I am surprised nobody mentioned the Qidi printers. They are the perfect balance between tinkerability and reliability (but see below - QA varies), and have open firmware. They are the only ones that currently compete with Bambu in high-temperature materials. These will outperform PC/Nylon and can also print advanced stuff as PPS, especially on the new Q2.
Now, for their QA - it is not on par with Prusa or Bambu, however, there are a few tips to avoid the pitfalls.
1. If buying the Plus 4, buy the US version of possible. The EU models are older units with a faulty part.
2. Buy from places that offer returns. If the printer is faulty, you can always return it
3. If something breaks, document and send to support. Expect free replacement parts shipped within a week.
By following the above, you will get an extremely capable printer at a fraction of a cost of a Bambu, with offline modes, open source FW a great community and hotend capabilities that are virtually unparalleled and venture into engineering grade machines.
Another vote for Qidi from me. I have Qidi Plus4, which is amazing. I selected the UK version (where I live), and don't have any issues. I believe the faulty part issue you were referring has been resolved long since as mine doesn't have this, based on the part numbers.
I was against getting a Bambu mainly for the proprietary software.
I second qidi. I have a Q1 pro and have had great success with higher temperature/exotic materials. I live in EU, and I also appreciate that they stock everything in Europe and I always get delivery of consumables and materials within a few days.
Well, the oscillator is a Schmitt trigger. The trigger waits for a capacitor to discharge pas a hysteresis point, but uses discrete voltage levels to switch. So, maybe semi-analog?
I would love an option to easily export these, both in bulk and as individual notes. That way I can share them, feed them into software (i.e. AI to summarise) etc.
Maybe it's somewhere in the docs, but I can't find it easily in the mobile app
I think that the biggest advantage of the spreadsheet is that it can be modified easily, even democratically and also on the go. No website offers that kind of ease of use for _adding_ information
Learning is the last thing they want to do in a situation like “I want to update a document about losing homes”, and among the end of the to do list in general. One can argue as much as they want how it’s people’s fault, but the next catastrophe will create more google sheets and whatsapp groups and zero wikis and forum threads.
I believe that developers could bridge this gap easily, if they weren’t in the denial about their own UI/UX issues themselves.
I'm speaking more broadly, not this specific instance.
In either case, justifying unwillingness to learn is a race to the bottom. I don't want every app to be made targeted at the lowest common denominator -- nor do I think it is healthy for society -- in terms of digital literacy. That's a race to the bottom to every app being like Tiktok.
Remember, that Gen Z doesn't understand what a directory or a file is because they grew up on spoon-feeding mobile apps, and this is causing problems for them when they enter the workplace.
This type of thought process of making everything as streamlined as possible is why that happens.
This is a slippery slope style argument with immediate overstretching into tiktok.
There’s a difference between learning google sheets and learning markdown.
And you are misinterpreting the desire to not deal with irrelevant complexity as some race to the bottom, as if it wasn’t constrained by the task itself.
The task of both wiki and google suite (in this case) is to create web documents with formatting and links. We clearly see what wins when there’s no additional constraints that wikipedia as a project imposes. Tiktok is completely incomparable to these and is not the “minimum state” of the same task.
This type of thought process of making everything as streamlined as possible is why that happens.
This is just an incomplete thought. Multiple factors at play here and only one of these is a type of thought process. This is as unreasonable as saying “attention to details is bad cause it’s a type of thought process that allows burglars to enter homes”.
Most wikis are not very user friendly (UI, not about the rules and moderation), most people have used Word / Google Docs before so it's much more natural.
Yes, let me just go pop my personal contents and insurance details on wikipedia as myself and my family track, update and modify the structure of the page.
Not sure why you feel justified in this level of snarkiness, given that i responded to a very specific claim:
>No website offers that kind of ease of use for _adding_ information
Obviously Wikipedia isn't great to upload your social security number to, but it does allow democratic adding of information which I cited it as an example of.
Please read the HN guidelines. You seem to require a refresher:
Perhaps it was a little snarky - it was intended with good humour to point out how drastically far away the suggestion was.
Wikipedia is nothing like what this is for adding information in the way the comment says. Particularly because one of the very key points about this sheet is that you can copy it and add information. It's explicitly for that and Wikipedia absolutely does not offer the ease of use of filling in forms and adding your information on the go.
