This is a common misconception. PLA is technically compostable industrially, but it will be very slow to break down naturally if you just leave it outside. It can take about 80 years, which is a lot better than other plastics, but it’s a bit misleading that it’s called biodegradable. There are true biodegradable filaments like PHA, but they’re a lot less common.
That being said, 3D printing is actually really useful, and not a significant part of the plastic waste problem.
I think you’ve already had your questions answered, but I’d like to add 2 more things:
First, if it’s in budget, I would still consider OLED. I love my LCD deck, but I kinda wish the screen was nicer.
Second, it may be cheapest to get the 64GB version and upgrade the ssd yourself. That’s what I did, and it’s pretty easy with the deck’s repairable design.
I really don’t think this concept makes sense. Firstly, I don’t even know if the motion they show would even be physically possible with their proposed technology. In reality, it would be super heavy and would need a LOT of power.
Secondly, it’s a HUGE hazard. it would be incredibly bumpy, probably to the point of injury and/or throwing the rider off. Also, it’s just asking to crush someone’s legs.
Don’t get me wrong, I think rideable legged robots are cool as hell, but this configuration doesn’t make sense until we’re making Westworld style soft robots with fusion reactors or something, or advanced biotech. With near future tech, you’d either need to be sitting within or above the robot, and you’d probably want more legs for stability. If you really want to ride it like a horse I guess you could probably do an 8 leg design with 4 in front and behind the rider, out of leg crushing range.
They took a bunch of rich women, dressed them up in objectifying skintight suits, then flew them to space for 10 minutes in a glorified plane ride on the second richest guy’s dick shaped rocket. And we’re supposed to be “inspired”, meanwhile women who are actual rocket scientists and astronauts are being erased and removed from NASA’s web site because “woke dei” or whatever.
I think the 80 year figure was for PLA, as PET lasts well into the 100s of years (450 is the number I’ve seen)
This article claims 80 years https://3dinsider.com/is-pla-biodegradable/ but I haven’t taken the time to do proper research about this.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the science on this is divided, especially because conditions (and the shape of the object) vary so much. It seems very plausible that a thin injection molded PLA cup could break down really fast in a sunny pond in a warm climate, but a thick 3D printed object buried in the ground somewhere with a cold clinate could take many decades.
Anyway, it sounds like it’s maybe not as bad as I thought, but it’s still not good to treat it like typical biodegradable materials. Especially when pla microplastics are still harmful despite being shorter lived.