What i do, is store all spools in a big sealed plastic tote with some bigger desiccant bags(100g).
To dry the filament(even if it's new from a sealed bag) i have a smaller plastic tote that will fit 1 spool with a heating pad(like the ones used for your medical purposes) on the bottom. Add the spool and let it sit fro 6-12 hours on top of the heating pad with the lid closed. Pretty cheap heated filament dryer.
Here's the heating pad i use, can be found on Amazon for $14: "Boncare® Small Heating Pad Without Auto Shut Off for Cramps and Back Pain Relief"
Not that hot, maybe 50-60C, enough to get the moisture out of the filament and into the desiccant while not melting your spool or filament.
Was thinking to add a small fan to it one of these days, connected to a battery and on/off switch, but it's working really good as it is.
Just to add to this, i print mostly PETG and PETG-CF, barely any PLA.
As i read it the insurance company reimbursed the crew that found the gold, and the insurance company owned the gold as well as they paid the original owners of the ship for their loss(but you can't own something that you don't have), they had to reimburse the crew that found it for their work/expenses etc. I might be wrong but that's what i got from the OP's story.
I read it the same way you did, but I'm confused that paying out insurance gives the insurer a stronger claim to property than buying something. Is a wreck at the bottom of the sea only still someone's property if that someone is an insurer?
My very lose understanding is that finding a wreck doesn't confer ownership. It confers salvage rights, and if the owner doesn't compensate for salvage (or the assumed costs of salvage), you get to keep what you salvage in payment.
So when there's no-one who can make a legal claim, and is willing and able to cover your costs - it starts to look a whole lot like "finders keepers". But if there's a clearly defined owner, and they're able to meet your costs, you have no right to keep it.
(For a clearer example - if someone gives your boat a tow, they can't refuse your payment and keep your boat, that'd be absurd. But if you refuse to pay they can recover those costs. Adding a few hundred years in doesn't change this, it only makes proving ownership more complex.)
So as I understand it - when the insurer compensates the owner, they assume ownership of the property. You can't lose something, claim insurance, then find it, and keep both property & payment. So when it comes to salvage - if the insurer can prove ownership and cover costs, it's their property.
Shipwrecks are governed by maritime salvage law, an international set of legal conventions governing the recovery of vessels and properties aboard them.
In a nutshell, the putative owner of the vessel or the properties recovered from it has two years from the end of salvage operations to lay claim to the vessel/goods recovered. If the salvage was not performed under contract, then they must pay fair value for the salvage services, but the sources I found are all over the board on what "fair value" is in that context.
They paid above market for these houses in cash in order to get them and we don't know how much above market, only they and their AI know, that's what's causing them all the fuss now.
Right so even with AI technology and directly owning much of the housing data in the US, they still couldnt make a profit. Any time you buy a house to flip it you are paying a premium in hopes to make a greater premium. Instead they are making a loss. Thats not a good market signal.
From what i've read about all their investment regarding this issue, many of the homes they purchased also needed extra investment/rehab.
I think they tried their hand at automation/ai purchasing as they had a lot of data but something fell really short of expectations.
What Z did is a bit outside of the current market norms so i wouldn't really use it as a market signal, i'm looking at it more as their idea/system just fell short.
But at the same time i was expecting the housing market to go lower into the start of this year, boy was i wrong as the market dynamics changed fast.
Same here, tried it on out last time out with the travel trailer. Canceled the plan after we got back home as it was terrible, and not to speak that we were in areas where it should have run flawless. Ended up using my main phone's connection for some of the work i had to do.
With the market prices being as high as they are now and low inventory I would recommend you rent for now and get to know the new area/city first. It's a seller's market right now and there's a higher chance of you over-paying for a property right now.
I keep telling friends that i would rather buy a home with a lower price but higher rate/apr than vice-versa. You can always refinance, but you'll never be able to change the price you've paid.
Edit: Also worth noting that real estate markets are more local, so there exists the chance that you might still be able to find some affordable houses but depends on the area.
> I keep telling friends that i would rather buy a home with a lower price but higher rate/apr than vice-versa. You can always refinance, but you'll never be able to change the price you've paid.
This is true, but assumes that prices drop significantly rather than merely stop rising like crazy and also doesn't include that if you're renting, you never get that rent back from the period of time you were waiting.
That specific point was more related to the market i'm in right now, so it's pretty much market/area depended and yes as you point out your mileage might vary as i've never taken rent into consideration for this use case.
There is a high chance that they started closing their position. Just look at other long positions Melvin had and what those started doing, i'll give you a hint : they started going down due to the possibility of them starting to liquidate other positions to raise more cash for covering their shorts.
But this is also speculation, until they release their books on what they own nothing is 100% sure.
Until they change their minds in a few months/years.
I really wish they would just go 100% paid and stop pretending they care about anything free at this point.
RH isn't the company that it once was anymore.
Edit: I'm sure this is not a popular opinion but it is what it is.
>I really wish they would just go 100% paid and stop pretending they care about anything open/free at this point.
As a Red Hat employee for ~5 years, every line of code I've ever written professionally has been open source and licensed under the GPL. The same is generally true across the entire company (with the exception of contributions to external projects licensed Apache / MIT / BSD).
Can you explain what you mean by "open/free"? Perhaps "free beer" rather than "freedom"?
>Can you explain what you mean by "open/free"? Perhaps "free beer" rather than "freedom"?
You installed 16 systems and a half year later RH says, and in 1 year you have to pay for these or change to CentOS Stream, i think it's a very founded consideration after the CentOS debacle.
But not sure what he means that RH does not care about Opensource...
That was more a nod to the whole CentOS debacle and the way RH is doing business the last few years, plus this article relating to the free part. Not really related to opensource as i doubt they'll be able to escape that aspect, if they could they would have probably done that already as well.
To be honest it broke my heart a bit when they where sold to IBM. But hey there is SLES and in my opinion a much better option with the free tumbleweed, leap and the paid SLES and all the free services like OBS, openQA and Kiwi....and no i don't use BTRF...XFS all the way down ;) But if i have the freedom to choose the solution it nearly always choose is FreeBSD, one exception...OracleDB where i use OracleLinux.
Licensed under the GPL is one thing -- intentionally obfuscated to make actual compilation difficult is compatible in letter but not in spirit of the license. Red Hat's citizenship in the FLOSS community varies from "savior" to "nuisance" depending on the project...
I have been a Red hat employee for more than 8 years and we never ever intentionally made projects difficult to consume by users outside of RH. More people using the open source projects works better for us as it provides free mind share, testing and feedback. For RH selling subscription for a popular/stable open source project is a way easier problem than a project which has no mind share. That being said sometimes it is very difficult to maintain projects and branches for external contribution depending upon the scope of project and the development workflow we use for it. It is very common scene in open source projects where contributors does not maintain the documentation etc properly for easy on boarding. I can go on for long time why it is not easy to do and we should improve on it for sure.
Percent-wise I don't think there is any other company that contributes as much to open source software, I do think it was a dick move from them but let's not conflate the things.
My comment wasn't really related to opensource, but in general to their new way of doing business.
Nothing wrong with changing the company's direction and trying to go full profit mode, just don't try to pretend everything's the same as before.
The change in company culture is probably real. Just an anecdata but I feel like over the years radhatters are behaving more and more corporatish compared with how it was years ago, then again that can be just the "climate" of the Internet nowadays.
I took a look at Alphavantage, but I wanted other data like daily transaction volume + market caps to do things like weighted regressions. The rate limiting was also a little restrictive.
I'm sorry to hear about this man. Please check into your forbearance payment options as there might be more to it then you expect and you might have other options on the table, see [1].
