I was being an idiot. It does bridge correctly, it just got confused because the bridges were close enough together that it thought it had to make them one single bridge. Thanks!

I was being an idiot. It does bridge correctly, it just got confused because the bridges were close enough together that it thought it had to make them one single bridge. Thanks!

Oh, you’re totally right! I knew I was a little braindead today. Thanks so much! It absolutely already does the thing I’m asking for, it just got confused because the edges of the bridges were close enough that their anchors overlapped.

Bridging working normally: https://imgur.com/a/U7yqZU3

Thanks!

I’m using PrusaSlicer, and in PrusaSlicer there is a specific setting for this, which is called “bridging angle.” But my point is that bridges are already specifically identified by the slicer as a specific category of print area needing specific settings, and in this case it should be possible for the slicer to choose an optimal bridging angle on a bridge-by-bridge basis, rather than requiring the user to choose a single global angle. You’re right that it would be less catastrophic for the bridging to be 45 degrees off than to be 90 degrees off, but it’s not obvious why this should be a global setting at all, rather than tailored to the needs of the local geometry of the bridge. It could even be something fairly simple, like just drawing lines parallel to the perimeters of the bridge, similar to what “concentric infill” does. I haven’t really looked in to what the best way to implement this feature would be, I’m still at the point of trying to work out how to even describe the issue.

Basically this: https://imgur.com/a/VjUTVaq

The blue sections have no support material below them and are printing as bridges, but in the default behavior, PrusaSlicer just uses the single, global “bridging angle” setting to decide which way to print layers on top of these sections. The perimeters on these sections are printed correctly to make the shortest path across the gap, but the rest of the lines making up those bridge layers are printed to match the “bridging angle,” which here means that two of the bridges are printed so they are supported only by those two perimeter bridges themselves.

Please ignore the details of the print itself, as I’m a little braindead today and this is a print that won’t actually fold together correctly as designed. But the issue of bridges orienting poorly is more general than this particular design.

Because they didn’t turn on federation until last year, and at that point it was still limited to fewer than ten users per alternate server, and you had to manually request federation through a Discord server from an actual human. This year they’ve automated the federation process, but you still have to start with a tiny server, and they claim they’re going to raise the user limit gradually as new servers remain federated with the main server.

But yeah, the upshot is bsky.social has 13 million users, and there are no other servers with notable numbers of users. That’s a pretty notable difference from ActivityPub.

Yeah, I think this is the best answer. It also technically means that the Aurora Borealis is just the solar wind bouncing off our deflector shield, which is a pretty badass way to talk about that.

The other example that’s arguable at this point is the magnetic confinement systems inside fusion reactors, which use powerful magnetic fields to constrain the hot plasma, to keep it away from the walls of the reactor. It’s basically the same principle, but in that case it’s actually a human-made field. It still only affects ions, though, which is pretty different from most sci-fi force fields.