If you found somewhere in the UI that says 38, point it out and I’ll fix it. That is useful feedback.
The rest is just a long rant based on the assumption that using AI means I neither understand nor review what I build. You know nothing about my education, my engineering background, or how this project was developed.
Sounds like an old grump that is falling behind to AI.
I did go back over 'your' work to see why I incorrectly concluded that your model had 38 teeth. It turns out that the mandibular left third molar has a label of "38" when you hover on that tooth. That led me to believe that your jaw somehow fit 38 teeth into the picture. At my dentist, they track oral health of the teeth in the jaw during exams, noting which teeth have fillings or other restorative processes applied so that the dentist can focus on the exact tooth. Their numbering is always 1-32 so when I saw that 38, and other numbers that seemed out of sequence with those I have noted on my own charts, I figured that it had to be wrong. I counted teeth and did not come up with 38 though I also couldn't figure out why a tooth in your model would be labeled "38" unless that is merely an identifier of the specific element displayed.
I see now that your teeth use numbering 21-28 for upper left teeth; 31-38 for lower left teeth; 41-48 for lower right teeth; and 11-18 for upper right teeth. That makes 32 total.
I should've counted. I didn't do that. I made an incorrect assumption that there might be a standard numbering system in place for teeth so that any dentist anywhere could look at a number and know exactly which tooth it referenced. Evidently that is not the case since your model splits a jaw based on right/left and numbers front to back from incisors to molars. That is not the numbering scheme used on my own dental charts which use 1-16 for upper jaw and 17-32 for lower jaw. There is no 38 in that system. This has to be a software issue. My dentist still uses Windows 10 so perhaps they are locked into a different oral health package.
>The rest is just a long rant based...
LOL. This is correct. Too bad. I offer an apology which you can accept or reject. The rant is not terribly out of line for submissions to HN, many of which draw the same criticisms. In this case it appears to be invalid.
>Sounds like an old grump that is falling behind to AI
Actually the old grump part probably fits since I had just made it to my desk and your submission was the first thing that I checked out since it looked interesting. I had not had coffee until after I submitted that post so perhaps my mental capacity was significantly diminished by caffeine depletion.
I'm not falling behind to AI and AI is not threatening to make my job obsolete. There is no part of my work that uses AI so there is no way for me to fall behind.
The FDI numbering system can be confusing at first and I see how you could have mistaken it.
More than anything though, I do appreciate the change of tone, and I hope all these lurkers hating on AI were like you.
For what it's worth, I probably could have been less aggressive in my response too, the coffee explanation was funny.
Thank you for actually taking the time to look through the project properly.
Though I know this probably refers to mental maturity, I can assure you that I have been around a while. That only guarantees that parts of me are mature, not the whole package. I replaced all the flooring in one of my trailers yesterday and I can feel it everywhere today. Luckily I don't see any posts with skeletal models that I can misinterpret.
Your response was justified. My initial post was way off-target and will be the basis for an improvement in my own approach to commenting and hopefully others can see themselves when they have been at their worst and resolve to be better.
Good luck to you in your efforts!