Iso takes much longer to evaporate fully than it looks

If you let iso evaporate it isn’t doing anything. The purpose of iso or dish soap is to dissolve oils. If you let the iso evaporate the oils will be left behind and settle back on the build plate.

I use two paper towels. One to wipe with iso, and the other to wipe the iso away.

If you want a fast dry (iso is 10% water) set the bed temp to 100C for a few seconds.

I honestly can’t tell if he’s serious or trolls for fun. I looked at his other posts and he does the same childish hostility everywhere.

Back to commenting on the content,

You just commented on the content. You can’t have it both ways.

You comment on the content by claiming he gave a suggestion.

A suggestion in a scientific paper isn’t anything you pull out of your ass.

You have been arguing by trying to have it both ways.

You claim the author gave a suggestion of what is inside black holes. I asserted that the suggestion doesn’t meet the criteria of a suggestion for a scientific article and therefore isn’t a suggestion.

You then respond with the equivalent of, “I’m not the author and not defending the content.”

This is Space, not Astrology. The criteria for article content is higher.

You don’t have an argument so you deflect and insult.

The author said, “maybe it’s different inside”. My restating the author is not an accusation that you wrote the article.

“So you are back to pretending I wrote the article.”

Nothing I wrote implied that.

The part where you try to cover up your reading comprehension

That’s not your claim. You said I went back to saying you are the author.

Show it or apologize.

So you’re back to pretending I’ve written the article. I haven’t.

Read my post and quote where it implies you wrote the article.

Reading comprehension, indeed.

The author’s suggestion wasn’t valid and therefore wasn’t a suggestion at all.

Saying “it might be different inside” without absolutely any support isn’t a valid suggestion. That’s why I compared it to suggesting chocolate pudding. Because it isn’t valid, it isn’t a suggestion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

I’m directing anger at you for a personal attack. Claiming I have reading a comprehension problem is a personal attack. It is especially egregious because you refuse to defend the article to explain where I am wrong in my interpretation.

I have given multiple explanations as to why the article is bad without calling you an idiot. In fact I didn’t even say the article was bad but that it is mistitled into click bait.

You claimed I had a reading comprehension problem. That’s a personal attack.

They didn’t provide ANY support for their claim that MAYBE (their word) the inside of a black hole is uniquely different.

It’s fucking unknown. That’s the definition. It is juvenile to conclude an essay with an imaginary idea of what’s inside an unknown object.

It is no different if I titled an article “Black Holes are filled with chocolate pudding.” Then after several pages of background on Black Holes, I conclude with “No one knows so maybe it’s chocolate pudding.”

Are you the author that you are so defensive about a click bait article?

But that doesn’t imply that each could be uniquely fucked up in terms of what’s beyond the event horizon. THAT’S the point they’re making.

It’s beyond the event horizon. It’s unknown by definition. They restated the definition.

Many objects we think of as black holes may, in fact, be imposters: identical on the outside but harbouring entirely different physics within.

And maybe a black hole is filled with pudding. Again this is restating the definition: Maybe there’s something unknown inside an object that’s defined to be something that is unknown.

Using two paragraphs to say there’s unknown inside of an object defined as being unknown inside is ridiculous.

Again if this was an essay titled, “A beginners guide to Black Holes.”, it would have been perfectly fine.

It’s already known by the definition of a Black Hole that physics has no explanation for the laws governing the singularity.

So restating the definition of a word as a conclusion of a long essay is silly.

If the title of the essay was “An introduction to Black Holes”, it would be acceptable. But the title was click bait which poisons the reading when no payoff (new research or information) occurs.

The article doesn’t even suggest what they might be hiding.

I gave up on LTT after he attacked Gamers Nexus years ago. But his mockery of Musk in this video might get me to resub.

The problem I’ve had with 3mfs is that if you don’t select “import geometry only”, you can get changes to a bunch of print settings that you don’t want changed. And if you import geometry only then the Orca modifiers aren’t imported.

I want to make the file as easy to use for others. I’ve seen other kit card models with decals in the STL so I know it’s possible.

I’ve used some of the tips in this thread and it’s helped my decals tremendously.

Oh cool! You’ve done decals? Have you ever seen the same issue where Orca’s SVG modifiers create perfect filament paths compared to the gcode it creates for STL/Step file geometry?