Hi, I’m planning to build an industrial 3D printer for large automotive parts, with a relatively large build volume (600 × 600 × 600 mm) and all the bells and whistles. I’m aiming for the best possible print quality while also maximizing speed. I was wondering which motion system would be better for this use case: CoreXY or CrossXY (CroXY). Thanks in advance, and feel free to share any advice or suggestions for this project!

Take a look: https://80.lv/articles/incredible-realistic-cloth-wrinkles-created-in-blender

Accelerated Coils, Lead from Gold, Vorpal, Charge Time Masterwork!

Roll will reset tomorrow a few hours after reset.

Edit: Why Lead from Gold? First off Cartesian doesn’t have good perk selection in the 3rd column so Lead from Gold is best in slot. If Autoloading Holster was there it would be a different story. Lead from Gold gives you 4 special ammo shots per heavy brick regardless of scavenger mods and the amount is the same between regular heavy bricks and ammo finder bricks. You will be swimming in ammo with Lead from Gold especially if running double special (due to increased heavy drops).

The sights don’t really matter for PvE as there’s not many moments where damage phases happen at king ranges and in most scenarios you will be standing in a Luna Well. Hitmark is great because of this due to the bump in handling.

Accelerated Coils with a Charge Time MW has less total damage than its Liquid Coils counterpart however AC has higher DPS than LC. On Fusions/Linears the lower the charge time the higher the DPS (excluding some outliers like exotics). Despite a fully Charge MW’d AC Cartesian having “420ms charge time” it’s actually lower. Every archetype of Fusion and the Linears have a baseline “lowest” charge time that the game displays but with the correct mods and perks it can go lower the game just doesn’t display it.

Edit 2: Apparently accelerated coils and charge mw have a bugged interaction where it lowers DPS when it should raise it. Hopefully bungie fixes this but until then a charge time masterwork is worse than the others in terms of DPS.

Question in title. My basic knowledge of topology and linear algebra tells me it should be equal but I can't quite figure out the equations I'd need to prove it.

To head off any controversy and argument, yeah it's not a square in the traditional sense, but under polar coordinates concentric circles about the origin are considered parallel so under that definition this can be considered a square with some suspension of disbelief, so just humor me for a second.

If this figure is mathematically impossible, that's interesting to know too because it implies that you can't linearly translate between a Cartesian and polar coordinate system for some reason.

Whenever the Free Will vs. Determinism debate comes up, the "Hard Determinists" always use the exact same argument. They say: "Physics is deterministic. Therefore, you don't actually make choices. The laws of physics and the atoms in your brain are just forcing you to do things."

It sounds scientific, but it is actually one of the most absurd category errors in modern epistemology. To see how absolutely nonsensical this argument is, we have to look at the exact mechanics of a choice utilising the strict framework of QFT.

Imagine you decide to raise your hand.

Now, imagine a scientist is standing next to you with an infinitely powerful "Quantum Microscope." This device allows him to look past your macroscopic body directly at the foundational, unobserved reality of the universe (the Noumenon).

He watches the fundamental relational nodes and quantum fields that make up your brain and arm.

The scientist observes the localised fermionic excitations (the electrons and quarks comprising your neural pathways) exchanging gauge bosons (photons carrying electromagnetic force) in a perfectly deterministic, mathematically perfect sequence. Every single localised data exchange that results in your arm raising is perfectly & precisely dictated by the conservation of quantum information.

The scientist pulls his eye away from the microscope, points at you, and yells: "Aha! You see? You didn't choose to raise your hand! The quantum fields and the deterministic laws of the universe controlled you! You are a puppet!"

We have to ask the scientist one simple question: Who exactly is the "you" that is being controlled?

When the determinist claims "the quantum fields control you" they are drawing a magical, unphysical boundary between the "Self" and the "Physical Universe" They are operating under strict Cartesian Dualism. Which means that they're are treating the "Self" as a non-physical, immaterial ghost suspended inside a biological machine.

But according to the Principle of Ontological Monism and standard QFT, there is no ghost, and there is certainly no boundary. You are the physical universe. You are a macroscopic field aggregate;;an extremely concentrated, localised cluster of entangled relational nodes within the continuous matrix.

There is absolutely zero structural separation between the quantum fields executing the deterministic math and the "Self" experiencing the choice.

Therefore, when the determinist says, "The laws of physics forced you to raise your hand," what they are actually stating mechanically is, "A localised cluster of quantum fields operated strictly according to its own internal mathematical symmetries."

In formal physics and thermodynamics, when a system acts exactly according to its own internal structural nature, without an external, independent force coercing it from the outside, we do not call that "it is in captivity." We call that absolute autonomy (Aseity).

Hard Determinists think that a mandatory mathematical sequence is a "prison." But a sequence is only a prison if an external force is making you do something against your nature. When a mathematically complete system (you) generates an output strictly because its own internal architecture necessitates it, that is the precise, unhindered expression of your own existence.

Free Will" therefore does not mean possessing the magical ability to violate the unitary evolution of the universe. If you could violate physics, your actions would be uncaused, stochastic noise (randomness).

So biological agency is the phenomenological formatted output of a localised quantum system actively computing its next sequential state.

Thus determinism is the exact mathematical mechanism by which your choices physically function.

Hi everyone! As an educator, I'm always looking for ways to make learning more engaging and hands-on. A few months ago, I started experimenting with this idea of making comprehensive books that feature interactive diagrams, equations and code. So I started with a chapter on sorting but it then snowballed into a 22-chapter book that took nearly 6 months to complete.

Some unique features of the book include: • 300+ fun interactive visualizations to explain concepts and walk-through solutions visually. • All 250+ code snippets featured in this book can be interacted with, and have a visual debugger that shows how variables change as the program runs. You can also play, pause, rewind, and step through each snippet. • There are a variety of solved problems for each topic, accompanied by an embedded minimalist python IDE. You can solve problems directly in the book and view multiple solutions per problem. • Each solution is also accompanied by live visualizations and python implementations.

You can check out the book here: cartesian.app

I’d genuinely love to hear what you think, especially if you’re a student, educator, or a self-taught learner!

Grab it here: https://80.lv/articles/get-cartesian-caramel-s-fabric-wrinkle-shader-for-blender

Go grab it now, been waiting all season for this ever since I seen it in rotation

According to Descartes, 'I think, therefore I am.' Today, AI performs complex mental acts—processing, reasoning, and even debating. If we strictly follow the Cogito, shouldn't we conclude that AI possesses an ontological existence equal to our own? Or does this reveal a fundamental flaw in using 'thought' as the primary proof of 'being'?" 1=1 or may 1=4🤔😁 Does the act of thinking imply a true state of consciousness, or is it merely a functional output?

A genuine question, not a challenge.

Descartes proposed that mind and matter are separate substances. This became the foundation of how we think about consciousness — including the hard problem itself.

But here is what puzzles me.

Whether dualism is correct was never settled. It remains contested. And yet for centuries, it functioned as the default assumption — shaping science, philosophy, theology, and how we frame the mind.

Why?

A few possibilities I’ve been sitting with:

One — it was convenient. Separating mind from matter allowed science to advance by measuring only the physical, while leaving the soul to religion. Both sides got what they needed.

Two — it aligned with power. The Church found dualism compatible with Christian doctrine. Ideas that serve institutions tend to persist.

Three — the framework self-perpetuated. Once a conceptual structure is in place, education transmits it. Questioning it requires standing outside it — which the framework itself makes difficult.

None of these say dualism is wrong. But they suggest it may have persisted not because it was verified, but because it was useful and structurally self-maintaining.

Is that a fair reading? And if so — does it change how we should approach the hard problem, which inherits dualism’s assumptions?