3D-printed book turns its own G-code into raised lettering
designboom.com
designboom.com
https://reprap.org/wiki/G-code#M98:_Call_Macro.2FSubprogram
but Fanuc and other dialects allow M97 to call a subroutine chained to the end of a program.
I wrote a simple teach mode program that puts the machine into jog mode where you move the axes around and create points and associate a command for each, e.g. G0 rapid, G1 coordinated, G2 clockwise arc, G3 counterclockwise arc. Each move is then written to a file that is saved and loaded afterward for testing. Nice system but very costly.
Because these folks always want to do the least legal thing allowed by law.
Rant: That type of slider-switch is an inferior usurper of the classic tickbox, that rode in on a wave of touch-screen-ification. Oh, it can be done well, sometimes, but it's just far-too-easy to do it badly.
In this case (useless colors, no intrinsic text labels, etc.) I think the remaining rule/clue is "Move the dot-nub towards whatever you want." So moving right is indicating you like the "We track you" text, while moving left indicates some kind of disagreement.
_____________________
> It feels intentionally misleading.
The "Accept All" button is worse:
1. It abuses UI conventions of position and color that belong to a "Proceed with what is shown" button.
2. Likewise, the text-label is ambiguous: It could mean "Accept All [of the choices which I've made and can see]"... But instead it means "Reject whatever is on-screen, and replace all choices with 'accept' cookies."
3. When it does erase/reset all choices made, it does so in a secretive way by also submitting and vanishing the dialog. The user never has any opportunity to realize that the machine implicitly flipped all choices to the right-most position.
Any one of these might be an innocent mistake, but all three sins together are a dark-pattern.
Of course, paradoxically, these consent banners need to put a cookie to remember that you didn't consent to cookies, so you might need a plugin like uBlock to block the banner as well.
(From THE NEW YORKER) Cambridge, Mass., Feb. Z5-The Air Force announced today that it has a machine that can receive instructions in English, figure out how to make whatever is wanted, and teach other machines how to make it. An Air Force general said it will enable the United States to "build a war machine that nobody would want to tackle. " Today it made an ashtray [2]. -- San Francisco Chronicle, March 28, 1959
That ashtray was teh 1st CNC'd object. Noble [3] speaks about the political angle that was an underpinning motivation
[1] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=960118.808374
[2] https://mitmuseum.mit.edu/collections/object/2007.037.001
[3] forces of production - a social history of industrial automation (Noble, mit press)
The fact that quines exist means that it must be possible to print a fully self-describing book of this sort, though it's possible that you'd require a more expressive language.
If you had a part of a machine that could save state (say.. turning on a coolant pump..) I wonder how much more of a turing machine you could wrastle into it.
(or you could just cheat and use one of the hundreds of gcode variants that have computational stuff stapled into them like the Fanuc equivalents, but that's sorta dishonest for the exercise)
Grbl, which many of the 3D printer firmwares are based on, does not (and no variables, or loops, or branching).
So suppose I attached an extruder to a Haas mill or something...
The product didn't sell well, but it made good gifts!
Although if you just want one sheet, I guess you could use the print directly, but maybe don't use PLA since it'd be kinda sharp and unpleasant to run your finger over.