Well, they kinda do. You can’t stop them from making the files available, and they never claimed it was something they had the power or desire to prevent.

“Let” can mean “grant permission”, and it can also mean “assist” or “enable”.

Yup. Even easier, since a lot of the part modeling tools used by professionals use file formats that other modeling tools speak. AutoCAD is so pervasive that everyone speaks their format.

The trickiest part is inevitably the “are we knowingly giving people something that’s unsafe when 3d printed” that they need to do for liability.
Basically everywhere there’s a degree of “as a manufacturer of hygiene products you should reasonably catch risks that consumers wouldn’t, and not provide them”.

I’d bet there’s a handful of people putting together some nice and proper reports explaining that while skin flakes, oils and bacteria can get trapped in the layer gaps and lead to bacteria growth, reasonable cleaning would offset any possible issues. Basic ass covering.

Some people seem to be taking it a little more confrontationally than seems necessary.

Think “let” as in “facilitate” rather than “permit”. A step stool let’s you reach a high shelf, but you don’t need to ask it for permission.

They’re providing 3d models they’ve done basic quality control on for some components of some devices.

It’s 100% a sales tactic to increase their perceived value by creating the impression that repairs will be easier and so the thing will last longer. It just happens to be that the easiest way to do that is to actually do it.

Wouldn’t go quite that far, but given you needed to be relatively educated to qualify for the task it wouldn’t surprise me to learn there were some acceptable tricks for catching or preventing errors that we would recognize as parity checks.

Same end result, but one refers to the actual and the other the state. The act of dying versus the state of being dead is kinda pedantic, but if you replace it with a state that can (conventionally) be left it’s a little more clear.
“I thought he slept” vs “I thought he was sleeping”.

Probably wasn’t edited because it wasn’t a deliberate change. People were the ones to write the texts and stories, but not a person.
Telling the story you were told as you understand it will introduce some drift, as will making the jump to writing it down. Translation also introduces points where meaning can drift, since you have to write down what you understand the text to read, and you can be unclear on both sides.

People making a good faith effort try not to intentionally embellish their important texts, even if parts seem to contrasict.

Judaism and the old testament have had a lot of the quirks stick out so much because there are strict rules about preserving the integrity of the stories, once they got written down. Not from memory, only from another scroll created in this fashion and no other sources, only a specific font with specific text alignment, copy letter by letter and read aloud as you go, and then you can check the number of letters as you go to verify.
Other religions over time haven’t had as much of a focus on textual preservation, so the stories can drift to match with the change in beliefs.

It’s not so much an alternative meaning of a translation as one part of the mythos was written a millennia before the other.
Early the-religion-that-would-become-judaism was pretty openly polytheistic.
Over time Yahweh went from being the god of the mountain to the king of the gods, to the only one that mattered to worship, to the only one at all.

It’s entirely unsurprising that there are bits that allude to different phases of their worship. This isn’t even the most blatant. Satan? Holy Trinity? Host of angels?

I mean, there’s even other godlike characters in the Bible. Satan may not be the most powerful deity in the book but he’s canonically a deity. Same for angels and their ilk. Hell, even the later bits struggle to keep a lid on the numbers, jumping through hoops to make the claim that three deities is actually one.

Way back when, the religion that turned into Judaism was openly polytheistic, and simply held that Yahweh, the king of the pantheon and God of war and weather, was the only god worthy of worship.
Over time Yahweh merged with an adjoining religions god El, and started the transition to being the only god, instead of just the only worthy god.
This transition happened literally a thousand years after many of the earliest texts were written, so there’s a lot of verbiage where the deity explains that the other gods aren’t important, which is later clarified to them not existing, or really just being servants and not at all lower tier gods in a complex pantheon.
It’s why there’s so many weird turns of phrase, beyond it being thousands of years old and translated a lot.
“El” being a word that was used for both “a god” and “this god” didn’t help. “The high god divided the world for all the gods, and our god God the only God and creator of all was given our land as he’s the high god and father of God the only God of the sky and also that mountain”.

Different parts of the world took a lot of the same root deities and went a different direction with them. There’s a degree of overlap between aspects of ancient Greek religion and the Abrahamic religions because parts of each of them came from a common root. Just one mushed then together and made the grammar extra confusing. “King sky god”, “water god”, “afterlife god” being the children of mother and father cosmic creator gods. Also a big sea snakes who are up to no good. That one had legs, so to speak.

My son was in the hospital for 4 days and the charge was $20,000.
The ER visit before admitting was a separate $2,000 charge.

We have insurance, so we only had to pay around $8,000 out of pocket. It would have been less, but some of the people in the hospital didn’t take our insurance, and our insurance also said that some procedures were overpriced so they only paid the amount they thought was fair.

We didn’t get to pick any of the people who provided care, and we were not presented with the ability to negotiate on prices to make sure our insurance wasn’t being taken advantage of while they were doing respiratory therapy on our baby.

Our entire system needs to be torn the fuck down and be replaced with something entirely free. I don’t even give a fuck about people abusing the system at this point. Fuck it, let it cover elective cosmetic surgery. Never say no to anyone unless the doctor says it first.
My taxes will go up, but I can fucking promise they won’t go up by as much as I’d be saving in premium.
Because of right, I pay hundreds of dollars a month for the insurance that then only pays once I get fucked hard enough, and then still doesn’t pay for all of it.
Fuck the entire industry, fire them all and seize their assets.

And I’m well off compared to a lot of people.

You are correct. Typically you don’t see crimes charged at both the state and federal level, but they’re not exclusive.

Why the fuck are you even replying if you don’t care what the other person has to say?

Going through the list there, there’s more than a few that almost break even. There’s a whole slew in Japan where fees are in excess of costs as a whole. Hell, there’s more with a 200% ratio than there are states that don’t use taxes for roads.
You’ve actually convinced me that it’s more slanted towards public transportation than I thought it was before.

I’m glad you feel like you won, I guess? Seems like you could have gotten the same results and saved everyone time by patting yourself on the back if you don’t actually care what the other person is saying.

Where’s your source for none of them getting close? If you’re going to be the “sources” person, you should probably cite yours proactively.

I’d say only three states actually paying for their roads without taxpayer funds is most states not getting by with just usage fees.

Also, what exactly do you think my point is?

I don’t think getting taxpayer dollars is a bad thing for a public good. I actually think it would be better if the majority of funding came from the general taxpayer because most usage fees are regressive when it comes to essentials like transportation.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/state-road-taxes-funding/

As for the mass transit data, I just googled the budgets for different major mass transit providers, specifically Chicago, New York, and BART, then looked at the pre-covid funding sources from their public financials.

Assuming those are the numbers you meant. Curious why you found it so implausible that tax money went to road maintenance.

That’s certainly the theory, but in practice most states don’t actually cover the full cost of roads with use fees and need to get taxpayers to fund most of it.
Public transportation often does better in this regard when you actually look at funding by source.
Additionally the people who have the highest usage, freight shipping, invariably have disproportionate influence on lawmakers and can argue that the fees they see should be proportionally lower than others.
Because gas taxes are paid at the pump, we can’t actually adjust them to exclude low income persons either, making them a regressive tax.

Public transportation is able to charge a few dollars per rider per trip. Given the density they can move, they can generate unexpected revenue per trip at lower costs, again due to density. A subway car is more expensive than a car, but also sees higher utilization and holds about 100 times more people on average.

Neither is generally able to afford to be built using only use fees.

In the end, even though I don’t think we should be reliant on cars, the part I’m least upset about is taxpayers funding a public good. Transportation benefits everyone, even if they don’t directly use it. It’s big, it’s expensive, and doing it right has different incentives from making money.

Where are you getting that no one wants to pay? I always see people saying the world would be better if their taxes were used to give others something.

I would love it if my taxes went to giving everyone healthcare, education and housing.
When you get down to it, I get more value out of my neighbors being healthy, educated and safe than I would out of the money. And that’s setting aside that I’m already paying for those things inefficiently.

Just like the roads!

When people say “free” with regards to a public service, they usually take it as understood that maintenance costs should be collectively shared via something like taxes. Better understood as “free at point of usage”.

100% all humans at the Endo of the day.

The reason a lot of it exists is to communicate social roles, because social role mediates interaction. The earliest division of social role was biological sex, and so that’s commonly an aspect in gender.
How gender is expressed is a complex interaction between socially agreed upon norms, how the individual interprets their gender, how others interpret that, and so on.
Individual gender is a matter of psychological, biological and social factors which influence how an individual chooses to understand themselves in the context of society and also how they present themselves to society.

The socialization part is where we teach people the behavior needed to express genders, and is where the genderd toys come in, amongst other things.

All that to say, what we need is a way to communicate social role, and what we have to do that is loosely tied to sex and dominated by an imnense amount of social momentum. In a sane world the genders would be split into a lot more pieces.

It took me too long to figure out that you’re the ubi-style left, and not the pew-pew style and I didn’t know what type of gun an 80M2 was. 80M^2 or 80 square meters is super different from what I was picturing.

To each their own I suppose. “Catsup” has always just seemed like a weird affectation to me.

For the first one… Not sure I get it. It was originally ketchup, and has been predominantly spelled that way for hundreds of years. It was spelled that way before ketchup even had tomato in it.