TL;DR: I'm surprised this isn't a laser printer, as those are actually quite a bit easier to design and manufacture, especially if you can use a cheap, older, commonly available, remanufacturable toner cartridge.
There are still quality laser printers on the market without extortion and surveillance built-in, unlike inkjets. The need for an open laser printer is less dire than for an open inkjet.
Every manufacturer volunteered to rob their own customers of anonymity. Even at the OS and application level (Adobe) people are being tagged with robust watermarks. In general, still no one cares. =3
The unique properties of every imaging/printing system are usually robust in identifying specific devices. Not really anonymous if eventually registered, compared, or metadata indexed.
It is also common for people to create urban legends rather than discuss how to actually fix legal policy failures. As previously stated, consumers implicitly gave permission though sustained inaction on industry volunteering to help track customers.
An OSS printer would be cool from a standards/driver perspective, but microfluidics are a nontrivial technology. Bloomberg also paid lobbyists >$23m to try to mandate "AI" R.A.T. installation (company associated with Palantir) on 3D printers to attempt convincing criminals to care about laws again.
It is unclear if such action is consistent with constitutional legal precedents, but it is certainly hilarious to see kids figure out the mess a prior generation creates. Best of luck, =3
And not a single solid-ink-onto-paper sublimation printer, that I'm aware. There are badge printers still using a dye-sub ribbon, but the Tektronix Phaser, later the Xerox Phaser, is completely gone.
I wonder why. Were the consumables too cheap and the printers too reliable to be commercially viable? Did color laser printers catch up in terms of print quality? Did it have some other fatal flaw?
Hot melt ink/solid ink has a laundry list of problems that complicate it.
- A single ink clog can destroy a printhead.
- partial clogs can result in ugly messes with ink smeared all over the pages and the assembly further smearing on later prints.
- the printer has to be calibrated to the specific formulation of solid ink to work properly. A bad ink batch or calibrating to the wrong formulation (or a drift in specs on the formulation) can cause clogs, print head failures, etc.
- solid ink printing massively complicates lamination if that's something you need to do (ex in an office).
Overall it's a far more unforgiving process. You can't really have aftermarket inks like you can with modern inks and even variations in the first party manufacturing process can have catastrophic effects on the print hardware.
I only used one for a few years, and never thought to laminate the pages because they didn't need it -- dye-sub wax-printed pages were already suitable for outdoor maps because the wax repelled water, and they held up where inkjet pages became a smeary mess immediately.
We definitely did wash our hands before and after loading ink blocks, I remember being cautioned about that.
Oh well. I guess my memories are better than the tech deserved. Won't be the last time.
> optimistic that modern reactor designs and reprocessing technologies can overcome these issues
The obstacles aren't technical. They never really have been. The obstacles are human: political, bureaucratic, and corporate. It's not about "can we build a safe nuclear plant?". It's about "do you trust these bozos to build a safe nuclear plant?", remembering that if said bozos screw up, the damage is basically irreversible.
That's the problem.
LILCO Shoreham, for example, famously couldn't build backup gernerators that worked, until they exploded and had to be completely redesigned and replaced. Does that inspire confidence in the rest of their plant?
And following on from that, this has all the hallmarks of a successful appeal for unreasonable sentences. However, it's going to go to the Fifth Circuit, who are, ah, not known for their friendliness to criminal defendants.
This is a kind of thinking a lot of programmers fall prey to. The real world, outside of code, is a very fuzzy and inherently analog place. There is very rarely one in any complex system having a complex problem needing a complex solution. At some point even the definition of diagnosis gets fuzzy.
The best demonstration of this in medicine is probably the DSM-5. What, really, is the difference between Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder? Can they overlap? (Yes.) How do you treat them? (It's not easy.) What about depression: how do you tell if someone has Major Depressive Disorder or Bipolar Depression? (Again: not easy.) In some circumstances the only way to tell the difference between the two is what drugs work: if antidepressants help, it's Major Depression; if mood stabilizers help, it's Bipolar Depression. It's kind of odd to define a One True Diagnosis by "well we fixed it this way, so it must have been that", with no other way to do it, isn't it? (What if both work? What if one works for a while, then the other works? What if treatment with antidepressants induces bipolar (hypo)mania? All of those happen!)
Pyschiatry gets complicated because the failures are not mechanical. Even if you could image every single neuron in a person's head we do not have a very good way to define an algorithm for these issues. I do not have a good answer for psychiatry.
> This is a kind of thinking a lot of programmers fall prey to. The real world, outside of code, is a very fuzzy and inherently analog place.
Having said that, I would vehemently reject and push back against this, and without doubting your sincerity, characterize it as an ad hominem.
The vast majority of issues with the human body are mechanical in nature. Restricted blood flow, unwanted tissue, a broken bone, a bad valve etc. These are causal descriptions of "disease". Where causal descriptions exist, the "One True Diagnosis" principle holds. Psychiatry just happens to be unique in that it is a fuzzy science where we rely on checklists and ultimately all diagnosis is probabilistic.
EDIT:
> This is a kind of thinking a lot of programmers fall prey to. The real world, outside of code, is a very fuzzy and inherently analog place. There is very rarely one in any complex system having a complex problem needing a complex solution. At some point even the definition of diagnosis gets fuzzy.
I would also push back against this mindset in general. This is not a falsifiable claim, it is incoherence as an argument, and I do not need to be a programmer to hold this position.
That the real world is analog is irrelevant to its amenability to causal explanations. Or "fuzzy": "fuzzy" in this context just does not mean anything.
I am not trying to sound exasperated or win internet points, just impress this point on you and anyone reading this. We can write math to predict weather, make it tractable to solve using approximations, tolerate IEEE 754 weirdness, and finally tell what the clouds will do a week from now. This is nature telling us that there is a pattern to how it behaves, and it is the only weapon we have as scientists.
To say that nature is not amenable to explanations is a very defeatist thing to say: neither Newton nor Einstein nor any of the million-odd people that have built modern society would exist if nature did not have causal explanations. I urge you to reject this defeatist thinking.
There's quite a few diseases and conditions that don't have definitive tests. For example, alzheimer's and parkinsons are diagnosed based on medical history and symptoms. With alzheimer's an autopsy can tell for sure but that's not much help for a patient. I'm sure there's other things out there with similar situations. Hard to come up with "the one true" diagnosis with an definitive way to determine it.
> With alzheimer's an autopsy can tell for sure but that's not much help for a patient.
Ok let us unpack this statement.
For your point to hold, I would have to be saying "all kinds of practical diagnostics are invented now. No progress can be made in better diagnostics".
If Alzheimer's can be validated by slicing open a dead patient, there is a causal mechanical explanation for the disease. If we can not confirm that defect without slicing open the patient, that is a limitation of 2026 tools. The "One True Diagnosis" is an Oracle explanation that all real diagnostic techniques try to approach in the asymptotic sense, and it is helpful exactly because it clarifies in discussions like this.
There are going to be diseases where we do not yet have causal explanations. Or where we treat them without establishing them. Hypertension is one example: while technically it can be caused by vascular stiffness, some weirdness with the RAAS system, some hyperadrenergic weirdness, practically you get a lot of mileage out of just prescribing people telmisartan if they're old.
That does not mean the frontier of hypertension is settled, or the 10% who do not have a vascular stiffness problem would not benefit from better causal models of hypertension. Science is us continuously pushing back against the fog: of the tools we have in 2026, some are great, some are imperfect, some are promising etc.
There might be "one true diagnosis" but there's no reason to believe that we'll have practical diagnostic tools to get it. If we need to sample the brain chemistry to diagnose a neurochemical disorder, it's probably not too useful in a clinical setting. The world makes no guarantees that we will be able to differentiate between certain situations with tools that we can realistically access and build.
Today's limits are known and undisputable. Tomorrow's limits are a promise: some promises over-deliver, others under-deliver. :)
Regardless, to bring the discussion back to the claim at hand: at all points in future, we will need the ability to reason under partial information. "Absolutely flawlessly complete diagnostics" is an asymptotic goal we get closer to but never reach. This is both very doable for a disciplined human, and very hard to outsource completely to an LLM. Treated as tools operatored by competent users, they are magical. But they can not outperform their user.
Not GP, but I'd argue that over-rationalism and underestimating both the complexity of the real world and the theory-ladenness of one's perspective is just as dangerous. The point is not to be paralysed by complexity, but to acknowledge it and acknowledge the reality of unknowable unknowns in our decision-making. I don't consider that defeatist in the least. Epistemic humility is the rational response to a complex world; courage is to act anyway.
Quantum mechanics is an excellent example here. It is not "defeatist" to accept that we don't know where the electron in the hydrogen atom actually is. Or to accept that if we really, really wanted to figure out where it is, we can only do so by disturbing it enough that its position is probably no longer a useful thing to know.
These are fundamental features of the world (at least according to our best theories of Nature), and it is only by accepting them and the uncertainties inherent to them that we are able to make progress using those theories. Among the consequences is that thinking about "the position of the electron" is not so useful; we instead need to leave position behind and start thinking using a new thing, "the orbital of the electron". This is a major conceptual change, and internalizing it can be Very Difficult for some people.
But the world does not care. It and its complexity owes nothing to anyone. It is us who must adapt to the world, in all its fuzziness and incompleteness. Nature will break the rigid, but if you bend, you can soar.
> We can write math to predict weather, make it tractable to solve using approximations, tolerate IEEE 754 weirdness, and finally tell what the clouds will do a week from now.
Even so, we’re operating on approximate datasets and sometimes our predictions are wrong. I think a lot of the medical field is like that - people are doing the best they can with what they have.
It’s entirely possible that DSM-5 will be viewed as flawed and inaccurate in a century, but it’s better than nothing.
Similarly, for every possible medical affliction there could be “The Diagnosis” that would describe how to treat it, we’re just unable to be that accurate and thorough. The fuzziness just means that you’d need 10’000 data points about the state of the body instead of 10-100 and also be able to reason about them.
Most disorders in the DSM-5 are defined by polythetic criteria, i.e. meeting X out of Y symptoms from a list for a given duration of time, or by conjunction of polythetic criteria. These definitions are socially constructed and statistically validated for pragmatic use, but very rarely have definite underlying biological markers. Especially as concerns personality disorders, these disorders can also simply be an inheritance of cultural or political baggage and prior psychoanalytic theory.
> In some circumstances the only way to tell the difference between the two is what drugs work: if antidepressants help, it's Major Depression; if mood stabilizers help, it's Bipolar Depression.
This is ridiculous. There is zero mention in the DSM-5 or ICD-11 of "if these drugs work, it's this, otherwise it's this." I would question a psychiatrist dispositively making a diagnosis on such grounds.
Somehow I only managed to end up on one of these gorgeous birds once. In seat 64K, NRT-DTW (or was it NRT-MSP?). The main cabin is... nothing to write home about. I was in no hurry to book another 744 leg. Upper deck, perhaps a different story.
On the A380 you get to enjoy the higher ceiling also in economy. It does make quite a difference for how cramped you feel, even though the leg room might be the same.
And both B747 and A380 fly much calmer than the smaller, lighter widebodies, which is equally nice for passengers on all classes.
The A380 is probably the smoothest flying plane I've been in, but in my experience it has one slightly annoying behavior quirk that degrades from my ability to enjoy it. Granted, I've only flown in one a few times, so I may have just been unlucky. But at cruise, the autopilot surges and coasts on a slow repeating schedule. Ease off and float for a bit, get just a little bit low and throttle up slightly to catch it, rinse and repeat. Not terribly noticeable when awake, but when I try to sleep I'm acutely aware of that sensation.
So far my personal favorite is the 787. About the only thing 'bad' I can say about it is that all the mechanical bits are kinda loud, like the flaps and stuff, and are very noisy inside the cabin. But it cruises so nice, and the lower pressurization altitude and increase in humidity is noticeable on a long flight.
I've done a lot of travelling between Australia and Europe via Dubai on the A380, and I've definitely noticed the same thing, you can really feel it. You can also see it on the interactive map thing on the ones that have the 'virtual cockpit' view - the vertical speed goes positive for a bit, then back to zero, then negative for a bit, then back to zero, and repeat, all 10 hours or so of cruise on the long leg!
The 787 is nice but I find the seat width quite cramped in economy, and unfortunately premium economy isn't great value either to pay or for points upgrade on any of the airlines I fly...
Granted, like any widebody it's a bit less claustrophobic. But the personal space, the legroom, the size of the lavatories, etc. is no better at least to my recollection; I've only flown on a 747 a handful of times and it's been at least 10 years.
No, it is much nicer than the 737/A320 class. Just thinking of the curve of a 737 makes my neck knot up. Bigger planes like the 747/757/767/777 are much more comfortable as well as modern planes like the A220/E195. 737 class planes are so ubiquitous that many passengers have no idea another experience is possible.
The 767 2-3-2 layout is my favorite, with only 1 middle seat per row, yet still two aisles so you can use one while the other is blocked, or walk little loops if it's not.
I always do, but, just this Saturday, due to some air-traffic meltdown (perfectly understandable considering the heat wave), we had our aircraft swapped for a slightly smaller one, and I had to renegotiate seats to be together with my kid.
The 737 is noticeably louder than other planes on the ground and in the passenger cabin and especially for the pilot. 787/A350 and the A220 have a higher cabin pressure and better air quality that helps you feel better. It could be that most of my wide body experience was going over the Atlantic on 747s in the 1990s and a few times circa 2012 flying 767s on the JFK-LAX route which felt luxurious. As I see it, I’d rather fly coach on a better plane than “first” on a worse plane. (e.g. first on a 737 is like business on a widebody, in an A380 first-class is crazy over the top) 737 first still has your ears ringing, under-oxygenated, feeling cramped inside a small cylinder, etc. Luggage bins are nicer on a big plane too.
I’d take first in anything, even crappy fake “first,” over coach in anything. Additional personal room trumps everything else for me. I don’t really care how big the fuselage is, I care how hard my knees are crammed into the seat in front of me.
I had a long haul flight from DFW-SYD that had plenty of empty seats to the point they offered an upgrade to guarantee you'd be the only person in the row. Best spent $100 ever related to airfare.
This is or was a feature on Air New Zealand. You could buy three adjacent seats and call it a SkyCouch where two people can lie down and cuddle. Not sure how much the seats actually transformed into a couch. They were also very clear that clothes must remain on.
I only ever flew on the upper deck in coach configuration, and the last time I did that was about twenty five years ago on SAA. It wasn't anything special, but it was a little quieter.
I've flown upper deck on a 747 in Business (BA Club World).
It felt like a private jet up there, very cool. And that's even with the awful club world seats where you had to step over your neighbour to get to the aisle.
Not really. They're trying to split up potential causes of failure between:
1. "Funding" meaning: We knew what we had to do but didn't have enough money to do it; if we had, this path would have worked (though why it says "TAM" here I don't quite get);
2. "Technical" meaning: We knew what we wanted to do but couldn't quite make it work; if we had, this path would have worked
3. "Uptake"/"Regulatory" (perhaps not the most natural pairing, though I see why they're together) meaning "We couldn't get people to actually do it"/"The authorities wouldn't let us do it"; if we had, this path would have worked
But that is missing a much different type of failure:
4. "Strategy" meaning "This path does not actually lead to our goal"
It's easy to see why in marketing material they'd leave out that last one. They want to build confidence! But for a moonshot like this, especially a biological one, it's kind of silly to think that this is definitely the best way to achieve this goal. I am, personally, quite skeptical; this reads like a mashup of SV and germophobes (with apologies to, well, both of those groups). I hope it works! And I won't stand in its way. But I won't be betting my own money on it. Probably we will learn something interesting no matter what.
More generally, this is a distinction that a lot of people miss (often intentionally, if PR/marketing is involved): strategy and tactics are distinct and they can succeed or fail independently. The best execution (tactics) here will not help if the plan (strategy) is flawed. And there are numerous other examples from research, business, and of course everyone's favorite hobby subject, war, of what happens when your tactics are good but your strategy isn't, or vice versa, or any of the other combinations. And, of course, making decisions about when to pivot (switch strategies) and all those other fun topics.
> I will never understand why so many otherwise smart people keep trying to make nuclear happen in their minds.
I don't really get this either. I've come to think that it comes down to two pieces. The easy piece is that some people don't seem to realize just how good renewable power sources have gotten in the last 10-20 years. Nuclear has simply been outcompeted in so many ways. But this happened pretty quickly, so not everyone has gotten the message.
The other one is more subtle. For decades there were a lot of bad attacks on nuclear as a technology. (And a few good criticisms, but for some reason those never seem to get the attention, even though they should -- they're pretty strong arguments!) There's a certain type of person who loves to debunk these bad arguments, and there's plenty of that type of person around here. And that can get you emotionally invested into the thing you've been defending (perhaps rightfully: they were crappy arguments against it), and might keep you promoting it after its natural time has passed.
(To be clear: I don't think nuclear plants are worthless, and I think keeping the ones we've got operating smoothly as base load stations is probably an excellent idea. But I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to be building more of them these days.)
Probably it depends on what part of the world you are and on what is your goal, what you want to optimize for.
In many countries there are usual systematic weather events where all renewable production goes to basically nothing for few days or even 2 weeks. You can not solve that by improving renewable sources, there isn't enough raw energy they could capture.
Storage for that long is currently impossible and even if it would be, it would be prohibitively expensive. So what you can do, build gas or coal plants. Building those, having people on call all the time, and the opportunity cost is probably many times more expensive than the building cost of renewables themselves.
And you still need to buy and store fossil fuels, you are still dependent on geopolitical issues, and you still produce a lot of CO2.
If your goal is environment protection or reducing climate change, then nuclear is probably better. If your goal is to reduce energy cost then probably renewables + short term battery storage + gas backup is the winner if you use an appropriate electricity pricing model.
Nuclear seems to be the old, known, stable thing, while renewables are the new and shiny thing that solves everything cheaply (and that sounds like it has huge catch). When you are building such critical infrastructure as the electrical grid, then staying safe and choosing the known, but expensive solution might seems to be the right choice for many people.
I see that France has the most nuclear heavy grid and also some of the cheapest energy costs and lowest CO2 emission per unit energy in the world. When I see that matched by a solar / wind focused grid I will believe the cheap renewables hype.
And even when I see that, the low energy density still has its own problems. The amount of resources needed for the panels and batteries is massive in itself. And the land area requirements are going to turn vast swathes of wild land into something like this: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSUY5dhiVF6/
Spain has 3x the emissions intensity of France. The Nordics (some of them) have energy that is cheap and clean like France. That's because they have base load that doesn't emit CO2 like France.
And the germanics have higher price than France, which can benefit from importing cheap spanish power (when not in outage) and reselling it at 5x to germanic countries.
It is a political choice. Pro-nuclear propaganda in Australia is all about the long time frames, and the fossil fuels needed until they start coming online. Climate targets get to be pushed back, scrapping 2030 targets in favor of 2050 targets. It keeps coal, gas and oil money flowing for another generation. And the problem of actually building and paying for the nuclear power plants is also next generations problem, as they are expected to all be over cost and delayed, and not a priority once all the new gas plants are online. Everybody knows all this, but nuclear still gets traction because when you put lipstick on it and take all the most optimistic estimates from the salesmen, it looks like a pro-environmental policy. One that the right and far right can get behind, because it is not what the greens are saying needs to happen and anything those communists want must be bad.
I don't know if it is similar in Canada. Solar is less viable, relying more on wind. And they have more experience building and running nuclear power plants.
Canada has own supply chain and all recent refurbs were on time and budget.
Ironically, if SA contracted Korea for a npp (and if nuclear was legal there) at the same time as UAE, it'll probably be a net exporter of low carbon power by now.
Australia is expanding gas exploration even under current govt. Climate targets seem to be pushed back regardless
Or, to say a little more explicitly what you're getting at: when you take a logarithm of some quantity, log x, x absolutely must be unitless. There's no way whatsoever to take a logarithm of something with a unit attached. (This is an important and useful dimensional analysis check in formulas and long calculations!)
So what do you do in practice? You have to normalize: you don't calculate log x, but instead log x/U for some scaling unit U. It's typical for U to be something like 1 mV or 1 W in electrical engineering, for example. This is completely legitimate, but it does mean that the thing that comes out needs a corresponding unit attached to it: dBmV, dBW, et cetera.
And it's really kind of important to be careful about that.
Robots that cannot share sidewalks with humans, including humans in wheelchairs, should be banned from sidewalks. Full stop. End of discussion. They can use the streets proper if they want to.
I'm sure there is some way to formalize that using ADA sidewalk requirements or something similar.
I really don’t understand how a four wheeled self-driving powered vehicle is allowed to drive on the sidewalk when riding a bicycle on the sidewalk in that same city is illegal.
Probably under the same regulations that allow a powered wheelchair on the sidewalk. A low maximum speed makes up for a lot of things. But they should have a plan for encountering a wheelchair user.
Because corporations have more rights than the common man and these robots are the property of corporations.
If you as a regular person cause some sort of damage to a corporation you’ll be arrested and locked up while they determine the legality and if there was an actual illegal damage. If these corporations cause regular people problems then it’s “oopsies, you can sue us in court with your far smaller resources in a system that is heavily incentivized for those with more resources” and no equivalent corporate entity is getting the equivalent of cash bail.
Vehicles have been far too dominant in city planning, it's probably time to re-prioritize, make it look more like Netherlands or some other European countries perhaps.
The vast majority of Americans prefer roads being dedicated to vehicles. I live in a town that is stealing drivable roadway for bike lanes. It's a total wast of tax dollars. There is never anybody in this bike lanes. Because even in this flaming blue, bike friendly city, people drive because it's just better.
Often it feels unsafe to bike on roadways, so people just avoid doing so. And most bike lanes on roadways have trash in them and are basically a glorified shoulder.
"Stealing" as in having a public process for proposed street designs that you can't be bothered to attend.
"There is never anybody in this bike lanes" you don't see them because they aren't stuck in traffic like you. Also the city has to build out a full network of high quality bike facilities to convince a bunch of skeptics and scaredy cats to get out of their cars and enjoy life and actually get somewhere instead of just be traffic all the time.
There's this weird "bicyclist viewpoint" where the only acknowledged possible purpose of leaving your house appears to be to get your body to a different point within a relatively small area.
Personally, if I go anywhere at all, I'm usually moving more cargo than I could move on a bicycle, and doing that is the whole purpose of the trip. Cargo or no, it's often to a place I could not practically reach on a bicycle. And when neither is true, I can usually walk. The number of trips where I could use a bicycle is not large enough to make it worth maintaining one, and that wouldn't change no matter how good the infrastructure got.
Also, for a good chunk of the year, it's icy enough here that basically nobody rides bicycles... and in the rest of the year, it's not uncommon to get unpredictable thunderstorms. Sorry, riding in that is not "enjoying life".
By the way, the economy that feeds you and maintains your bicycle also depends on motorized road vehicles and the infrastructure to support them. The converse is not true; you and your bike could go away and nobody else would notice.
Seriously, they're very, very limited, niche vehicles. If your life fits into that narrow niche, then good for you... but the rest of us are sick of hearing from you.
Not sure where this icy, thunderstorm-prone city where it's either walk or drive with nothing in between is, but it's certainly pretty far outside my experience.
From what I've observed, the vast majority of car trips in my city could be easily replaced with a bicycle trip.
We would most certainly notice if the modest bicycle traffic in our city was replaced with car trips. The already terrible traffic would be significantly worse. "Stealing" some space for cars for a drastically more efficient means of transportation that's also 5-6 times faster than walking is a huge win both for people who want to get places reliably and on time and those of you who are always carrying cargo or can't cycle for some reason.
You wouldn't hear from me at all if it weren't for accusations like "stealing" space from cars (who in turn stole entire walkable city centers and streetcar lines!) and just made a little room for those of us who are able (which is most people!) to choose a healthy, efficient, humane form of transportation instead of hauling a 3 ton steel caged air-conditioned living room with armchairs and sofa on every trip.
> Not sure where this icy, thunderstorm-prone city where it's either walk or drive with nothing in between is, but it's certainly pretty far outside my experience.
Montreal. I think there've been three thunderstorms in the past week, none of which I would have predicted if I'd stepped outside a few hours beforehand. Yes, that's an unusual week, but I've been caught in storms often enough, and you can't build your routine around conditions you can't rely on.
And only absolute fanatics ride bicycles in the winter. Even though I think the facilities are pretty good.
> From what I've observed, the vast majority of car trips in my city could be easily replaced with a bicycle trip.
You observe people driving around in cars. You have no way to know where they're going, where else they've been or may be going on the next leg of the trip, what they're carrying, anything about their physical condition, or, well, anything other than that they're driving. Even if you did a formal "study", you wouldn't know if you were asking the right questions (not that the people doing "studies" usually even try).
TL;DR: I'm surprised this isn't a laser printer, as those are actually quite a bit easier to design and manufacture, especially if you can use a cheap, older, commonly available, remanufacturable toner cartridge.
reply