Volume Too

This is part two. Here’s part one.

Before we start, let’s dispel any potential rumors that I’ve got it in for this yahoo. My reasons are, as I stated in part one, that I don’t like misinformation being used to push an agenda. I neglected to mention something else, which is that while math was honestly never my best subject at any point in my life, I absolutely love geometry. I may struggle a little bit these days to recall the formula for calculating the surface area of a sphere, but that’s only a recent phenomena for something I learned literally 20 years ago and only needed maybe once thereafter.

“you not think in volume terms”

You mean like you didn’t when you first offered your mathematical proofs? The calculations you gave were for the area of a two-dimensional cross-section of a piece of  filament. If volume truly was your definitive proof of your initial claim, why not lead with that instead? Either you didn’t realize your initial maths disproved your claim or you knew but assumed I wouldn’t understand the implications for volume, which is rather condescending, like those little ad hoc explanations parents give to children when they question the logistics of Santa’s gift economy.

“and do casual counts”

What were you saying before about simple calculations?

“… ok .. try in other way … we suppose that the error is similar / equal … but the tolerance is distribute not only on diameter but also on length … same wire length extrude from 1mm of (2.85) require 2.7mm of (1.75)”

Okay, trying this other way isn’t going to really help your case. Between the scattershot delivery and slight drop in your ESL coherency from before, it’s obvious you’re more than a little flustered at this. I mean, I get it, I challenged your expertise, showed flaws in your interpretation of simple data, and now you don’t want to look like some kind of charlatan. Of course, no one would assume that; as you said, you’ve got personal experience to go along with your claim. While anecdotes aren’t empirical, it’s like I said in my last entry: If you’re getting good results from your setup, then have at it, Hoss. My issue is that you’re trying to tell me it’s because 2+2=5, with the 5 meaning the first 2 is five times worse than the second 2. Numerology has pretty low standards for validation to begin with, but this is almost comical. Adding another axis to your argument isn’t going to augment any sort of authoritative answer on the algorithm.

Anyway, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant 1 centimeter of 2.85mm and 2.7cm of 1.75mm since those are the units you use later when referring back to the same data. So, a 1cm tall cylinder (10mm) with a 2.85mm diameter is going to have a volume of 63.79mm³.

cylinders

If we shrink that diameter down to 1.75mm but want to keep the 63.79mm³ volume, our height is now 26.52mm, so you’ve got that part of the proportion right (keyword: proportion). Before we go any further, let’s apply a 0.10mm tolerance to our stumpy tower. That gives us a new radius of 1.375mm (to get a 2.75mm diameter) and with that comes a new volume of 59.4mm³. The difference in these volumes is 4.39mm³, which is 6.881% of that total volume.

Going back to our 26.52mm tall tower, if we apply the 0.10mm tolerance to our diameter of 1.75mm, we get a radius of 0.825mm, which gives us a volume of 56.71mm³. Our difference is 2.69mm³. That is 4.53% of that total volume. You may say, “Case closed.” as it’s a lower percentage compared to our stumpy tower, but as we’ve established, that’s not being fair to the data because it ignores how proportions work (though we’ll get to this in a moment). 0.1mm is 5.7% of 1.75, but it’s 3.5% of 2.85. That’s where you would say then that 5.7% being almost twice 3.5% means 1.75mm is “twice as good” even though it means you’ve got more drastic deviations in the diameter compared to the 2.85mm.

It’s the same issue here. 0.1mm is not actually a ratio or a proportion (certainly not an exponent). It’s an absolute figure applied to two different numbers.
Take 1 away from 10 and you’ve got 9.
Take 1 away from 20, and you’ve got 19.
9 is not a factor of 19.
Now take 1 away from 10 and 2 away from 20.
Now you’ve got 9 and 18 respectively.
9 is a factor of 18.
This is because of proportions and ratios.

If the proportion is the same, it’s not going to make a difference. Even with your revised proportion you bring up later about the tolerance differences, you’re still showing at best a negligible difference between the two standards.

if suppose that the tolerance is long 2.7mm (for simplicity) on both filaments, and from 2.7mm (1.75) you have 1cm of wrong extrusion … then .. from (2.85) you have 2.7cm of wrong extrusion … What is the piece with best finish? … one with 1cm line error or one with 2.7cm line error.

I have to put my hands up here and admit this statement baffled me at first, and not just because you’re further losing your grasp on your own communication skills. Throwing out terms like “wrong” and “best” as qualifiers to the number doesn’t help as these don’t add to the empirical values of the numbers. It’s putting the cart before the horse… and then putting the horse on its back after smashing the cartwheels with a mallet.

waitwaitwait

What’s being described here is a pair of cylinders with tapering diameters… wait a minute, if the 2.85mm filament is 1cm tall as you already said, then how can it have 2.7cm of “wrong extrusion”? If it’s now 2.7cm tall, then how can the entire length be wrong? You’re comparing two cylinders of equal volume with different diameters, and now you’re changing the height of one without accounting for what that’s going to mean for the new volume.

I take it back; this statement is baffling all over again. I can maybe see what you’re trying to get me to visualize, but you’re playing fast and loose with cherry-picked dimensions for an unqualified hypothetical scenario. If both sizes of filament are going to be of equal length now (2.7cm/27mm) then we’ve got two radically different volumes. Furthermore, where do you get the 1cm (10mm) of tolerance? Why would it be 1cm for one and 2.7cm for the other? If they’re both the same length now why would the tolerance be the same vertical height for them? In fact, in the next “sentence” you say that only one will have 1cm of a differing diameter while the other will have 2.7cm. Are they the same or are they different? Is the tolerance a ratio or an absolute figure you’re applying to both volumes? If the tolerance is a proportion, then the error is evenly distributed. If the tolerance is an absolute figure, then there’s going to be a minor difference for the larger diameter compared to the smaller. The problem is that you’re treating it as the former in some cases and the latter in other. You’re just mixing up the data until you get something that could be vaguely mistaken for a proof positive for your case.

“The finish of 1.75 is 2.7 times better than 2.85 filament.”

Again, the quality of the finish is going to depend on the size of the nozzle, the layer height of the print, and the overall speed of the printing process. This factor of 2.7 you’ve come up with is based on a proportion you set up and promptly ignored in the very scenario you derived it from. It’s an utterly meaningless factor in the context of the equation and now using it as a marker for the quality of a finished product is equally meaningless.

and PS: typically 2.85 has 0.1 tolerance and 1.75 has 0.05 .. another big difference.

A big difference you ignored (forgot?) in your first set of mathematical proofs.  You’re right, though, it is a very big difference. It’s such a big difference that it further shows how invalid and misinformed your claims are.

0.05 is half of 0.1, but 1.75 is not half of 2.85 (as that would be 3.5). Referring back to our 26.52mm tall tower of 1.75mm filament, with its volume of 63.79mm³, we’re now going to apply that tolerance of 0.05 to our diameter. A 1.70mm diameter now means a 0.85mm radius. That gives us a new volume of 60.2mm³. That’s a difference of 3.59mm³, or 5.63% of our total volume. Our stumpy tower doesn’t change from before because we’re still applying the 0.1mm tolerance to its 2.85mm diameter and getting a 6.881% difference. Now there’s only 1.251% difference between the two cylinders. Lastly and purely for giggles, if we apply the 0.05 tolerance to our stumpy tower, our radius of 1.4mm gives us a volume of 61.58mm³. Let’s lay out all our figures on a table and even add in some different heights for our cylinders.

table
V=πr²h

but now sorry .. I not have time for these discussions, I’ll not do other reply, regards

(sigh) Look, I get it. You run multiple sites, including a YouTube channel, offering your opinion and insight into a disciplinary field you’re clearly invested in. You’ve got credibility to think about; if people don’t think you’re on the level, there’s no shortage of other places to go for more information on a topic. It doesn’t help that this is such a relatively young field (as far as us hobbyist/prosumer/startup/semi-pro/maker/what-have-you’s are concerned) and there’s so many factors to consider that it’s easy to miss the forest for all the trees. However, it doesn’t help anyone to double down on fallacious claims backed up by misreading data and flip-flopping between subjective aesthetic judgments and objective truth claims.

Advertisements

Confirmation Bias in Maths

Disclaimer: This is going to delve into the wonderful realm of 3D printing. Don’t worry if you’re not familiar with it, though, as the mathematical differences we’re going to explore should be pretty easy to understand regardless of your background. That’s the beautiful thing about numbers, the purest expression of logic; they’re virtually universal. 

3D printers work by pulling plastic filament through a very hot nozzle that’s on motors coordinated to move it about in three-dimensions. This plastic comes in two sizes, 1.75mm in diameter and 2.85mm in diameter (you’ll see the latter abbreviated to 3mm, but you get the idea). The funny thing about these formats is that while more printers use the 1.75, the printers that use the 2.85 tend to sell better.

So, is there a difference between 1.75 and 2.85 besides their size? Is one better suited to certain applications than others? Is there more variety of filament types in one over the other (conductive, magnetic, metallic, wood-grain…)? Sadly, there’s no good answer that everyone agrees on, though one could make a strong case for their being absolutely no difference depending on the printer you buy. Put simply, if you buy a 1.75mm printer, you’re not missing out. If you’re buying a 2.85mm printer, you’re not missing out. Both machines are made to work with their filament of choice.

So, on a Thingiverse forum, someone offers this advice.

use 1.75 .. less problem than 3mm and better finish of print 😉

I chime in to point out that the quality of your print is going to depend on your nozzle size and printer speed than the filament. While printers use different filament diameters, the nozzles the plastic gets pushed through come in roughly the same set of sizes, 0.3mm to as much as 0.8mm (give or take). Also, obviously, rushing through something versus taking your time is going to yield different results. I get this counterpoint:

There are filament tolerances .. same 0.05/0.1mm tolerance on the two filament produce high difference on extruded volume of plastic. The difference is around 3 times. This from simple calculations .. and from direct experience 😉

Okay, this sounds a bit vague for something allegedly backed up by mathematics and “experience” (more on that in a moment). That difference of “3” is the most puzzling. Anyway, the tolerances he’s referring to pertain to the consistency with which the filament comes out of the machine that crunches down pellets of plastic and melts it into a nice, fine rod to be wound round a spool. What that means is although the package will say 2.85mm in diameter, you could measure it and find that the diameter is anywhere between 2.75mm and 2.95mm.

I do some digging and discover that although there’s a difference, it doesn’t favor 1.75 over 2.85. The folks over at Protoparadigm put the mathematics in perspective and reveal what likely some of you already have noted about the proportions. Put simply, take one egg out of a dozen, and you’re left with 11. Take one egg out of a half-dozen, and you’re left with 5. Logarithmically, you’ve done more “harm” to the half-dozen than the full dozen by taking away one egg. This logarithmic thinking is something psychologists notice in children; counting 1 to 2 seems a far greater cognitive leap than, say, 9 to 10. You’re adding one in both scenarios, but the stakes are “higher” in the 1 to 2 range (you’re–GASP–doubling!). Going back to the discussion, I drop the link to Protoparadigm along with the quote: “Identical tolerances for both 3mm and 1.75mm filament will result in nearly two times the error for 1.75mm.

I get this response:

good article, it seem all right .. but not in that assertion … and not show nothing (sic) to demonstrate that ..
ex. -0.1mm of tolerance:
((2.85/2)^2)pi – ((2.75/2)^2)pi = 0.4398 and ((1.75/2)^2)pi – ((1.65/2)^2)pi = 0.2670
conclusion: the 0.4398 (2.85mm) is nearly two times the error of 0.2670 (1.75mm)
ok I remember wrong ..it is only 2 time instead of 3 but not change my first assertion.

So, he’s admitting that he’s wrong on the figure, but not where it applies while throwing shade at the filament manufacturer basically admitting to a fault in their own product. I mean, how much more impartial can you get than a manufacturer essentially throwing half its product line under the bus? These people make filament, while our logarithmically-challenged friend… uses it. That’s not trying to poison the well or throw shade of my own (much as my reputation precedes me on this front). Rather, I want to make a point about confirmation bias, hence keeping the individual anonymous.

Breaking his math down, what he’s demonstrated is that a number twice as big as another and plugged into the same equation will yield proportionately bigger results. He’s comparing two sets of data based on proportion and calling one “worse” than the other because… big numbers are scary? Again, I’m trying to be fair here, but whether you’re thinking of numbers in linear or logarithmic terms, there’s strength in numbers. If I have 20 points of data to work with and a 2% margin of error, my results are going to be more accurate than 10 points of data with the same 2% margin of error applied. That’s why big data is so deliciously beautiful in the world of statistics.

I’m truly at a loss for how this is meant to prove that 1.75mm is preferable to 2.85mm. At best, he’s proving there’s no difference, though that actually seems a little counter-intuitive. Going back to our logarithmic exercise, 2.85mm should have a lower error rate than 1.75 because 0.1mm takes up a lower percentage of 2.85 than 1.75. All his numbers show is that the difference between 1.75 and 1.65 is proportionate to 2.85 and 2.75.

As of this writing, he has not responded(update: he did). It’s likely when he was referring to his first assertion being correct, he was referring to having less problems with 1.75mm than 2.85mm. That’s a fairly vague claim and, as I’ve said, is going to depend largely on the printer you get and how it’s set up to move filament through its heated nozzle. If, however, he’s referring to his “greater error” for 2.85 and 1.75, he’s being more than a little dishonest. I don’t presume any malice on his part, more a burden of cognitive dissonance. He’s got his personal experience combating data, and the only way he’s able to reconcile it is for one number to mean something different than it does. As mental gymnastics go, that’s a fairly small leap, a proverbial flip of a coin, with the error favoring 1.75 instead of 2.85.

So, what’s the harm? Who cares? To answer those questions in order, “Not very much and virtually nobody.” If you’re getting good results out of your machine of choice, then you’re living the dream. However, it’s only in your dreams that you can divide by zero.

I’ll leave you with this little anecdote to think over. I once looked an anti-vaxxer in the eye and asked point blank: “Even if what you believe about the MMR vaccine is correct, are you sincerely telling me you would rather risk a 1 in 30 chance of your child dying from measles than a 1 in 115 chance of your child developing autism?”

The answer was, “Yes.”

Felix the Prat

Some time ago, I weighed in on the Nazi “controversy” surrounding YouTuber Felix Kjellberg, better known as PewDiePie. While I stand by that defense alongside everyone with more than two brain cells to rub together (which leaves out only the Wimps, Snowflakes, & Jerks known as the Wall Street Journal), there’s been a new development in Kjellberg‘s career that may not leave me second-guessing that defense, but in no way colors (no pun intended) my view of the current situation. Remember when Sammy Sosa broke one of his bats, revealing it to be corked? The event in and of itself is damning enough, but the implication that he may have done it before is even worse. It casts doubt on his past achievements, putting his credibility and integrity into question. Felix letting slip the rhymes-with-digger slur during a livestream doesn’t change the fact that WSJ doesn’t understand how irony works. PewDiePie is still not a Nazi, and I don’t even think he’s a racist… or do I?

There’s the obvious point that if he wouldn’t let a word like this slip out if he didn’t use it in his daily life. That’s fair, but let’s look at the big picture for a moment and remember that mimicry is a big part of our survival instinct, the oldest way of learning.

Speaking of ancient history, let me tell you a story about a teacher of mine sharing his own experiences growing up with an antisemitic family member. Mr. T, as we’ll call him, is Puerto Rican. That’s not terribly relevant, but bears mentioning all the same. After all, what would you assume he was if I hadn’t said anything? Mr. T‘s brother, for whatever reason, had a serious hate-on for the Hebrews. We could speculate all day as to the origins of this learned behavior, but the fact is Mr. T heard a veritable cornucopia of slurs throughout his young adult life. In high school, Mr. T had this one teacher he really liked we’ll call Ms. J for reasons you may be able to guess. In addition to typical teaching duties, Ms. J taught some kind of fast-track college prep course that was highly sought after by students throughout the school. Normally, there would be a daunting application process or qualifying exam or other formal arrangement via the administration, but the powers that be had given Ms. J the right to pick and choose whoever signed up for her class. The primary caveat was she could only have a set number of students. Mr. T had approached Ms. J about him getting into this class, with Ms. J taking his merits into consideration. Somewhere along the way, there was a miscommunication or misunderstanding about who promised what to who and when. When Ms. J broke the news to Mr. T, he did not take it well despite her apology.

“You Jewed me out of a class!”

To her eternal credit, Ms. J didn’t even blink. Most likely she saw the sudden look of horror on Mr. O‘s face as he let slip this turn of phrase he’d doubtless heard countless times from his own kin, all in a moment of frustration. Also to her eternal credit, she wound up writing him a letter of recommendation for his college of choice. The real irony of this story is that Mr. O didn’t even realize Ms. J was Jewish until he let his turn of phrase slip, as he’d heard his brother say it the way some people describe things as Kafkaesque. Racial slurs don’t have to be leveled at members of said race, just like someone needn’t be handicapped to be called lame or retarded.

Between when I started writing this and now, Kjellberg has issued an apology, in which he admitted he had no defense for what he said, that he only said it in a fit of frustration, and that he himself hates it when he hears it all the time during online multiplayer. He never backpedaled or chalked it up to an inside joke between friends. He literally called himself an idiot who should have learned better by now. He owned his mistake and took responsibility. Many felt he didn’t have to apologize at all, that catching himself shortly after saying it in the livestream was enough. Others, like Steve Shives, feel his channel should be deleted regardless. Speaking of sensitivity…

At the risk of sounding like I’m saying Anita Sarkeesian was right, when you are exposed to and immersed in an extremely toxic culture, it’s hard not to internalize some aspects of it, however strong-willed you may be. It may not excuse the behavior resulting from this, but we have to remember no one is invincible. Mel Gibson‘s infamous arrest may seem left-field, but considering the backlash he got for allegedly portraying Jews as evil in Passion of the Christ and his father, Hutton Gibson, being a Holocaust Denier, those experiences don’t go away. Ask anyone who grew up in a racist home and they will tell you how hard it can be to escape that kind of environment’s effects on you. Yes, people are ultimately responsible for their own actions, but we have to keep matters in perspective. As I’ve said, we all screw up, we all make mistakes, and what separates us is what we do after we mess up. From where I’m standing, Pewdiepie did the right thing in light of his wrong.

Now, Campo Santo….

Illicit Illiteracy

As though we needed further proof of how untalented, unoriginal, and utterly incompetent Sweden’s resident hack Medelis is, not only are many of his models slightly-altered copies of other people’s work (in full violation of their CC licenses), but he can’t even write his own articles for 3D Printers.

The text of this Tevo Tornado review from The Drone Files was copy/pasted by Medelis and posted to his own site, naming himself the author. He didn’t even bother to copy the rest of the review, only the first two paragraphs and a list of specs.

MedelisOP

This was discovered after another bout of forum spamming over on Thingiverse, as well as over on Twitter. I can’t wait for his Patreon campaign to get suspended. If you think one of your 3D models has been reworked, or if you recognize something in his pitiful portfolio as belonging to someone else, please let them know so steps can be taken to file appropriate notices to his service providers, including Patreon.

He has proven he has no conscience about this and is beyond reason.

Distro Fever Is Back

Follywood FrontFollywood Back

This is a follow-up/companion piece to a post over on my Blogger page about the “alpha-build” Linux operating system called InventOS, who are so hilariously inept they think spamming Thingiverse forums is an effective form of marketing. On that subject, their reply was:

InventOS

“We do not know how to market that is why we may have unknowingly spammed.”

Don’t know how to market? May have unknowingly spammed? If I’d posted links to my WordPress site all over your forums, would you call that spam? Here, have a nice little Terms of Service to look over and I’ll quiz you over what you’ve learned.

“Not everything offered for free is garbage”

Never said that. I said asking for volunteers to do design work and 3D printing for free is a bum deal even for a startup, as I doubt you’re going to make it worth their while beyond “free publicity” the oldest emptiest promise of them all. (more on this in a moment; they clarified this part of their model, but it only raised more questions).

“and we do not offer support for the OS”

What the Hell is the Patreon for, then? You can’t just let the bug reports pile up and wait for the next update to hopefully address everyone’s concerns. That’s where a community can help you with workarounds, but they’re not getting any of your Patreon funds. At least they’re only volunteering their time rather than printing resources like the “free labor” you’re trying to peddle.

“All open-source projects needs donations or some sort of income to keep development running.”

THAT INCLUDES SUPPORTING THE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE IT! How did you code an operating system when you can barely read?

“And every community starts with no members in the community.”

Why doesn’t your development team use the forums? Why aren’t they all listed as members? How many people make up this small team of developers and makers? One person can make two accounts (i3xyz and Des_InventOS) and all your alt seems to be for is to test the waters for spam levels and make up the deficiency with your own cans of it. Your project is a complete and utter joke.

They also replied to another comment I made in response to someone else on the forum offering alternatives to InventOS (including a list of CAD programs and packages proven to play nice with Ubuntu):

InventOS2

“Also it would’ve been really nice if you had researched a little and contacted us to know more about us and our services before writing a negative blog post us.”

It would be really nice if you knew how to read the terms of service for a site’s forums. As for research, I looked over everything with your name on it and there’s only so much to work with (like your ghost town of a forum over on your own site, which I’m tempted to “market” my WordPress page on). You’re running an extremely sketchy operation, even if it’s only by virtue of your incompetence. This is the image you project to other people, people you want to fork over time and money for your benefit.

” the developers collected Patreon money is what will be used to keep the service running, to buy printing filaments and to upgrade current hardware.”

Are you going to send those filaments out to the people who volunteer their printers? That’s not what your site makes it sound like. Are people going to move to your headquarters? What kind of staff can manage your shipping? What sort of printing facilities can you possibly fund with Patreon money that’s also meant to pay for software development? It takes a Kickstarter campaign to even get a printer made, and you want to buy a fleet of them to run a 3DHubs/Shapeways competitor with Patreon. Not only do you not know how to market, you don’t know how to raise funds. Patreon can be a good source of income, but if you expect people to contribute to it, you need to be able to offer them more upfront than some eventual far-off promise of a “free” 3D Printing and design service (paid for by Patreon funds)

“Please help us in improving the project more than in discontinuing the project.”

You’ve been working hard on trying to find ways to do as little work yourselves as possible while waiting for Patreon to pay your bills. You’re lazy developers looking to make a quick buck on a half-hearted project you’re clearly unqualified to put your full effort into, that has already been done before and better by people who know what spam is and that it’s not something you do to market your products and services. Good grief, you’re almost worse than that illiterate meathead who kept posting promo codes for his filament supplier, and there’s looking to be less and less daylight between you and that Medelis thief who profits from other people’s models.

You have to give people a reason to want to be part of your community. That you need help building up the product/service that’s going to foster that community isn’t much incentive. You’re throwing a message in a bottle into a churning sea made up entirely of messages in bottles. If people want to put CAD programs on their Linux distro of choice, it’s as easy as browsing the app store on their smartphones.

If my challenges to your so-called business model are enough to make you even consider discontinuing this project you insist you’ve worked hard on for so long, you were never, ever going to succeed.

Yes, everyone starts somewhere, but not everyone finishes the race, and even fewer get a trophy.

Meathead Sonata in 3D

enough
Sketchfab model

After getting Medelis successfully banned from progressively more and more sites for flooding forums with his spam, along comes this meathead doing the exact same thing all over again, some coupon code for a filament supplier.

totesnothimWhen confronted, his response:

meathead
How does telling someone that something isn’t theirs automatically an assertion of ownership of it by the one telling you as much? “Not yours” is not “mine” by default.

The stupid meathead has a Facebook page. I wonder how he’s react if I posted my website all over the comments of his posts. I wonder how he’d react if I said, “Not interested… simply don’t read my message.” should he be so ignorant of irony that he protests my use of his site as a billboard for mine. When asked:

meathead2
I’d like to know where he gets this idea that I own Thingiverse. Hell, I’d like to know where he gets any idea. Probably mistakes them for headaches at first. Might also believe apostrophes are awards you get for sitting on the toilet right and contractions are just “things women do”.

Leave it to a douchebag flexing his biceps in his profile picture to bring up “manliness” as some sort of high ground to talk down from. If I were a woman, he’d probably tell me to go play with dolls or make some remark about menstruation. Maybe that’s what I get for asking an insecure meathead how he would feel about being on the receiving end of his own bullshit.

Spreading out promo codes for a site you have dealings with (When your own site is the promo code for another site, you don’t get to use the “Not me” defense) on forums is called spamming. It’s spam to use a free space like that to advertise for anyone, yourself or someone you’ve got an affiliate promo code for. Insisting it’s not spam only shows the kind of magical thinking and special pleading that garbage human beings use to try and manipulate others into doing what they want.

You deserve every failure that comes your way as a result of your actions taken.

By the way, if you’re going to accuse someone of not paying attention to what you say, learn to pay attention yourself to the terms of service:

guesswhat
Now you’re probably going to tell me a discount code is not promotional material.

UPDATE 7th September 2017: Another exciting installment of stuff this illiterate meathead doesn’t understand.

meathead
This makes a Sovereign Citizen cringe compilation look civil. 

The company’s acceptable use policy. That’s not referring to you as a company, that’s outlining the company’s policy for users like you. Only a meathead with more teeth than brain cells would think a policy like this would work any other way. You’re sending unsolicited promotional materials promoting a commercial enterprise in a space with a policy strictly forbidding it. What kind of company is Sakata3D that they think illiterate meatheads like you are fit to represent them, complete with promo codes bearing the name of your own site? I thought Spain’s economy was on the mend, but it seems even startups in the lucrative 3D-Printing market will take what they can get when it comes to synergy.

I Am A Baby, Says Medelis

Being called unprofessional or amateurish by Medelis is like an eagle being called bird-brained by a worm.

WordPress won’t let me embed Thingiverse user Byambaa‘s original sculpt of a sitting baby Groot (actually, they don’t have an embed script on Thingiverse anyway :/ and Byambaa‘s sadly not on Pinshape or Sketchfab as far as I can tell) so we’ll have to settle for a link to it. Take special notice of the CC license Byambaa has attached to the work, one calling for non-commercial status (more on that in a moment) and no derivatives permitted. This is one of the most restrictive Creative Commons licenses, giving printers the freedom to produce their own unaltered copy of this sculpt.

Medelis, true to his nature as demonstrated thus far, has no regard for this license. While not being sold on his Pinshape page, it is part of a bundle on his main site.

badsculpt

posture

It’s easy to tell by the posture and cropping of the feet that, much like his Darth Vader sculpt, he’ll do the absolute bare minimum amount of work to modify something before slapping his name on it. Speaking of which:

Stamp

On top of selling and altering the original, giving credit where credit is due is another shady area for Medelis when it comes to his “workflow”.

NoATT

No mention whatsoever of Byambaa‘s original sculpt in the description, but one very long hyperlink to his own site. I’m hiding it, but given how often he spams Twitter and Thingiverse with it, it’s not hard to find. He’s even posted it to my Facebook wall after I posted links to these WordPress posts to my Twitter, because he’s just that petty and childish. Speaking of being childish:

Byambaa

Ignoring multiple standalone comments on his own post, a user pointing out his missteps and transgressions in offering an altered copy of someone else’s work despite their wishes otherwise is decreed “spam” by the hack in question… twice, in fact, because he doesn’t know how comments work, or the difference between “to” and “too”.  He could take the time to complain twice in the comments section of his upload (after some self-indulgence with the first two comments), but can’t be bothered to put a link in the description to the person who did at least 90% of the original work? No, Byambaa did not create Groot, but he did create this particular sculpt and Medelis has effectively plagiarized it. Plagiarism is plagiarism is plagiarism, even if you own up to it Osteen-style after you’ve been called out on it. There’s no positive spin that can be put on this and the only way to make it right from where Medelis is standing is to go through his own catalog and make sure with everything he’s cobbled together that he’s well within the stipulations of the original creators’ respective licenses. If he’s violated them, he needs to remove that model from his portfolio. If he’s truly skilled and talented as he insists he is, he’ll be able to produce his own original works with genuine effort put behind them.

He has a video tutorial of sculpting an eyeball, the end result showing a level of aptitude that could only be described as half-hearted. That’s really saying something given a worm is supposed to have five hearts. Anyway, I intend to replicate his sculpture but with better measures taken for a more accurate result. Is it worth mentioning he’s using a copyrighted photo to derive a bump map from?

At the time of this writing, MedelisPatreon has a grand total of 44 patrons, that’s people giving him money on a regular basis for these copied works. If you are on Patreon and can see these individuals, I would encourage you to message them privately and ask if they are aware of Medelis‘ deception in terms of his craftsmanship. Obviously, don’t tell them they have to stop supporting him, but as contributors to his dubious cause, they deserve to know what they’re investing in so that they may make an informed decision and proceed accordingly. Be brief, be polite, and respect whatever decision they make in regards to continued support.

On the off-chance any of his patrons are reading this, I’d like to pose the question to you of whether or not you think these poorly-altered copies of other people’s works are truly worth your money. If you were unaware, does this give you pause?

Addendum (discovered after I wrote this):

MEDELIS GROOT