Totally unrelated, these second black circles on the people in the background 🤣

this is not cancellation. This is Google taking a step back, and regroup to attack back.

I have been with Firefox, since it’s inception. Never left it. And it never let me down.

Blender has great add-ons for 3dprinting too. And are you trying to advertise a software? There are shapes that are impossible to 3dprint, however overhangs are not one of them. You can use supports, you can reorient your design, you can use bridging…

Depends on your patience. If you are very impatient go for the 4 pro as it’s built for faster printing. Otherwise they are very similar for print quality.

I started 3d printing with resin printing too. But do you think it’s a good entry point for op’s this purpose?

CAD software is better suited for precision designing. I don’t know if you would require that kind of presicion for board game parts. At least for early stages it may not be a requirement.

I for one still use blender for kinda presicion 3d models.

In fact Neptune 3 pro can be cheaper option. It would be slower to print but still create perfect prints. I do print with A Neptune 3 plus, a larger version of the 3 pro, and quite happy with it.

I suppose as you are a builder ( a game designer it’s most probably is) it would be a great help to have a 3d printer at hand.

Bambu printers,
Elegoo neptune 4 series, Prusa mk3/4s are great ones to start with.

What about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington%27s_disease? Repeats of CAG…

I can’t answer any of these. I don’t have the knowledge. I am not using Firefox on mobile, only on desktop. (opera mobile user)

However what I can say is, you need to make compromises on some of your convenience to free yourself from a user hostile company’s software, or forks of it which strongholds you to their whims. Silicon Valley is trying to profit against your best interests.

Also as a long running Firefox user, I don’t get these incompatibilities at all. And if you start using Firefox and increase the usage numbers the incompatible sites would need to reconsider their stance.

I strongly suggest against using any Chromium forks. I already explained why in another post. I’ll put the link to that here: https://kbin.social/m/asklemmy@lemmy.ml/t/282011/Why-do-most-browser-companies-opt-for-a-Chromium-Blink-base#entry-comment-1301554

Thank you. I edited the main body too.

I never used Chrome. happy user of Firefox since it’s conception.

Google is the maintainer and biggest contributor to chromium.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser) and they’ve already introduced wei into chromium without any pushback.

https://kbin.social/m/degoogle@lemmy.ml/t/255346/Google-is-already-pushing-WEI-DRM-Webpage-into-Chromium

There are forks of chromium already like Vivaldi. You can still use them. Unfortunately using them is not a guarantee that Google can’t use their usage numbers as leverage while politicing or advertising bad behaviour to other parties like social media.

Worse yet, maintaining a fork is a huge undertaking for a project in the size of chromium. This means in time the fork may struggle to keep up. Or upstream may introduce functions that depends on the bad behaviours and the fork be forced to either adopt both, or adopt none.

And that’s the problem. It gives full control power to Google. That’s the reason that popularity needs to be broken.

I still have trouble understanding the distinction between “a human consuming different artists, and replicating the style” vs “software consuming different artists, and replicating the style”.

For now spec calls “holdbacks”, which are designed for this purpose. Attestors will fail randomly for a set percentage of the requests so this can’t be used as a whitelist. Surely this “holdbacks” will either be not implemented or dropped in no time by attestors.

I rechecked the current spec. It does not fully cover what a user agent can ask to the attestor ( “content binding” to be defined). So we can assume this attestation spec is defined at the attestor.

Of course this does not mean attestor can not have different profiles to attest for.

So your comment even though is possible, just not defined yet. Which we can - I believe - rightfully assume will be in the final spec or implementation.