If a volatile administration can ban you from running code that you wrote -- without any democratic processes like a law or lawsuit -- why would you build anything in the US?

> After removing the 16 papers, “I said, well, Jesus, we’re not reporting anything. It’s very frustrating,” Drummond says. “I don’t know how they’re going to evaluate our productivity.”

This creates bad data where teams look less productive than they actually are. Next year, they'll use that as an excuse to cut funding.

* user agent spoofing has been common practice on the web for decades * Bambu's customers were bait and switched here. They bought a printer that works locally, and Bambu wants to remove features from the product they paid for. And it's the _customer_ who's actually running this slicer and impersonating Bambu.

Imagine if you bought a car with Carplay/Android Auto. A year later, the manufacturer pushes an OTA update that locks Carplay behind a subscription. But they have terrible security, just trusting the car itself to say if it has a subscription, so you use use pirate software to bypass the restriction and get free Carplay.

This is a far more financially damaging outcome for the car manufacturer, closer to stealing than user agent impersonation, but I would still argue that its morally justified. Consumers should have a right to fight rug-pulls, especially a physical product. This behavior from companies would never have been acceptable before the internet.

This article isn't about the fact that Bambu has a walled garden. They're slandering and suing an OSS developer for using open source code that Bambu published. And the reason Bambu publishes open source code is because they're heavily reliant on the open source community.

I agree their printers are good, and good printers help the market, but this behavior is unconsciounable and needs to have consequences.

Still, congrats to the team. Hopefully this launch means more money to fix issues so I can start using it again.