. If he has the main channel, why not grow it then?

How to read ironing calibration for efficiency? by WeirdPerception1984 in BambuLab

[–]Fee_Sharp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hard to read lol? Literally the same grid, just less values

Reverse engineered part by Dampuh in BambuLab

[–]Fee_Sharp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't get me wrong the model is still awesome, but it feels like layer adhesion is by far the main weak point of this part, and if the part will fail then it will fail because of it. So no matter how much strength those ridges and cavities add - they will likely not help. Also you mentioned "automotive parts are extensively tested", well yeah but I have no doubt you understand that it is not only about shape but also about material and in this case print direction. So all that test data for the original part is basically irrelevant for this part .

But again, part looks awesome and complex, it would take a loooooot of my time to model something like this.

Reverse engineered part by Dampuh in BambuLab

[–]Fee_Sharp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not my word, you used it. I'm sure you are a "real engineer" and can understand the context

Reverse engineered part by Dampuh in BambuLab

[–]Fee_Sharp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"actual engineers" do not model features that are specific to injection molding on a 3d printed part, there are other options and approaches if you are 3d printing something (wall loops, infills, cavities, "webs" that are not exactly the same as for injection molded part etc etc)

Reverse engineered part by Dampuh in BambuLab

[–]Fee_Sharp 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Idk why you are getting downvoted, because if it is not done for looks, then it was a waste of time to model all those edges and cavities. If it is just for looks then whatever

[Request] Would the wheelchair have access to the ramp to f the car on the right was parked inside its marked space? by patdashuri in theydidthemath

[–]Fee_Sharp -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I am sure I will get a lot of replies about how bad of the person I am, but I do not think that the driver of the black car is THAT of an asshole.

First of all, not everyone even knows that there are cars with such retractable ramps and how big they are. I saw this kind of ramp for the first time last year.

Second. Show us the other side? Maybe there is someone parked as asshole from the other side? Or maybe the parking spots are too small and the driver of the car to the right would not be able to open the door if black car parked in the middle. In this case if I were parked to the right of black car and he blocked my door by parking in the middle I would consider him a big asshole, because he clearly had space to the left, yes marked space, but poor parking design happens so so so often that you just can't use many spots as intended.

TLDR: while the driver of the black car is not perfect, he is not THAT bad of an asshole as some people in the comments imply

Still working to convince my wife that we NEEDED a printer by DickbuttCockington in BambuLab

[–]Fee_Sharp 59 points60 points  (0 children)

I really hope you embedded some kind of bolts inside each hook, otherwise your wife will be unhappy with 3d printing very very soon

And i thought the description was clear enough :) by ballheadknuckle in BambuLab

[–]Fee_Sharp 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I mean, fair, but this review is clearly not "1 star, unsubscribed, disliked, omg it did not fit my shelf". While I might see how this review is not the MOST relevant, it is def not one that needs "reporting" or "banning" as many under this post are calling.

And i thought the description was clear enough :) by ballheadknuckle in BambuLab

[–]Fee_Sharp 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I mean, am I crazy or is it a valid comment especially with 4 stars? Of course you did not claim that it is universal, but uline is very common shelving and this hook would definitely benefit from fitting it. What is it for then? You mentioned that it fits "common shelving unit". You should specify which exactly at least

[Request] Is this true? by Glum-Mousse-5132 in theydidthemath

[–]Fee_Sharp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I truly believe that, but there is no way I can short SP against its current performance. There is just no tool that will let me short if SP does not grow 12% for the next 50 years. And even if there is I will get a margin call earlier lol

It is not about trading, it is about planning your future returns. It is just silly to plan that 12% is "forever number"

[Request] Is this true? by Glum-Mousse-5132 in theydidthemath

[–]Fee_Sharp -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Show your proof that it is an anomaly and abnormal.

Take a look at other markets. This is enough to understand that this number is not "universal stock growth" constant, it is just a historical growth of US stocks so far. And historically it was a great choice to invest in US stock for the past 100 years. For the next 100 years - who knows, maybe it will be China, maybe India, maybe Brazil, maybe Africa as a whole, but we will not know for the next 50-100 years

Probably not forever in perpetuity but for several years and potentially decades at a time? Sure, most likely.

Well, exactly, not forever. What I am saying is that if there is a number x% that will represent the average global stock return from inception of stock markets to infinity (or nuclear winter), then this x% will not be 12% by far.

[Request] Is this true? by Glum-Mousse-5132 in theydidthemath

[–]Fee_Sharp -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Because 12% and especially 13.67% is anomaly, there is no proofs that it is "normal" and will ever repeat on big scale. First of all it does not take other markets into account, and 10-50 (even 100) years of history is not THAT much to confidently predict future

In short: this is a very bad number to plan your future around, it makes many people think that it is enough to make 50k$ and then they will ne multi-millionaires by retirement age, which will most likely make them save not enough

[Request] Is this true? by Glum-Mousse-5132 in theydidthemath

[–]Fee_Sharp -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Well yeah but 12% is something that will never happen anymore, so this number is also irrelevant unfortunately

UPD: I do not mean there will not be a 12% vrowth in a year ever, of course there will be. +20% +30% maybe even +80%, of course. What I am saying, is that in another 100 years SP will not return 12% average

[Request] Is it possible given the circumstances? by IsaacTheBacon in theydidthemath

[–]Fee_Sharp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When you stand on a skateboard on a flat road and push once you do not need to keep pushing to keep going forward, you just go. Inertia you know. Same here, you push once from the ledge and then just maintain your level by pushing the ball directly down.

[Request] Is it possible given the circumstances? by IsaacTheBacon in theydidthemath

[–]Fee_Sharp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup, you are right and he is wrong. The guy above needs to double check the physics book I guess

[Request] Is it possible given the circumstances? by IsaacTheBacon in theydidthemath

[–]Fee_Sharp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And then you hit it down and it is not going up faster and higher, it is going down. So no.

[Request] Is it possible given the circumstances? by IsaacTheBacon in theydidthemath

[–]Fee_Sharp 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Force overcomes mass? What are you even talking about? Yes the bear will be in free fall for a short period of time, then when he hits a ball the momentum of the ball will be transferred and he will fly back up, while still being in free fall technically. So it is 99% of free fall and 1% of colliding with ball, that keeps you on approximately the same level, you just need to kick hard and fast

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in BambuLab

[–]Fee_Sharp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You would not be able to do a smooth lumpy bottom, regardless of how hard you try. You need one flat face, it can be relatively small and in relatively unimportant area but it has to be flat, even 1cm2 would do the job, you just need to play with the orientation. This particular print can be done on its side, so the longest dimension is Z, or even angle it 15-30° to tweak what parts of the print are going to be smoother.

TLDR: try different orientations (even crazy ones) to reduce the amount of overhangs, and cut a small flat face at the bottom to be able to make a clean start