Also worth pointing out:

There are other issues too. All of Law and Blair’s tests were done with one kind of 3D printer—a Prusa MK4S. There’s hundreds of different devices on the market that all behave differently. Law also pointed out that brass nozzles warp over time themselves and may produce different results after hundreds of prints and that different nozzles made from different materials may work very differently. Law would also want an examiner rate study—a formal scientific inquiry into false positives and examiner bias.

Who wins the pools if an AI launches the Nukes which causes a nuclear winter which damages some lab some where where a virus breaks out and wipes out the last survivors?

So someone that is not involved in rust at all and does not seem to like the language thinks it will get a GC at some point? That is not a very credible source for such a statement. Rust is very unlikely to see an official GC anytime soon if ever. There are zero signs it will ever get one. There was a lot of serious talk about it before 1.0 days - but never made it into the language. Similar to green threads which was a feature of the language pre 1.0 days but dropped before the 1.0 release. Rust really wants to have a no required runtime and leans heavy on the zero-cost abstractions for things. Which a GC would impose on the language.

Sovol V8 is a nice printer, especially for its price. Based on the voran v2.4 but pre-assembled.

And other browsers can be configured to do the same. Though that is not ublock origin doing anything with the cookies and these settings can be enabled wtihout ublock (though you likely want ublock if you are enabling them).

You might want to check out the sovol V8 that came out not too long ago. It is based on the voran v2.4 but comes mostly prebuilt with mass manufactured parts to lower cost. But still holds true to the open nature of the voran. And is quite cheap for what it is at $579 for the base open frame model.

Only down side is it does not have an automatic filiment changer though I don't really care for that feature.

Refactoring should not be a separate task that a boss can deny. You need to do feature X, feature X benefits from reworking some abstraction a bit, then you rework that abstraction before starting on feature X. And then maybe refactor a bit more after feature X now you know what it looks like. None of that should take substantially longer, and saves vast amounts of time later on if you don't include it as part of the feature work.

You can occasionally squeeze in a feature without reworking things first if time for something is tight, but you will run into problems if you do this too often and start thinking refactoring is a separate task to feature work.

a hearing doc won’t be much help with anything aside from hearing

Irrelevant to my argument. All I mean is because they go to visit someone for one problem can mean they visit other people for other problems they have - rather than ignoring things and staying at home. And I am not claiming what I said to be the actual cause - at least no more than what the study can claim. There could be many other factors at play here as well. My only point is to not confuse causation for correlation and that these types of studies are almost useless in what they tell us.

Hell, even spurious correlations happen all the time. You cannot use two graphs looking similar to prove any point without a lot of control for all the other variables that might be at play and not go looking at large amounts of data for anything that might seem interesting.

That is and big if though. Yeah you, me and half the people here might leave over this, but we block ads already and so are not highly valued to YouTube or a lot of the creators and are only a small drop in the ocean of viewers.

YouTube is betting on more people turning off ad blockers then those that leave. And i am glad to see that it might be having a small effect on more people actually discovering ad blockers instead. Which I bet is something YouTube did not expect to see.

I’m still forgetting things I learned 3 or even 4 times like how to do a for each loop.

I have been programming for decades now and still have to look up how an if statement works in bash - or other similar things, especially when switching between languages. It takes 5 seconds to look up and remember so I would not bother worrying about it. Far better to know when you need to use an if or for loop and quickly look up the syntax then to know the syntax but not when to use it.

I see tutorials say to make a tic tac toe game or a calculator or to contribute to open source code. Which is good I suppose but all of it feels too advanced and I get lost on how to begin.

Break problems down into simpler problems, then break those down into simpler problems until you have a trivial problem you can solve. Then build up from there. Like take a tic tac toe game - lots of things to consider that can all be dealt with in isolation. Like rendering the game to the screen, that is one problem you can start with, and can be broken down even further to maybe how to draw a grid to the screen, which again can be broken down to how to draw a box or line.

You might even want to look at the book " Think Like a Programmer: An Introduction to Creative Problem Solving by V. Anton Spraul" which goes into this way of thinking in more detail.

At thins point I am starting to think they are more pro-suffering

No it is not ment to be empty. You will need to reinstall it to fix that.