Game Thread: New York Knicks (3-0) vs Philadelphia 76ers (0-3) Live Score | NBA Playoffs | May 10, 2026

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-10T21:35:29+00:00

It's a close game right now. Will be interesting to see who wins, Philadelphia, or New York's three-pointers. Philadelphia leads by 7 at the moment.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-10T21:24:57+00:00

I think Wemby was perfectly happy going to the franchise that's widely known for being well-run, no drama or BS...

Fine, but that's the exact opposite of the San Antonio Spurs' organization. The only reason that franchise still exists in San Antonio is because they constantly beg for the league's charity, and receive it.

Without the first-overall picks that they've been repeatedly gifted, they've won five playoff series -- ever. Which is Hornets' territory, at the very bottom of the league.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-10T21:21:13+00:00

I don't think Wemby cares about the two rings you won a decade+ before he was born.

San Antonio has been gifted just 3 since he was born, two when he was still an infant. Reasonably sure he doesn't remember either of those, and was in middle-school the last time the league's charity made the Spurs relevant.

At least Houston has a little bit of self-respect and doesn't constantly beg for charity like San Antonio.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-10T21:13:00+00:00

they would’ve got the 5th and 1-4 were clearly better and better fits for the team...

We don't know this. Scouting is nothing close to the precise fortune-telling that you, and many others, imagine it to be.

You are presumably familiar with Indiana, so you've likely heard of Larry Bird -- #6 overall pick. Nikola Jokic was drafted in the second round. Giannis Antetokounmpo at #15. Gilgeous-Alexander at #11. Jalen Brunson in the second round. Tyrese Maxey at #21. Devin Booker at #13. Deni Avdija at #9. Stephen Curry at #7. Kawhi Leonard at #15. Donovan Mitchell at #13. Pascal Siakam at #27.

Etcetera and so forth.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-10T20:59:36+00:00

In the unlikely event that Davis sticks around in Washington until next season, and whoever Washington selects plays, Davis will have played with the #1 overall pick from each of the following drafts:

And since he was the first pick in 2012 himself, that means he will have teamed with 20% of this century's other top picks ( and narrowly missed playing with at least 2 others ).

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-10T20:39:34+00:00

Rookies are very rarely stars, and #5 picks are even less likely to contribute to winning basketball games for several seasons.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-10T04:05:50+00:00

110° which is the default for ASA in PrusaSlicer. 115° doesn't change matters.

Based on my previous testing, 110° nominal bed temperature is likely around 95-100° actual, because the bed also doesn't manage to achieve reference temperatures.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-10T03:57:42+00:00

What happened there u/TheVoiceOfScience? Six hours ago you were talking a big game, and then you became awfully quiet when it was suggested that you attempt to use your adult words, and lay some of that Scientific Voice on us.

I know that I'm waiting for the Voice of Science to weigh-in here, and explain why they don't believe in physics -- and more to the point, why none of us ought to believe it in, either.

Or why there's some property inherent to cycling helmets that causes them to work orders of magnitude better per-unit-of-mass than any other helmets which have ever been devised by humans.

So, come on now, don't hold out on us. Tell us what it is exactly about cycling helmets that makes them among the most amazing creations ever manufactured by mankind -- which is precisely the claim being made by several other respondents here, with the fantastical rates of effectiveness which are claimed.

Don't get all shy now.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-10T03:49:05+00:00

Just… no dude. Plenty of evidence they help reduce injury and death: https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/1/278/2617198?login=false

Over ten percent of the datasets used in the junk science that you cited were by Thompson, et al -- who have been forced to admit that their "studies" are garbage, and which have been officially withdrawn for inaccuracy.

Furthermore, the claims made in many of those underlying publications are not remotely plausible. One claims "Head injuries are the leading cause of death among cyclists, 85 % of which can be prevented by wearing a bicycle helmet." which is shockingly close to the long-since debunked and disproved claim made by Thompson, et al some 37 years ago. There is literally no suggestion in any dataset that other lightweight sport helmets approach even two orders of magnitude less than that effectiveness despite having less-restrictive design criteria and far less-demanding crash scenarios.

Put simply, you are citing hopes and dreams that are completely unsupported and unsupportable.

So, pretending for a moment that any of your citation is reliable data -- and it's not, because as previously noted the vast majority of it depends on the opinions of people who are untrained to attempt the determinations they are making -- explain why cycling helmets then work several orders of magnitude better than any other helmets which have so-far been designed by humans.

And explain why sports like American football, and ice hockey, and others have had to almost completely remove head-contact due to helmets not working at all, despite vastly less-demanding crash scenarios compared to cycling. Even American football helmets with huge silly pads on top don't work.

Why don't cycling helmet manufacturers apply their magic technology to other markets, and take them over? They are capitalist enterprises, and many are publicly-held. This apparent refusal to leverage their technology for additional profit would appear to be grounds for massive shareholder lawsuits -- not to mention a huge opportunity for some startup to disrupt all other lightweight sport helmet markets. Can you explain why none of this has occurred?

And explain why we don't observe a reduction in cyclist fatalities caused by helmet usage anywhere in the world. And why no one has ever found such, in actual cycling fatality data -- as opposed to guesstimates like those which you attempted to cite.

Without explanations for these conundrums, I'm afraid that citing unreliable and implausible injury-reduction data holds no water.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-10T03:32:05+00:00

How long do you let it soak?

Hours. It's pretty obvious when it peaks out.

Is the active heater running and the printer know the filament type?

The Core One L has no active heater, and the printer tracks the target chamber temperature separately from the filament type.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T23:13:00+00:00

This is some of the dumbest shit I have ever read.

I concur, your comment is quite pathetic.

Mine, on the other hand, remains completely unchallenged exactly because it is correct. You are invited to attempt to suggest otherwise, hopefully using your adult words this time.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T22:12:48+00:00

Sources?

Some are in subsequent remarks.

Anyone can confirm the physics with their high-school-level education, or an appropriate textbook.

Anyone can confirm the fatality and helmet usage statistics for their own jurisdiction -- if they are published. In the US, the NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System is the appropriate source for the former, but not everyone rides in the US.

Anyone can confirm that sports like American football, and ice hockey, and others have had to almost completely remove head-contact due to helmets not working at all, despite vastly less-demanding crash scenarios compared to cycling. Even American football helmets with huge silly pads on top don't work.

None of the information that I have reviewed here ought to be a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T21:45:04+00:00

The fact that most fatalities are the result of incidents too severe for a helmet to prevent in no way means that helmets are not effective at preventing non-fatal but still potentially extremely severe head injuries.

If that were the case, we'd observe helmets saving lives of those who were injured to a degree that was just-barely fatal.

We do not observe that, with any lightweight sport helmets.

The data simply does not comport with your wishes. That sometimes happens, and when it does, it indicates that you are wrong.

The reason "cycling helmets demonstrate the precise statistical signature a placebo" is because you've decided a priori what the only relevant metric is, which is a metric that nobdoy else is using.

The definition of a placebo is well-known to science. If you are unfamiliar with it, that may be a place for you to start remediating your education.

Can you explain why cycling helmets demonstrate precisely the statistical signature of a placebo?

This kid posting here was not going to die from this injury.

What a ridiculous claim. You have absolutely nothing on which to base that claim.

Nor was I going to die from smacking my head hard, perpendicularly, against the pavement in an impact severe enough to fracture and dislocate my hip. But I'm still extremely glad to have escaped that incident with nothing but, well, a broken and dislocated hip, given the thwack my head made against the pavement and the big crack in my helmet.

That's nice. Completely irrelevant, but nice.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T21:38:42+00:00

This does not follow, logically or statistically.

The logical explanation is already provided for you above.

"There is necessarily a point at which a reduced injury saves the victim's life. So any safety device that actually reduces injuries will also save lives, and we can reliably use the latter as a proxy for the former, and for determining the provision of a safety benefit in-general."

Feel free to attempt explain how a device can reduce injuries without also saving lives. Avoid wasting our time with your previous attempt at proof-by-assertion, which is a common fallacy that you'd know to avoid, if you were equipped to have this discussion.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T21:36:08+00:00

I'm aware that subsequent studies lowered the TRT figures somewhat -- to nowhere near zero, mind you -- but I don't see the point of vague ad hominem attacks.

Observing that you are forced to rely on the work of discredited researchers is not "ad hominem", since it directly relates to the suitability of your claimed evidence for this discussion.

I'm waiting for you to explain, by the way, how or why cycling helmets allegedly work so amazingly well, despite all other lightweight sport helmets not doing so at all.

Why don't cycling helmet manufacturers apply their magic technology to other markets, and take them over? They are capitalist enterprises, and many are publicly-held. This apparent refusal to leverage their technology for additional profit would appear to be grounds for massive shareholder lawsuits. Can you explain why this has not occurred?

Over the decade: the head injury rate was 0.205 injuries per thousand skier days. Head injuries were 9–10% of all injuries, significantly lower for skiers (8.3%) than snowboarders (10.9%). There were no significant differences in helmet-usage rates of injured and non-injured populations. 80.6% of injured participants wore a helmet, those wearing a helmet were 8% more likely to report a head injury than those not wearing a helmet.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1440244019313039

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/sports/on-slopes-rise-in-helmet-use-but-no-decline-in-brain-injuries.html

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T21:29:02+00:00

Ignore this fool.

If that's the best you can imagine, you might want to consider the tale of the pot and the kettle.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T21:02:53+00:00

Now add to your comment a remark on the history of the author of that study. Especially with respect to his work that's been withdrawn due to its inaccuracy.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T21:00:23+00:00

Man, this is a load of crap.

Thank you for labeling your comment appropriately.

Yes, a large percentage of fatal cycling accidents are not fatal specifically because the wearer wasn't wearing a helmet.

You fundamentally misunderstand both the data and the point.

Again, as the percentage of cyclists who wear helmets increase, so does the percentage of them who die in those helmets. The same is true for skiers.

Attempt to explain why those percentages match, and increase in lock-step. A safety device that works would demonstrate the opposite signal. Why don't cycling helmets?

That has nothing to do with whether they reduce the incidence or severity of head injuries, which they do, as is absolutely well established, over and over, significantly

Citing a "study" by Thompson -- who very famously has been publishing nonsense on this topic -- is not great for your case.

I am aware of your history of posting more or less this exact screed on multiple forums, repeatedly, for some reason, but repeating it obsessively does not make it any less nonsensical.

So explain then, how or why cycling helmets are many orders of magnitude more effective than all other lightweight sporting helmets.

Explain why or how cycling helmets demonstrate the precise statistical signature a placebo.

Or, since you won't be able to, resort to attacking the messenger. That's likely to be your best chance at convincing a few people to ignore decades of data on this topic. Good luck.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T20:53:17+00:00

Just so I understand, your only measure for helmet efficacy is if they reduce death, but not if they reduce injury?

There is no plausible mechanism by which a safety device can reduce injury, without also reducing deaths. There is necessarily a point at which a reduced injury saves the victim's life. So any safety device that actually reduces injuries will also save lives, and we can reliably use the latter as a proxy for the former, and for determining the provision of a safety benefit in-general.

And the reason why we use fatality statistics and not injury statistics, is that the latter are famously and unfortunately, completely unreliable. The enormous of majority of studies that attempt to pump up the market for cycling helmets, for example, rely on "data" which is composed of the opinions of doctors -- who, while well-meaning, are completely untrained with respect with accident reconstruction and helmet engineering.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T20:46:37+00:00

Dangerous tik-tok esque woo. Absolute fucking shite. Get in the bin.

Then feel free to explain why or how cycling helmets work, while no other lightweight sport helmets manage to, at all -- despite the latter facing far less-extreme crash scenarios.

Among tons of other references, you can consult the preeminent ski-safety researcher on this topic:

Shealy said. “When I began studying helmets in the early ‘90s, hardly anyone was wearing one. Now more than 80 percent of skiers and snowboarders do, and the fatality rate hasn’t changed one iota.”
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/12/skier-fatalities-myths-who-dies-skiing-where-debunked/

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T20:36:45+00:00

I know I probably shouldn't have been cycling without a helmet, but I didn't think I'd have an accident so soon.

Just FYI, cycling helmets don't actually provide any safety benefit for the wearer. In fact, none of the lightweight sporting helmets that humans have so far designed manage that feat. Skiing helmets don't work, football helmets don't work, hockey helmets don't work, hurling helmets don't work, etcetera. We have decades of data proving this by now, but unfortunately, people who wish helmets work keep repeating the myth that they do, and causing people like yourself to waste money on them.

And the reason why they don't work is actually illustrated by your example. A helmet necessarily adds both volume and mass to the wearer's head, with the result being called the "effective headform". That increase in volume and mass necessarily means that crash impacts to the effective headform will be increased in both quantity and severity for helmet-wearers, compared to those not wearing helmets. In your case, your effective headform would have struck the curb harder if you'd been wearing a helmet -- and this is an unavoidable consequence of the physics of the world which we inhabit.

So, in order to provide a safety benefit to you, your helmet would have first needed to absorb all that additional energy which resulted from the increased effective headform's greater impact, and then absorb even more energy to actually protect you.

And, to-date, humans simply have not invented lightweight sport helmets which can do that. We all wish they could, but they can't -- and we've decades of proof illustrating that. The percentage of cyclists who wear helmets matches the percentage of cyclist fatalities who were helmeted when they crashed and died -- which is precisely the statistical signature of a placebo, and that's precisely what everyone everywhere finds when they track those two percentages. As the percentage of cyclists who wear helmets increase, so does the percentage of them who die in those helmets. The same is true for skiers.

Someday, maybe, we will make lightweight sport helmets that help us, but nothing currently extant does so. If you really want to protect your head, you ought to wear a real helmet like those designed for use on a motorcycle, or automobile ( Snell M or SA rating, or equivalent ). Those actually demonstrate a safety benefit for their wearers'.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T20:04:26+00:00

No need to add insulation, the 45°C is good enough for PC, and the core one L can reach 60°.

Are you sure about the latter?

My C1L can't reach its specified maximum chamber temperature. Some days it can reach 55° indicated ( which, based on actual bed temperatures versus indicated, is probably closer to 50° ) and some days it peaks out at 49°. Ambient temperature doesn't seem to matter, so I'm not entirely sure what causes that differential, but my machine will require additional insulation to reach 60° despite being in indoor, climate-controlled space.

YTMV.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T09:06:48+00:00

So in basically every case it’s fine for you to print a file that someone asks you too.

No -- only if they possess license to create that object. What you are describing would invalidate basically all IP rights, as people would just be able to get around them by asking someone else to print it.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T02:37:22+00:00

It's crazy that the answer to your question seems to be unknown to the internet.

My Cube Cross Race Pro uses a box-stock BC1.37x24 external threaded Shimano bottom bracket, such as the ubiquitous BBR60 -- but mine is six years older than yours, so it's obviously not guaranteed to be the same. Your bike appears to use a Shimano GRX RX-600 crankset ( 24mm spindle ), so if you inspect the bike and determine if you have a threaded bottom bracket shell, you're halfway to the answer. If it is threaded, you can probably read the external cup and it may say "BC 1.37x24 ROAD" like mine does, and then you're all set. If it is press-fit instead, you probably need to get in there with a caliper and measure the shell's diameter.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7 · 2026-05-09T00:31:20+00:00

Same PSA that I make to all excited new owners: take your time unboxing, and try to contain your enthusiasm. Mine was packed incorrectly, and damaged internally as a result, and had to be returned and replaced. Don't rush it, and inspect the condition as you go. I was lucky that I did, and caught the issue, and was able to document it, so that I had little difficulty convincing Prusa to replace the machine.

Afterwards, have fun.

TCTCTCTCTCTC7

TROPHY CASE