Some purge would definitely be required, I can’t think of any way around that. But a smart slicer may be able to do all/most during infill.

Im aware that ink printers don’t mix ink, but it’s the resolution issue with FDM that makes me think filament blending is the way to go

I’ve been contemplating how to blend the liquid (or near liquid) filament without introducing chaotic flow, which fortunately I have some experience with from previous projects, and in effect I believe that the filament stream could be twisted, it wouldn’t bleed strictly laminar but can be done in a way that can avoid turbidity. It wouldn’t be perfectly “blended”, but with some uneducated guesses I estimate it could get the color resolution down to about 0.08mm.

You may be right, but I may attempt of to build some POCs to explore the concept, because I think the challenges are manageable

That was an awesome read, but it does seem to be an evolution of the dithering in FullSpectrum.

What I’m talking about is a print-head that would combine multiple melted filaments into blending hotend, so the extruded plastic would be a blend

Are you referring to Full-Spectrum? Because that’s not really what I’m talking about.

I’ll choose all 4

I wonder why black Americans are so good at making horror?? It’s a mystery

I’d be pretty disappointed if they didn’t honestly

So glad I dropped windows nearly a decade ago

This is why I avoid friendships with most people, they seemingly come with such long list of expectations that are completely unmanageable for me.

And it should be taken back, it has a beautiful history, and doesn’t deserve to be owned by the scum of the earth.

I take the stance that all celebrities are terrible people until proven otherwise.

We should take all things that fascists use to identify eachother and reclaim for good. Do not allow fascists to claim cultural ground or identify each other. Leave them with nothing.

How is the assembly process(assuming you didn’t go pre-assembled)?

Now we have S.H.A.M.E.

Correlation does not imply causation, even a 100% correlation. So no, I am not saying that being a billionaire makes you a pedophile, or the other way around. But rather than the mindset that lows one to amass that amount of wealth is also an ingredient in amoral behavior, vis-à-vis island-activities.

I’m all for being nuanced when having a detailed nuanced discussion, but internet comments are not a good place for nuanced discussion.

I don’t think I was suggesting that being a billionaire causes you to be pedophile, or the other way around.

Do all statements that do not forward some sort of effort to reason through things count as backwards?

Can you explain why you think it’s backwards? It may be hyperbolic and facetious, but I think recent history has shown a statistically significant correlation between the ultra-wealthy and pedophilia.

I’ve always said that the biggest difference between a billionaire on a yatch and a homeless man with a cart of garbage is luck.

All billionaires are pedophiles