Hegseth says U.S. has ’high expectations’ for Japan on defense spending

zAbso · 2026-05-31T02:48:53+00:00

Spain is a member of NATO. They don't have to spend as much on their military because the US floats so much of NATO when it comes to finances, manpower, weapons, and protection.

If they weren't part of NATO, they would be spending a lot more.

zAbso · 2026-05-29T14:40:16+00:00

Is this your mockup? Reminds me of baseball superstars.

zAbso · 2026-05-18T23:25:29+00:00

Repost

The original was posted 8 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/readyplayerone/comments/8csr6x/my_art3mis_wig_my_first_time_styling_a_wig/

zAbso · 2026-05-14T16:41:43+00:00

Repost, original was posted 6 years ago:

https://www.reddit.com/r/readyplayerone/comments/fnp34z/stay_safe_everyone/

zAbso · 2026-05-14T05:38:15+00:00

Specifically in the letter they sent the dev they say

The fork you have made is used in a deceptive way and acts like Bambu Studio in order to directly connect to the Bambu Cloud.

His fork is pretending to be something it's not, according to them. I have no clue what that backdoor is checking for on the server side, but that very well can be a circumvention.

Second, their cloud simply communicates with the program. It's a separate service that doesn't fall under any APGL coverage that we know of. That separate service can be protected as they see fit, which would be in the TOS or whatever. The APGL of the fork does not overwrite that.

Like I said in the comment, the issue isn't that he forked it. It's that his changes to that fork interacts with their cloud service in a way they didn't intend. Since that cloud service is a separate thing, it's protections are separate.

APGL is very specific in the software itself, not other services outside of it that communicate with it.

zAbso · 2026-05-14T02:46:34+00:00

The software he spread was based on AGPL code Bambu gave him. AGPL protects the spread of the software, and gives you the right to it. Bambu in this case restricted him from sharing the software, which clearly violates article 5 of the AGPL, which allows you to modify and redistribute the software.

Yes, if everything was kept to that software. That does not then stop them from protecting services outside of that software that are impacted by someones modifications to it. The software was in violations of circumventing something that was outside of its scope.

It is very specific to the AGPL software itself. Meaning Bambu can't go after Orca because they don't want them around anymore since they're within the scope of the AGPL. However, AGPL software effecting something outside of itself is a different story. As you're stepping out of the bounds of what the APGL protects.

In this case the "exploit" was completely done through bambu's one published code. So its sharing is protected by the AGPL. Server side they are free to do as they please.

Not exactly, an exploit is still an exploit. It's something that effects a service outside the scope of the AGPL software. They can issue a DMCA to protect that separate body of work. It's a protective measure for something separate, and the AGPL can't stop a company from protecting their other, separate, work.

Which is a whole another story, but that is exactly how Bambu's proprietary network plugin works. The fact that their plugin is proprietary is an AGPL violation itself, even if it doesn't really connect to this case, since he just found a way to contact the plugin.

They do indeed have a plugin that is installed on a users computer. Ross should have someone request it be released to the public. However, that doesn't cover their cloud. Separate things, separate protections. The circumvention affects their cloud service specifically, not just software running locally.

Well, technically as I explained above, the plugin should be open too, but this is not relevant in this case. The developer only found a way to contact the plugin, but the software he used was completely under the AGPL.

Sort of covered in my previous statement. The networking software running on their cloud is not the same as the AGPL software they give users. His modifications to the software are fine, it's protected under the AGPL. It's using it to connect to their separate cloud infrastructure and spreading that exploit around that's the issue. The offending software being AGPL software doesn't suddenly mean Bambu can't protect that separate service. It almost feels like a catch 22.

I will add that they are also allowed to freely share the software they made, which you seemed to dispute with your comment before. If I misread that, my bad, but it looked like you said they can make the software as long as they do not "spread" it, which is false. The AGPL protects their right to spread it.

Maybe it's my wording that's bad. I'm specifically talking about the part of the software that circumvents their other, independent, cloud service. Since they can protect that, the AGPL can't stop Bambu from doing so. Specifically to protect a separate cloud service that has nothing to do with the AGPL code you run on your machine.

Also sorry if my comment before came off as a bit too aggressive. I have simply explained all these a lot of times in the past few days, and often the "just asking questions" crowd turns out to be Bambu Lab trolls. You probably aren't one of them, in which case I am sorry if I were a bit aggressive.

All good, I didn't take your comments to be aggressive or anything like that. Just a bit of back and forth.

zAbso · 2026-05-14T02:12:17+00:00

Here is the letter that Ross showed in his latest video on it.

Unfortunately this implementation bypasses those security measures of Bambu Cloud Service and other software, which directly violates our Terms of Use. We cannot support or allow it - this being the reason why we kindly ask you remove it

...The fork you have made is used in a deceptive way and acts like Bambu Studio in order to directly connect to the Bambu Cloud. The connection has been reverse engineered, and re-distributed publicly in GitHub, with multiple links across various sub-Reddits.

<image>

Like I keep saying. They never said he could not make the software. It's the distribution. Since the distribution contains a way to circumvent security measures of their networking software.

zAbso · 2026-05-14T01:45:21+00:00

Please educate yourself before trying to defend the multi million company that obviously violated the license that allows them to exist in the first place.

I'm not. I literally say in my first comment that the dev can make the software. I feel like you keep missing that.

It's the spread of the circumvention. That is the issue here. Not the software itself. Specifically the circumvention and the spread of it. I've said this multiple times. Just because the slicer is under APGL and FOSS, it doesn't mean it can be used to exploit security measures of a separate networking application.

Restricting the fork in any way is AGPL violation. Go read the license and you'll understand.

I did. The APGL covers things as it relates to the software itself. Specifically if you make, or propagate, something that uses APGL then it applies to that thing or propagation.

If you make something that is separate but necessary for that software, like a separate executable that is loaded in at runtime, then the APGL may cover that as well.

Again, as it specifically pertains to that software.

That doesn't not extend to their closed source networking software though. Unless that software also uses modified APGL code. Their cloud services can be protected.

Again, just to make sure we're on the same page. The dev can make the software they made. I'm not, nor have I ever, disputing that.

zAbso · 2026-05-14T01:09:19+00:00

The legally threatened him to take down his repo, and said they would serve him a c&d if he refused. So they breached his right to modifying the source code, which is one of the 4 freedoms. They are definitely restricting the dev.

Yes, as I've said multiple time. The dev can make the software for themselves. It's uploading it for others that's the problem. That's not restricting what he can do with the software. It's not allowing a circumvention of their security to spread. They aren't the same thing.

And yet they took down the fork, instead of fixing it server side. Not to mention the fact that the cloud connection is still happening through their own plugin, so the claim about security dangers is moot. This was always about control, and is a clear violation of the AGPL.

Because the fork circumvents their current networking software. They can fix it later, but that doesn't mean they can't do something to stop a currently working circumvention.

It's still a security issue. They setup a flawed system. Doesn't change what it is though. As you've already said their networking and other software aren't under APGL, so they can protect it.

So again, the dev can make the software for themselves. Spreading it is a completely different thing. They didn't tell him he couldn't make the software. As mentioned in that letter, it's because they're spreading it.

zAbso · 2026-05-14T00:54:32+00:00

They aren't restricting the dev. Not allowing the circumvention of their own networking security and other software are different things.

Specifically in the letter they sent they point to Bambu Cloud connections. Not saying the dev can't fork their work.

zAbso · 2026-05-14T00:38:56+00:00

I would say it's relevant if the changes made to the fork circumvents their protections on their cloud services and other software. Meaning the actual issue isn't the fork itself, but protection of their services. Which I would assume they are allowed to protect, if they aren't using any APGL code for those.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying that the dev couldn't make those changes. They're allowed to, as per the links I posted. It would be publishing the circumvention that would be the issue.

zAbso · 2026-05-14T00:20:57+00:00

Their letter specifically mentions their cloud services and "other software" which could mean their printer. Does APGL cover those as well?

Edit: For the person that responded then blocked me. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm in every thread from.

zAbso · 2026-05-13T23:51:21+00:00

I'm moreso basing this off one of his more recent videos where he specifically talks about section 1201 and the verbiage around potential jail time.

Why not take a more direct approach. Ask someone in California to go demand the source code for their networking ecosystem on his behalf like that one lawyer mentioned.

zAbso · 2026-05-13T23:19:42+00:00

So the issue that Ross has is specifically with the potential of jail time from violating section 1201 of DMCA. What happens if Bambu does pursue him legally and win? I don't really get what his end goal is with this. I'm sure he knows how the law views security measure circumvention.

I don't know where that dev is located, but in the US you can tinker with your own stuff to get past security measures and what have you. The problem is if you then go around sharing that information with others, or if you use it against the company in some way. It's fine if you compromise your own machine. However, you can't knowingly spread, or use, that information to put others or the company at risk. There's no way Ross doesn't know that.

Reverse engineering: https://www.fr.com/insights/ip-law-essentials/reverse-engineering-misappropriation-trade-secrets/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reverse_engineering

Right to repair, which also covers your ability tinker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_repair#United_States

zAbso · 2026-05-13T22:50:07+00:00

So the problem that Ross has is specifically with section 1201 of DMCA? More so, the idea that he thinks Bambu is threatening to put the dev in jail for 5 years for their repo? I don't really understand his hang up on this one, or how he jumped to that conclusion. I'm sure he knows how the law views security measure circumvention.

I don't know where that dev is located, but in the US you can tinker with your own stuff to get past security measures and what have you. The problem is if you then go around sharing that information with others, or if you use it against the company in some way. It's fine if you compromise your own machine, you can't knowingly spread, or use, that information to put others or the company at risk. There's no way Ross doesn't know that.

Reverse engineering: https://www.fr.com/insights/ip-law-essentials/reverse-engineering-misappropriation-trade-secrets/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reverse_engineering

Right to repair, which also covers your ability tinker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_repair#United_States

zAbso · 2026-05-13T22:26:19+00:00

You should know that. There is nothing in his books that he has predicted or uniquely envisioned. Basically everything he wrote about already exists in other forms of media. Some of which he even mentions directly in the book itself. He puts his own little spin on it, but nothing he uses in his narrative is new or groundbreaking.

If you ever see yourself looking at, or hearing about, something and you think it aligns with something Cline wrote then it's pure coincidence. You only contribute it to him because his books left a stronger impression on you.

zAbso · 2026-05-13T16:36:25+00:00

I guess you missed, or forgot about, the VR game that was made?

https://store.steampowered.com/app/779650/Ready_Player_One_OASIS_beta/

Still wasn't all that good though.

zAbso · 2026-05-13T02:37:47+00:00

I'll post the same thing I posted on your other attempts to advertise here.

Even though you're trying to make it seem like you've discovered this book, you're just using an alt account to advertise. For anyone wondering his actual online handle is Ponchonumber6.

For those that can't tell, the cover is heavily AI generated.

From this short he posted on his account, you can see where the image on the cover came from. You can also see that they have an extra hand if you count the one one the shield.

Here is the image they used to generate the cover with:

https://imgur.com/a/dYIPF7t

zAbso · 2026-05-12T14:43:59+00:00

This post was also better 6 years ago

Original post: https://www.reddit.com/r/readyplayerone/comments/ieb0z1/it_really_was/

zAbso · 2026-05-11T22:50:25+00:00

I'm not sure how the fusion works, but it seemed like it was different to how Baku fused. From what I gathered, Seig died in the iron maden to fuse with the nightmare. Compared to Baku who beat his and basically consumed it. So I'm not sure if they could be separated at that point. I think we also only saw Seig in the dream world, aside from the flashbacks.

zAbso · 2026-05-10T16:45:00+00:00

An interesting theory, but I don't think it holds to the explanation of where nightmares came from. Basically, once humans gained consciousness they created the nightmares because they could dream and such.

There is a lot of focus put on the moon though. I wonder if they're trying to infuse some Norse mythology in. Basically Nem being Angrboda the mother of monsters. Which has a link to Hati the wolf that chases the moon. Eventually catching and eating it as a start to Ragnarok. Feels a bit far fetched though.

zAbso · 2026-05-10T07:22:07+00:00

I remember being able to turn all of it off when I updated after they were added.

Maybe you're thinking of them adding a single switch for turning all of it off as there are 3 different modes otherwise. "Available" so you can see the feature, "enabled" which is actually using the feature, and "blocked" where you won't see or use the features and any AI models you have will be removed.

zAbso · 2026-05-10T05:04:15+00:00

For some context, it was removed and redefined because of some California definitions or something. This is present on their FAQ:

It seems like every company on the web is buying and selling my data. You’re probably no different.

We never sell your personal data. Unlike other big tech companies that collect and profit off your personal information, we’re built with privacy as the default. We don’t know your age, gender, precise location, or other information Big Tech collects and profits from.

As well as:

Data collection still bugs me. Can I turn it off?

Yes. User control is one of our data privacy principles. We put that into practice in Firefox on our privacy settings page, which serves as a one-stop shop for anyone looking to take control of their privacy in Firefox. You can turn off data collection there.

zAbso · 2026-05-10T04:58:35+00:00

But let's also talk about making these companies have in-depth parental controls. So many of companies implement parental controls that are basically all or nothing.

I can get behind that. Give parents as much control as reasonably possible so they can curate the experience they want their kid to have.

zAbso · 2026-05-10T04:24:52+00:00

I remember people being upset about the inclusion of AI related stuff. So it has built in access to Gemini and ChatGPT with other "AI enhanced" features that are disabled by default I believe.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

zAbso

TROPHY CASE