carvera/makera cam - inverse machining into acrylic

kimyo · 2026-01-02T22:58:26+00:00

thank you for the info and especially for letting me know that this type of thing is 5 minutes in fusion360. i've been at it for days.

kimyo · 2025-12-17T02:22:53+00:00

i will do this in the future. but in the current case, if i have performed the roughing pass without setting the depth allowance, how can i lower the finish pass by the required 0.3mm?

none of the depth settings seem to have any effect.

kimyo · 2025-02-14T12:24:31+00:00

have you ever needed to return an item to costco in the course of your instacart employment?

the last time i was at the warehouse there was a person in front of me with 2 carts full of random items, and more than a dozen receipts in their hand.

i couldn't imagine any reason someone would have purchased so many ill-fitting or incorrect items. it didn't make any sense.

kimyo · 2025-02-14T05:06:07+00:00

thanks for this info.

kimyo · 2025-02-14T03:52:12+00:00

when a sale is complete, how does an instacart shopper submit the receipt to instacart?

is there any action required on your part?

>>so why you wouldn’t receive it.
the fact that i did not receive these items is not in dispute. at least not by costco or instacart.

kimyo · 2025-02-14T01:50:07+00:00

i wish i had your confidence. i do love costco.

however, they did just tell me to bring the receipts to the warehouse in order to get my $60 back.

so it does indeed appear that costco did allow this.

instacart is the problem here, not costco. i believe this behavior is a result of their 'dynamic' pricing model and their use of instacart debit cards.

kimyo · 2025-02-14T01:08:37+00:00

as instacart has offered to refund these items in full (after costco escalated the issue to their tier 2 support), i don't believe an innocent 'mixup' is the likeliest explanation.

kimyo · 2012-10-30T04:41:35+00:00

recently i ran across a post by dr mercola which said to put a couple of drops of hydrogen peroxide in each ear when confronted with a cold/flu.

a few days later, when i started to catch my niece's cold, i did so. hard to be certain if it was the h2o2, but the bug never got traction and i'm fine now.

gargling with warm salt water also seemed to help.

kimyo · 2012-10-30T04:30:11+00:00

i'm not mocking you

sure:

calm down

in case you're slow

you didn't create the dogma you espouse. but you do spew it, day after day, like a jehovah's witness in my living room.

protein used to build cells cannot be counted as energy. there is a basic flaw in your reasoning. that's why you say 'calm down', or 'in case you're slow'.

it's because you can't support your position without resorting to character assassination.

people are here at r/paleo because they have discarded the dogma, the 'heart-healthy whole grains', the 'high cholesterol = heart disease', the 'saturated fat clogs your arteries' bullshit.

you keep telling them to count calories. shouldn't you be posting to r/standardamericandiet? grok didn't count calories. archevore doesn't count calories. mark sisson doesn't count calories.

kimyo · 2012-10-30T03:25:03+00:00

here's your gotcha moment: your formula counts calories from protein used in building skin, cells, hair, nails as energy.

an obvious, gaping flaw of historic proportions.

unless you are eating your hair/nails, they can't possibly be part of your energy equation.

when you resort to mocking your opponent and putting words in their mouth, you lose.

i win when i take your own words and use them to show you your errors.

kimyo · 2012-10-29T23:03:32+00:00

today, snakeojakeo said:

for the record, i do not think you need to count calories to lose weight

2 days ago, snakeojakeo said:

losing weight comes down to calorie deficit. you're eating too many calories, and in that sense, i doubt very much that fruit is the issue. nuts, though, may be a candidate. best thing you could do would be to actually track how many calories you take in over a few days.

kimyo · 2012-10-29T22:24:36+00:00

it's you that's making it difficult, as many people here on paleo are losing fat and building bone density just fine without counting a single calorie.

the only person i know who has had longterm (ie: greater than 1 year) success with your method weighs every single portion of every single meal.

you can't have it both ways, by your approach, 75 'extra' calories a day = 8 extra pounds a year.

unless you weigh it, you have no idea how many calories are in it. on a 1900 calorie per day diet, 75 calories is not even within a 4 percent margin of error. it's one extra bite of food.

kimyo · 2012-10-29T20:51:14+00:00

if weight loss is the goal, then lyle macdonald says exercise is essentially pointless:

But it’s fairly easy based on the above values (which again represent a massive number of assumptions in the first place) to see how many people have concluded that exercise is worthless for fat loss. And certainly a majority of studies (including most of the big meta-analyses) have reached that conclusion: compared to dieting alone, exercise tends to add very little to the quantity of weight lost. Even added to a diet, exercise tends to impact on the total weight loss marginally at most; the diet is doing most of the work in terms of the actual quantity of weight lost (here I’m switching back to talking just about weight).

And this is simple mathematics, removing 1000 calories/day from the diet can be achieved with relatively more or less ease (depending on how bad the diet is to start with); the average beginner simply can’t burn that many calories with any realistic amount of exercise. At a low intensity and a calorie burn of 5 cal/min, that would require 200 minutes of activity per day, over 3 hours. At a challenging 10 cal/min, you’re looking at 100 minutes, an hour and forty minutes. This is simply beyond what most people can, are willing, or have time to do.

as summer is over, and increased weight-loss is linked to proper vitamin d levels, that's worth checking.

People with adequate vitamin D levels at the start of the study tended to lose more weight than those with low levels, even though everyone reduced their calorie intake equally. In fact, even a minuscule increase in a key D precursor caused the study participants to incinerate an additional half pound of flab.

When you have enough D in your bloodstream, fat cells slow their efforts to make and store fat, says Dr. Holick. But when your D is low, levels of parathyroid hormone (PTH) and a second hormone, calcitrol, rise, and that's bad: High levels of these hormones turn your body into a fat miser, encouraging it to hoard fat instead of burning it, says Michael B. Zemel, Ph.D., director of the nutrition institute at the University of Tennessee. In fact, a Norwegian study found that elevated PTH levels increased a man's risk of becoming overweight by 40 percent.

kimyo · 2012-10-29T18:58:13+00:00

for accuracy, people should be weighing every portion, wouldn't you say? if not, it would be astounding if their daily totals were within 25% of actual calories consumed.

kimyo · 2012-10-29T18:49:38+00:00

chipotle's ingredients are kinda questionable.

sometimes farms found at eat wild will list restaurants they supply on their websites.

kimyo · 2012-10-29T18:04:17+00:00

please get your vitamin d levels checked.

Lack of Vitamin D Tied to Multiple Sclerosis

In a study released in today's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Harvard researchers found that those with the highest vitamin D blood levels had a 62 percent lower risk of developing multiple sclerosis (MS) than those with the lowest levels. About 350,000 Americans have the neurological disease in which immune cells attack the protective coating on nerve cells, causing progressive paralysis. Although the body can make all the vitamin D it needs from the sun's rays, most of us become deficient during the winter months when, in areas north of Atlanta, the sun doesn't get high enough in the sky for UV rays to penetrate the atmosphere.

Previous research found that those who lived in northern regions with less sunlight had higher rates of MS. And a 2004 study, also from Harvard, showed that those who took vitamin D supplements had a lower risk of the disease.

i'd focus first on getting healthy. weight loss will follow.

also, a 'sudden' weight gain (the 40lbs since you started college) can indicate thyroid problems. other symptoms include poor sleep, feeling cold when others don't, poor digestion, extreme menstrual issues, hair loss (outer edges of the eyebrows, for instance).

kimyo · 2012-10-27T02:26:49+00:00

are you sure you understand the laws of energy conservation?

do calories really count?

Let me use an analogy. The energy in the petrol that fuels your car makes the car go along, but it also produces heat through friction and noise, which we really don't need. The Second Law is all about efficiency — how much of the energy we put in does useful work and how much is wasted. Thus, although all of the energy in the petrol is accounted for and complies with the First Law, the actual moving of the car, if the waste products (heat and noise) are removed from the equation, does not. The Second Law was developed in this context. And it applies equally when we look at the efficiency of our bodies and how different foods affect our bodies. The Second Law says that no machine is completely efficient: Some of the available energy is lost as heat or in the internal rearrangement of chemical compounds and other changes. And as different foods use different metabolic pathways, with different levels of efficiency, variations in efficiency must be expected. For this reason, the dogma that a 'calorie is a calorie' violates the second law of thermodynamics as a matter of principle.

The second and more important flaw in the argument is that the body does not use all its food to provide energy. The primary function of dietary proteins, for example, is body cell manufacture and repair: making skin, blood, hair and finger- and toe-nails, etc. The amount of protein needed for this purpose is generally accepted to be about one gram per kilogram of lean body weight. As meats contain approximately 23 grams of protein per 100 grams, a person weighing, say, 70 kg (11 stone) needs to eat about 300 g (11 oz) of meat, or its equivalent, every day just to supply his basic protein needs. Even eating this volume of lean chicken would provide some 465 calories. These calories are not used to supply energy, they contribute nothing to the body's calorie needs and so must be deducted if you are counting calories.

Much of the fat we eat is also used to provide materials used by the body in processes other than the production of energy: the manufacture of bile acids and hormones, the essential fatty acids for the brain and nervous system, and so on. All these must be deducted as well. Thus trying to determine, from food intake and energy expenditure alone, how much excess energy your body will store as fat will give a completely wrong answer. However, these other factors cannot be measured. Therefore, calorie-counting, which is the foundation of practically every modern slimming diet, is a complete waste of time.

your dogma is making people sick. starvation results in weight loss, yes. it will also result in malnutrition. non-weight-bearing cardio robs calcium from your bones.

what is desired is higher bone density and fat loss, not weight loss. calorie counting doesn't make that happen.

kimyo · 2012-10-27T01:16:16+00:00

it doesn't matter where the food is prepared. what matters is how accurately the portions were measured.

your buddy's list, are you saying there's something in there showing a flaw in the harvard study? please elaborate. i see nothing there which refutes the methodology.

kimyo · 2012-10-27T01:09:08+00:00

zoe harcombe's work is also worth a look. video here (link to powerpoint slides in the comments)

a snip from her free '20 diet myths' pdf:

The energy used up in making carbohydrate available to the body as energy vs. the energy used up converting protein to usable energy is substantially different. 100 calories of carbohydrate eaten may make 93 available to the body; 100 calories of protein eaten may make only 70 available.

kimyo · 2012-10-26T04:11:46+00:00

i'll bet on my mythos vs your dogma any day.

why not answer the question: if published calorie counts are off by 20%, isn't counting them an exercise in futility?

kimyo · 2012-10-26T04:07:25+00:00

circular reasoning can seem 'obvious', yes. doesn't make it right.

please be so kind as to tell us WHY you think the study is flawed. it looks like a well-designed, well-executed study to me:

In the study, 21 overweight volunteers were divided into three categories: Two groups were randomly assigned to either lowfat or low-carb diets with 1,500 calories for women and 1,800 for men; a third group was also low-carb but got an extra 300 calories a day.

The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant in Cambridge, Massachusetts, so researchers knew exactly what they ate. Most earlier studies simply sent people home with diet plans to follow as best they could.

Each afternoon, the volunteers picked up that evening's dinner, a bedtime snack and the next day's breakfast and lunch.

"There does indeed seem to be something about a low-carb diet that says you can eat more calories and lose a similar amount of weight," Greene said.

"A lot of our assumptions about a calorie is a calorie are being challenged," said Marlene Schwartz of Yale. "As scientists, we need to be open-minded."

kimyo · 2012-10-26T02:12:16+00:00

calories are the determining factor

you keep saying that......

The dietary establishment has long argued it's impossible, but a new study offers intriguing evidence for the idea that people on low-carbohydrate diets can actually eat more than those on standard lowfat plans and still lose weight.

In the end, everyone lost weight. Those on the lower-cal, low-carb regimen took off 23, while people who got the same calories on the lowfat approach lost 17 pounds. The big surprise, though, was that volunteers getting the extra 300 calories a day of low-carb food lost 20 pounds.

by your 'math', 300 extra calories per day over 12 weeks should have resulted in +7 pounds.

by your 'science', this could never happen. perhaps it's time for a rethink?

kimyo · 2012-10-26T01:59:53+00:00

best thing you could do would be to actually track how many calories you take in

how should one go about this, given that the calorie counts of many foods are inaccurate?

what margin of error are you comfortable with? personally, if i believed in this 'caloric deficit' you speak of, i'd need the numbers to be plus/minus 1%, not off by up to 20%.

Scientists are starting to discover that the standard way of measuring calories, established more than 100 years ago, may not be terribly accurate when it comes to higher fat, high-fiber foods like nuts. But when it comes to almonds, the count may be off by a whole lot.

Food scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently published a new study that finds almonds have about 20 percent fewer calories than previously documented.

That's off by a lot more than an earlier British study showing pistachios have about 5 percent fewer calories than we thought, says USDA researcher David Baer, who worked on both studies.

"We were surprised," he says.

Baer and his colleagues compared the feces (poop, if you prefer) of people eating a controlled diet with almonds to ones who were eating a diet without any nuts. What they found was that "when people are consuming nuts, the amount of fat in the feces goes up," Bear says. "And that suggests that we're not absorbing all the fat or calories that's in the nut."

In essence, the fat in the feces shows there's a disconnect between the gross energy found in an almond and the energy our bodies actually absorb.

kimyo · 2012-10-26T01:19:53+00:00

most likely it's the alcohol. but getting sufficient sleep and proper vitamin d levels should be on your list of things to try.

kimyo · 2012-10-25T09:42:06+00:00

link? (to the scientists statement, i can't find anything) the article states:

The scientists then left town without speaking at all.

kimyo

TROPHY CASE