The article acknowledges this, and says they chose clay over ceramics for electricity consumption. Although I am not sure why they then chose an open wood fire, which is likely far more polluting than even non-renewable grid power

i don’t think air dry clay would work very well - it has none of the thermal properties that real clay has, and would probably burn up on soldering?

Stoned punks for sure.

How would you handle LQFP or BGA packages?

It's an art project

They're not great for anything that might produce heat. Seeing a MOSFET slowly starting to imitate the Tower of Pisa after dissipating a measly 1 W for a few moments was a sight to behold.

For about two seconds before I cut the power.

Emissions from burning wood (and charcoal) can considered net-zero by some because all of the CO2 being released was initially trapped out of the air by the plant, not releasing "new" carbon that was initially trapped underground

That link sounds interesting but I can't open it :(

That's a cool project, I've actually considered something somewhere but never put the energy into actually doing the work.

I'm guessing that the issue here might have been that copper as a metal is kind of difficult to trace the source to ethically?

Also, with this method each 3D print is a new instance of using plastic, where with clay you only use plastic once

Wood fired are CO2 neutral (but a problem of pollution with fine particulate at scale in poorly ventilated valleys).

The "Arduina" comment definitely made me think it might be at least a little satirical in nature

It's not, the entire site appears to be a serious examination of technology and hacking ethics through a feminist lens

Honestly, the language isn't super off or abnormal in other circles, maybe it's a lot more telling that when posted on a tech-oriented site it's seen as ridiculous

You can buy clay industrially, if you don’t care where it’s from.

But I think the point of this project is to do small-scale production, not develop new techniques for mass manufacturing

I think the entire point of the project and potentially the research group is looking at manufacturing while explicitly/intentionally steering away from high volume and industrial processes.

And it's taxpayer funded, to boot. I definitely wouldn't be happy as an Austrian if I knew my taxes were going to something like this (meanwhile hobbyists elsewhere do projects like this on their own dime).

Well if you were a creative/researcher-type of person, the mere fact that you don't understand what she hopes to gain would push you to read about it. You'd discover the very real links between tech and gender inequalities (or the reinforcement of other minority inequalities) and you'd have learn something

This is going to really confuse future archaeologists.

The opposite of feminist is not masculine. You are conflating feminist with feminine which does indicate why your are maybe confused here. Feminism is not about being partisan like this, and you are operating through a strawman of so-called "second wave feminism" which is like over half a century old and defunct to everyone but guys who get angry at stuff like this.

Consider how calling yourself "atheist" or "rationalist" comes with some broad commitments and political tendencies, but not necessarily. We say we are an "atheist" to indicate a particular belief but also perhaps a broad attitude to culture as it stands, but not one thing or the other. Its like the same thing here!

What are you asking about exactly? About classifying the project as feminist or the perceived feminist = artistic implication?

You start with this:

>I truly don’t understand what the hope to gain from self-classifying this is “feminist”.

To which I say - why not? Is this the problem?

The name of the site and I think the group itself is "feminist hacking", the entire point of the research group appears to be examining the ethics of technology and hacking through a feminist lens.

https://feministhackerspaces.cargo.site/Ethical_issues

Instead of just trying to make a rather obtuse guess, you could have instead tried looking around the website. It took me like half a second to find that link, even with the more free form UX.

The term "feminism" as an actual technical definition outside of just like "female empowerment vibes" it might be used for in the everyday language.

Feminism is not femininity and so is not to be contrasted with masculinity.

Feminism is originally about gender (power-) equality (and so is orthogonal to femininity and masculinity), but has been extended to other forms of power equality. I think that in this context it's about concern for certain things that established practices don't show concern for. Such concern could perhaps translate to certain power dynamics.

I think "feminist" here means "socially conscious," not "small-batch/artistic."

This is the way that artists speak when describing a new technique or process they have come up with. It’s also something I haven’t seen done before, so it’s legit research to me.

Serious research always start by looking like play. Read Feynmann if you want to know more

If you’re the kind of person who can’t get past “arduina”, then i don’t think you’re going to be interested in any of the other ideas in the tutorial.

Gonna +1 what the other person said, but also this research group appears to be like intentionally focused on hacking and technology ethics from a feminist perspective sooooo like maybe it's just not your cup of tea to begin with?

Either way, it's probably that no one cares about your opinions on credibility

It's probably there specifically to scare people like you away. People who would discount an entire interesting piece of work because of a single bit of language they don't like

They don't wanna deal with people like you so they're scaring you off ahead of time

What date is that? Petrochemicals aren't all stored in a big tank somewhere. My model is that there are many marginal sources which are not cost-effective to exploit, but which could be exploited with better technology or at a higher cost. I do not think we will ever extract all of these; instead, the cost of extraction will increase gradually, shifting incentives towards other energy sources.

I don't think anyone really knows what the future will look like.

The language bit is dual purpose. For one it's clearly tongue in cheek. Furthermore, it's a way to scare off people who would get set off from a little bit of language play. It's a way to make an online space free of people they don't want without actually putting up hard borders or moving it to a less public space. (Personally I think it's a wonderful strategy)

All the commenters here that are too set off to engage with the article are exactly what they were hoping for