Another Bambu Lab A1 Malfunction

In October 2024, I wrote about my Bambu Lab A1 3D printer heatbed temperature malfunction. Because the malfunction occurred within the 30-day replacement window, I was able to return the printer and have a replacement printer sent to me.

I have had a great experience with my replacement Bambu Lab A1 3D printer until November 2025 when I started witnessing that the printer would randomly lose all power. Sometimes it would happen during the pre-print routines (e.g., bed leveling, bed heating, filament purging), and sometimes it would happen in the middle of a print. Despite the main power switch remaining in the ON position, the printer would lose power, the fans would turn off, the screen would go blank and unresponsive, and the Bambu Studio slicer would lose communication with the printer. Initially this occurred infrequently, but it seemed to occur progressively more frequently over time to the point where most of my prints would fail due to unexpected power loss.

Because of the prior heatbed temperature malfunction in October 2024 and the current power loss malfunction in November 2025, I have started to question the durability of Bambu Lab 3D printers. Nevertheless, I bought another Bambu Lab A1 for three primary reasons. First, I enjoy participating in the Bambub Lab ecosystem where things just work (that is, until my printer breaks down). Second, I have meticulously set up air purifiers both inside and adjacent to my Bambu Lab A1 third party enclosure and didn’t want to re-configure my setup with a different printer’s form factor. I had considered upgrading to the Bambu Lab P2S, but that will have to wait. Third, Bambu Lab was in the midst of their Black Friday sale, and the A1 printer was on sale for $279 (normally $399).

Meanwhile, I asked ChatGPT to help me diagnose the problem, in hopes that maybe I could acquire parts to fix the older printer. After describing my scenario, ChatGPT concluded that there was an 80%+ likelihood that the power supply unit was responsible for the power loss. The other possibilities were a loose power connector (15%), a mainboard power regulator failure (5%), or a firmware or software issue (<1%). It encouraged me to contact Bambu Lab Support and stated that even though my printer was just past the 1-year warranty period, they might still help me out. I had previously written about the Bambu Lab Warranty, and at the time I had focused on the language related to returns, refunds, and replacement within a 30-day window. Looking more closely at the general warranty language dated November 18, 2025, it also says that there is a “2-year warranty for for consumers from the EU, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland” and a “1-year warranty for the rest of the world (any country not mentioned above).”

I submitted a support ticket to Bambu Lab, and they directed me to the Bambu Lab Wiki for “Printer Circuit Failure Troubleshooting - A1”. I confirmed that all indicator lights were in their normal status.

• The TH Board indicator light was constantly green
• The MC Board green light blinked every 5 seconds
• The AP Board had one green light blinking once per second
• The HMS indicator light was constantly on

Based on questions from Bambu Lab Support, I also confirmed that the fuse was NOT blown, and the power switch had good contacts and no corrosion. Also, I measured the AC power input at terminals #4 (neutral wire) and #5 (live wire) of the power module, and the multimeter reading was 123.8 volts—a normal value in the United States.

Bambu Lab Support asked me if the main power indicator light would turn off when the machine is powered off, and I confirmed that it did. They also asked me to confirm that the 24V power module indicator light was a steady green light (normal state) when the machine is powered on, and I confirmed that it was steady green. They also asked me to verify that connections for terminals #1 through #5 on the power supply were properly inserted, and as far as I could tell, they were. Based on this information, they decided to send me a power switch assembly and noted that despite my printer exceeding the 1-year warranty period, “This component is a special free replacement.”

To me, this gesture from Bambu Lab went a long way toward mitigating my frustration with my 2nd A1 printer malfunction in 13 months. Also, ChatGPT was correct in encouraging me to contact Bambu Lab Support based on a history of them supporting printers past the warranty period. Although I still question the durability of Bambu Lab printers, I must admit that I have received very good support that has exceeded my expectations.

However, one main question remains. Although ChatGPT seemed at least 80% confident that the power supply unit was to blame, Bambu Lab Support sent me a free replacement part for a power switch assembly which ChatGPT suggested was a much less likely culprit. I updated ChatGPT with my recent interactions with Bambu Lab Support and asked if they perhaps wanted to first have me replace the power switch assembly because it was a less expensive part, and ChatGPT agreed with my assessment. It went on to say that it still felt that the power supply was still the most likely culprit and suggested that I replace the power switch assembly as instructed by Bambu Lab Support and see if that fixes my problem. If I still experience power loss after replacing the power switch assembly, then that makes the power supply unit the only remaining rational explanation. ChatGPT communicated to me that this is probably just the normal troubleshooting algorithm they go through. Bambu Lab Support has not commented on their protocol, but the ChatGPT response seems to make logical sense.

So now I anxiously await receipt of my free replacement power switch assembly. I hope it fixes the power loss issue but realistically expect that I may have to reopen the support ticket and ask for further assistance, with possible replacement of the power supply as a result. Stay tuned for what happens next!

Autism and Vaccines - An Undead Conspiracy Theory

On November 19, 2025, the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated its Autism and Vaccines website to state the following (click image to enlarge):

I’d like to take this opportunity to debunk the first 2 bullets in the Key Points section, as the information is just plain wrong, based on a preponderance of what the scientific community knows today.

The first bullet states “The claim "vaccines do not cause autism" is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.” I’ve worked in a health services research capacity with a focus on evidence-based medicine for 16 years, and I can say that this statement is misguided on at least 2 levels. First, the claim that “vaccines do not cause autism” IS in fact an evidence-based claim. The original study that suggested a causal link between vaccines and autism has been debunked. It was formally retracted and its lead author was found to have engaged in serious research misconduct, including falsification of data and undisclosed conflicts of interest. See this story for more information. Since then, there have been no credible well-conducted studies that demonstrate a link between vaccines and autism. Evidence-based guidance is founded on the principle that the preponderance of credible evidence favors a certain conclusion. Any knowledgeable and unbiased researcher would assert that the claim that “vaccines do not cause autism” is in fact evidence-based because a credible link between vaccines and autism has never been established despite countless studies that examine the benefits and side effects of vaccines.

The second part of the first bullet that is misguided is the statement that “studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.” This is just plain illogical and a confusing and possibly devious use of words, to which it is not logical to draw any meaningful conclusions. You see, studies cannot not designed to “rule out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism” because no such association has ever been observed. If I stated that “studies have not ruled out the possibility that pigs can fly” then it would be illogical to conclude the opposite argument that MAYBE pigs could fly, unless there was any credible observation that they could in fact fly. I believe that such a meaningless statement could only be made by someone who either has ulterior motives or beliefs that are not supported by science, or they are possibly made under duress.

Moving on to the second bullet point that “Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities” is also misguided. The reason that health authorities ignore studies supporting a link between vaccines and autism is because there have been no credible scientific studies that support such a link. If I said that “studies supporting the possibility that pigs can fly have been ignored by the general public” then a rational person would say that those studies should be rightfully ignored because pigs have NEVER been witnessed to fly, based on credible evidence. So to imply that health authorities are sweeping an issue under the rug requires that there be a credible and rational reason to pay attention to the issue. In this case, there is no reason for health authorities to waste time on this issue. In my opinion, the only reasons we are even discussing it is because the general public does not have a sufficient understanding of the scientific process, and conspiracy theories arise from this lack of understanding.

Regarding the third bullet that “HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links,” I am supportive of such actions and can only hope that this research will be carried out responsibly and in accordance with the scientific method. I also assume that such a “comprehensive assessment” would result in data that are in agreement with the preponderance of previously established scientific information, and if so, then I hope that rational individuals would challenge their prior unsupported beliefs about a link between vaccines and autism. However, if HHS’ “comprehensive assessment” does not involve original credible research and they instead cherry-pick data from poorly conducted studies, then it will be obvious that HHS/CDC is driving a political agenda (as if it was not already clear). On the other hand, if there is novel credible research that is performed according to the scientific method that does in fact establish a link between vaccines and autism, then I will be eager to read that research, modify my perspective on this topic accordingly, and encourage additional studies to further corroborate such novel evidence.

In summary, the claims made by CDC are wrong and misguided based on a preponderance of the best available scientific information. At best, the claims represent a misunderstanding of science and evidence-based medicine. At worst, this is an example of misinformation by what was previously a well-respected federal agency. For additional reading on this topic, see the NPR article “The CDC revives debunked 'link' between childhood vaccines and autism” on 11/20/2025 and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health’s “Statement on Updates to CDC Website on Vaccines and Autism” on 11/21/2025.

My YouTube Year in Review

Yesterday I received an email from YouTube with my 2025 year in review. It contained many statistics such as the fact that I started my channel on January 4, 2007, which means I’ve been a YouTube creator for 6,912 days. They also provided me with my top video of the year:

I knew intuitively that most of my subscribers would be from the United States, but little did I know that I have subscribers elsewhere:

And finally, I was given some statistics on the age groups and days of the week when my audience views my videos:

If you want to see the videos on my YouTube channel, search for @DigitalDaddyLA or just visit https://www.youtube.com/@DigitalDaddyLA/videos.

Hertz Makes Amends

I recently wrote about a 2-part epic fail with a car rental from Payless here and here. My string of bad luck with car rental companies extended to my very next rental, this time with Hertz.

A couple weeks ahead of time, I reserved my rental car through Hertz via Expedia. On the day before and the day of my car rental, I received text messages to remind me about my reservation.

On 12/1/2025, I picked up my rental car from the Indianapolis International Airport (IND). Upon leaving the car rental facility, an agent asked me for my driver license. She appeared to do some sort of data entry and then handed my driver license back to me and opened the gate to let me through, all without saying another word. I confirmed that I was free to go, to which she nodded, so I was on my merry way.

On 12/6/2025, I filled up the gas tank at the Shell station on the outskirts of the IND and then returned the car to Hertz. Because of my prior car rental for which I was charged $727.41 for “glass damage” that I did not incur, I took photos of the car’s exterior before walking away. I felt that everything went smoothly with this car rental (foreshadowing).

On 12/9/2025, I received an email from Hertz along with an invoice and an unexpected charge on my credit card for $90.25.

I called Hertz to inquire about the charges and specifically asked about the “FUEL & SERVICE” charge for $69.43. The Hertz representative said it was documented that the fuel gauge was 61% when the car was returned. I said that it must have been an error because I verified that the fuel gauge was in fact full after I filled the tank. As an aside, the fuel gauge was analog with markings at 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%, so how in the world did they determine that it was 61% full? But I digress. I said that I didn’t have a photo of the fuel gauge, but I did have a receipt from the Shell station where I pumped gas immediately before returning the car. Originally the agent asked me to email the gas receipt to customerrelations@hertz.com and ask them to consider reversing the charge. He then placed me on a brief hold and then decided to just process a refund on the spot. I was told that it would take 3-5 business days for me to be credited the $90.25 (by the way, this happened earlier today, and I hope I don’t have to write a follow-up to this post about not getting my refund). He also apologized for the inconvenience and credited my rewards account with 1900 points which he said was enough for 1 free day of rental (I’d be responsible for paying tax on the rental).

Although I was the victim of errors at both Payless and Hertz, I think my experience at Payless was worse. Payless made multiple errors (did not charge car battery, did not give me charging cable, and erroneously charged me for glass damage), and I made more than 20 phone calls to get all of these issues resolved. On the other hand, Hertz made 1 error (erroneously charged me for fuel service), and it took 1 phone call to resolve (again, I have not yet received my refund, so I hope I am not speaking too soon). Additionally, they apologized and issued me reward points. I will probably never use the points because I spread my rentals across many car rental companies based on wherever I can get the best deal, but it was a nice gesture, and I felt that the customer service was better at Hertz. I think I am willing to use Hertz again in the future, but I can’t say the same for Payless.

Payless Car Rental - The Sequel

In my last blog post, I wrote about a bad experience that I had with a car rental from Payless. It turns out that there was a sequel to the saga which I discovered when I received the following letter via US mail:

I was being charged $727.41 for “glass damage” that I did not incur. In fact, I have photographic evidence that all the windows on the Hyundai IONIQ 5 were intact when the tow truck driver took possession of the vehicle:

I called 1-888-728-5377 as instructed on the letter from Payless. When speaking to an agent, I was told that the number is only for Avis and Budget rentals, and I was instructed to call 1-800-729-5377 instead. To be honest, I was not surprised that Payless put the wrong phone number on the letter. Annoyed, yes. Surprised, no.

Anyway, I called the correct number and gave the Payless agent my rental number and stated that I did not damage any glass and I had photos to prove it. I wanted to first ask what glass was allegedly damaged, and I was ready to ask how they wanted me to provide the photos of the Hyundai IONIQ 5 with all the windows intact. She placed me on hold for a few minutes and then told me that my charges would be dismissed because the charge was invalid. I was relieved to hear that, but I was also curious to understand why the charge was invalid. She stated that whoever brought the charge against me did not provide any photos or evidence when reporting the damage. I was also told that I would receive an email confirmation within 4 hours of the dismissal of charges, and she confirmed my email address. I asked for a case number in case something happened, and she provided that information to me. It’s been more than 12 hours, and I have not received an email confirmation from Payless either in my inbox or spam folder. Again, I’m not surprised. I’m glad that I asked for the case number, although I hope that this saga is over and that I will not have to use it.

I still don’t know exactly what led to the generation of the “glass damage” charge. It is possible that the entire thing was a mistake, or perhaps glass was damaged during or after towing. In any case, there are 2 takeaways from this experience. First, I am glad that I took photos of the rental car when the towing company took possession of it. I don’t know if I will routinely photograph every rental car that I return, but for special circumstances such as the sequence of events that transpired with this rental, it made sense for me to take photos, and I’m happy that I did. Second, I will never rent from Payless again.

Payless Car Rental - Epic Fail

I travel regularly and have rented cars from many agencies in many cities. For my last visit to Indianapolis, I rented a car from Payless. I booked the rental through Expedia like I normally do, and an electric vehicle (EV) from Payless was the least expensive option, so I went with that. I have rented EVs before, as I am comfortable driving and charging them. We have a Tesla Model Y at home, so EVs are familiar to me.

At the rental counter, the agent confirmed that I was OK with a Hyundai IONIQ 5, and I said yes. She emphasized that I must return the vehicle with at least 70% battery life to avoid a fee, and I acknowledged. When I started the car, I noticed that the battery was at 25% with an estimated range of 60 miles. I mentioned this to the gate attendant who checked my paperwork and driver license, and I asked him to document that the battery level was 25%. He declined to document this. I stated that the lady at the rental counter made a big deal about me incurring fees if I don’t return it at 70%, and I didn’t think it was fair for me (or rather, my company) to have to pay for miles that I didn’t use. Again, he declined to document the battery level and said, “It’s not even worth it to document” and told me to just return the car at 25% and I would not get charged. I felt that this exposed me to unnecessary risk, so I took a photo of the dashboard with the battery level, making sure to also capture the clock to note the time and portions of the car rental facility to provide evidence that the 25% battery level was taken before I drove the car off the lot.

I drove 30 miles to my destination, by which time the battery level fell to 13% with an estimated range of 30 miles, so I had used half of the remaining charge to drive to my destination.

I often stay at a corporate apartment where I plug in EVs to charge them overnight. However, there was a second problem with this rental from Payless. The car did not come with a charging cable like it normally does. I searched the entire car, and the only trace of a charging cable was an empty bag in the trunk where I think the charging cable would normally have been stored.

I called Payless to ask them to document that the battery level was 25% upon pickup, which they did. I also asked them send a charging cable to me or allow me to drive to a nearby rental facility to pick up a charging cable, but they said my only option was to drive back to the airport to get a charging cable or replace the vehicle. I said that I wasn’t sure if I could make it all the way back to the airport without the battery dying. They gave me 2 options: call roadside assistance to have the car towed, or go to a local Avis or Budget car rental facility, as they are sister companies with Payless. I preferred to try Avis or Budget because it seemed like such a waste to have the car towed when there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. The local Avis and Budget rental facilities which were just a few miles away, and I decided to call them in the morning because it was after hours and those facilities were already closed.

Meanwhile, I tried to resolve the battery charging issue on my own and decided to look for charging stations in the area. Public charging stations have charging cables tethered to them, so my lack of a charging cable would be a non-issue when using public EV charging stations. I found a free charging station next to the corporate apartment, but there was only 1 charger and it was taken. I returned an hour later, and the same car was still using the charger. I then located another charging station, only to find that the entire facility was out of order and sectioned off with “do not cross” tape. I found a third charging station with 2 charging stalls, both unoccupied. But when I tried to charge the vehicle, it refused to let me do a 1-time charge with a credit card. Instead, it required that I download their app, set up an account, and upload my credit card information to the app. By this time, it was past 11 PM, and I had completely run out of patience and decided to go back to the apartment to get some sleep rather than set up the account and sit there while waiting for the car to charge.

First thing the next morning, I called the local Avis and Budget car rental facilities. Unfortunately one of them stated that they had no charging cables or available cars, and the other one stated that their computer systems were not capable of handling rentals from Payless despite them being sister companies. So my last option was to get the car towed. I called Payless Emergency Roadside Assistance and summarized my situation. The dispatcher initially said that I needed to hop in the tow truck and accompany the EV back to the airport, exchange the car, and drive back to my origin. I politely reminded him that Payless made 2 errors by giving me a rental car with 25% battery and omitting a charging cable, and because I spent almost my entire evening and part of my morning trying to rectify their mistakes, and making more than 20 phone calls, half of which were a result of me being disconnected, I asked that they send the replacement vehicle to the office where I work, and they obliged. The dispatcher asked me if I had a preference for a vehicle, and I said that any sedan was fine, even an EV, as long as it was properly charged and came with a charging cable. They said that my replacement vehicle would be “same, similar, or better”.

So Payless Emergency Roadside Assistance towed my replacement vehicle, a Toyota Tundra, 30 miles from the airport to my office, swapped vehicles, and then towed a perfectly working Hyundai IONIQ 5 another 30 miles back to the airport, all because it was not in their standard operating procedures to send me a charging cable. And of course, I thought it was fitting that they gave me a monster of a car as a replacement. The Tundra barely fit in the garage, and its gas mileage is poor as compared with sedans. But at least I had a vehicle to drive and no longer felt stranded.

The moral of the story is that if you rent an EV, make sure you have a way to charge it before you drive it off the lot. If you plan to charge it using standard electrical outlets, make sure the EV comes with a charging cable and recognize that it will trickle charge, perhaps adding a few miles of range for every hour of charging. If you plan to charge it using public charging stations (which charge the vehicle more quickly), make sure you are aware of the charging infrastructure and either have your accounts properly configured or be prepared to create new accounts along the way.

Final Cut Pro Video Exports

I recently made a video to commemorate my daughter’s 16th birthday, and I wanted the video to be of the highest possible quality, so I decided to use 4K (technically UHD, 3840x2160) resolution. The videos from my daughter’s first few years were recorded in 720p or 1080p, so I researched methods to upscale videos for the purpose of getting higher quality videos from Final Cut Pro (FCP). Bottom line: while FCP can upscale videos, you’re better off with a third party video upscaling application like Topaz Video AI. What I also found out was that all these years I’ve been exporting videos from FCP the wrong way.

Normally I’d export my FCP projects using the H.264 codec. I learned that it’s better to export from FCP using one of the Apple ProRes codecs (Apple ProRes 422 offers a good balance between quality and file size) and then use Compressor to convert the ProRes video to the H.264 codec. FCP uses Apple’s internal H.264 encoding engine which is optimized for speed, but it doesn’t always use the most efficient compression passes or bit allocation strategies. It may use a single-pass variable bitrate encode with conservative parameters which results in a quick export but can produce larger file sizes and may be associated with some quality loss. On the other hand, exporting in Apple ProRes is an intra-frame codec that yields a high-quality master, and feeding that master to Compressor has quality advantages. Using the Social Platforms > 4K preset, Compressor uses multi-pass encoding and performs better motion analysis and bitrate distribution, giving more bits to complex scenes and fewer to static ones. Here are the file sizes for each workflow:

1-STEP WORKFLOW
FCP export with H.264 codec: 8.44 GB

2-STEP WORKFLOW

FCP export with Apple ProRes 422 codec: 72.34 GB
…followed by Compressor conversion to H.264 codec: 5.15 GB

In full screen mode on a 32-inch UHD 3840x2160 monitor, I cannot see any difference in quality between the two H.264 files. In reality, there are some technical advantages with the 2-step workflow. FCP’s built-in exporter prioritizes speed over compression precision, which can lead to slight quality loss. The 2-step workflow is superior because Compressor encodes from a pristine, uncompressed ProRes master using more advanced multi-pass analysis and smarter bitrate allocation, producing a cleaner, more efficient H.264 file. It’s like the difference between working with an original photo vs. a photocopy. Perhaps a more discerning set of eyes could tell the difference in quality, but I’ll just conclude that the 2-step workflow yields a file whose visual quality is at least as good as or possibly better than the 1-step workflow.

So in summary, the 1-step export from FCP to H.264 is faster but comes at the expense of larger file sizes and possibly some slight degradation in quality, whereas the 2-step process involving FCP export to ProRes, followed by Compressor conversion to H.264 takes longer but results in smaller file sizes and equally good if not slightly better quality. I don’t mind waiting a few minutes for Compressor to convert videos, so unless I’m feeling particularly impatient, I plan to use the 2-step workflow from now on.

For more on this topic, see this article. Happy video encoding!