> Manual contains only 2.5 percent of its own G-code in its first version. That low figure is part of the point. Current FFF 3D printing resolution and text scale place limits on how much code can fit onto the object while also describing the volume of the object itself. A fully self-contained version would enter an endless loop, since every printed mark would add more data to be described.
The fact that quines exist means that it must be possible to print a fully self-describing book of this sort, though it's possible that you'd require a more expressive language.
"This prompt, when fed to a sufficiently capable LLM, will generate the G-code to produce a 3D printed model of a book containing this quote, verbatim, in raised letters."
Is anyone else confused by thier cookie consent banner? The switches start out gray and become black when toggled. which position means consent? It feels intentionally misleading.
> The switches start out gray and become black when toggled.
Rant: That type of slider-switch is an inferior usurper of the classic tickbox, that rode in on a wave of touch-screen-ification. Oh, it can be done well, sometimes, but it's just far-too-easy to do it badly.
In this case (useless colors, no intrinsic text labels, etc.) I think the remaining rule/clue is "Move the dot-nub towards whatever you want." So moving right is indicating you like the "We track you" text, while moving left indicates some kind of disagreement.
_____________________
> It feels intentionally misleading.
The "Accept All" button is worse:
1. It abuses UI conventions of position and color that belong to a "Proceed with what is shown" button.
2. Likewise, the text-label is ambiguous: It could mean "Accept All [of the choices which I've made and can see]"... But instead it means "Reject whatever is on-screen, and replace all choices with 'accept' cookies."
3. When it does erase/reset all choices made, it does so in a secretive way by also submitting and vanishing the dialog. The user never has any opportunity to realize that the machine implicitly flipped all choices to the right-most position.
Any one of these might be an innocent mistake, but all three sins together are a dark-pattern.
Just block cookies, and it doesn't matter whether you consent or not.
Of course, paradoxically, these consent banners need to put a cookie to remember that you didn't consent to cookies, so you might need a plugin like uBlock to block the banner as well.
I'm sure the idea here was a physical quine, although since it only contains 2.5% of its own G-code it's not really a quine, any more than a "Hello World" program is a quine since the string "Hello World" is in the program text. It would be trivial to generate something like this depending on which part of the G-code you pick.
Many G-code dialects contain subprogram calls, loops, and conditionals that seem like they'd permit a physical quine. The standard RepRap firmware breaks the rules by taking input:
The origins of Automatically Programmed Tools (APT the precursor of g-code) is a fascinating read [1] about the early intentions of -- its a poem forseeing LLM & CAD:
(From THE NEW YORKER) Cambridge, Mass., Feb. Z5-The Air Force announced today that it has a machine that can receive instructions in English, figure out how to make whatever is wanted, and teach other machines how to make it. An Air Force general said it will enable the United States to "build a war machine that nobody would want to tackle. " Today it made an ashtray [2]. -- San Francisco Chronicle, March 28, 1959
That ashtray was teh 1st CNC'd object.
Noble [3] speaks about the political angle that was an underpinning motivation
14 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 37.2 ms ] threadThe fact that quines exist means that it must be possible to print a fully self-describing book of this sort, though it's possible that you'd require a more expressive language.
Rant: That type of slider-switch is an inferior usurper of the classic tickbox, that rode in on a wave of touch-screen-ification. Oh, it can be done well, sometimes, but it's just far-too-easy to do it badly.
In this case (useless colors, no intrinsic text labels, etc.) I think the remaining rule/clue is "Move the dot-nub towards whatever you want." So moving right is indicating you like the "We track you" text, while moving left indicates some kind of disagreement.
_____________________
> It feels intentionally misleading.
The "Accept All" button is worse:
1. It abuses UI conventions of position and color that belong to a "Proceed with what is shown" button.
2. Likewise, the text-label is ambiguous: It could mean "Accept All [of the choices which I've made and can see]"... But instead it means "Reject whatever is on-screen, and replace all choices with 'accept' cookies."
3. When it does erase/reset all choices made, it does so in a secretive way by also submitting and vanishing the dialog. The user never has any opportunity to realize that the machine implicitly flipped all choices to the right-most position.
Any one of these might be an innocent mistake, but all three sins together are a dark-pattern.
Of course, paradoxically, these consent banners need to put a cookie to remember that you didn't consent to cookies, so you might need a plugin like uBlock to block the banner as well.
https://reprap.org/wiki/G-code#M98:_Call_Macro.2FSubprogram
but Fanuc and other dialects allow M97 to call a subroutine chained to the end of a program.
(From THE NEW YORKER) Cambridge, Mass., Feb. Z5-The Air Force announced today that it has a machine that can receive instructions in English, figure out how to make whatever is wanted, and teach other machines how to make it. An Air Force general said it will enable the United States to "build a war machine that nobody would want to tackle. " Today it made an ashtray [2]. -- San Francisco Chronicle, March 28, 1959
That ashtray was teh 1st CNC'd object. Noble [3] speaks about the political angle that was an underpinning motivation
[1] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=960118.808374
[2] https://mitmuseum.mit.edu/collections/object/2007.037.001
[3] forces of production - a social history of industrial automation (Noble, mit press)