If the creator is reading this, please consider releasing the files under an open source license (such as gpl or cc-by-sa) so others can improve on the design and share those improvements.
This is so awesome! I actually think, with a few tweaks this can be a really great protection against foxtails.
Foxtails are extremely lethal and can lead to thousands of dollars in vet bills. All current protections in the market are effectively a bag over your pet’s face, which as you can imagine, are not that popular with the pets.
It's awesome, lots of kudos to the creator for doing so! Personally I'm more likely to buy things where the authors makes the schematic/3D object/whatever available for free for the DIY people out there, and those who couldn't otherwise get the thing to them for one or another reason.
> I know there are other dogs and owners out there facing similar struggles. That’s why I’m sharing this design for free. While it’s not adjustable by design, it should fit medium-to-large dogs as is. If needed, measurements can be adjusted using the scaling feature in your slicer software, but some slots, like those for the straps, might deform in the process.
Only missing for it to be a parametric design people could easily adjust based on their own measurements, but trivial to change yourself too, so again, lots of thanks to the author for improving the whole world, not just a tiny piece of it.
Not trivial, but not impossible either. Usually though the product would be designed in some CAD program, and when the shop customizes measurements they adjust them manually based on copies of the model. The "pro" way would be to have a parametrized version, but it's also trickier to create. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm getting the vibe the author picked up modelling/3D printing as they went along, so the easier route would be hardcoded values changed for each customer.
It's been a really harsh and long process to CAD this model, it's also really complex to change measurements for it.
As I do wish to have a simpler version for customizing, for now by taking people orders I might either build a new parametric model, or have a growing "bank" of models and measurements to share for free like the main version.
I've had dogs for the better part of my life and not a single time was a 'foxtail' an issue, whereas grasses that grow these kind of constructs are pretty common around here. Did I (and my dogs!) get lucky? How common are these issues?
I have a tiny long-haired dog (the first dog I've ever had) and I'm glad our first trainer/behaviourist mentioned the dangers of foxtails to us. We casually asked the vet if it was a problem and she said they see around 2-3 animals a week with issues caused by foxtails during the late summer/early autumn months. This is in the Southern UK. It's been getting drier and drier every year. And subsequently more and more foxtails seem to be appearing.
The main issue we've found is she gets them stuck under her "armpits" and under the tail. Places that make them very difficult to find. Even more insidious is when they embed themselves in the harness, only to make an appearance weeks or months later when the outdoor foxtails have mostly been cut down.
The problem is that they can work their way under the skin with a barbed spike that is one-way only. So if they get deep enough the only remedy is to cut the skin with a scalpel - by the vet of course.
This is interesting. Foxtails are pretty common where I live, so common that one species of Foxtail has the name of the city (Bromus madritensis) (Madrid, Spain). Not a single time it has affected any of my dogs or even heard about it being a problem at all. I wonder if it's not all species of Foxtail
Can you please make a very slightly longer to cover the mouth? My dog is an amazing scavenger, I've tried a lot of different things to stop him eating random food that upsets his stomach. Where we live people are neglectful or think throwing away random food is good for animals.
Hi there,
Great question! In short - yes, it does provide a pretty universal fit.
I originally measured only Billie because she's my dog and had a problem. But after helping about 50 other dogs, I discovered that the measurements work for most dogs with this condition. So far, I've only needed 2 sizes to cover all cases.
Of course, no two noses are exactly the same, and there will always be minor adjustments that could make an even more perfect fit - just like with any human clothing item.
But the core design works well across different dogs.
I'd love to eventually offer truly custom fits for every dog, but for now, this approach has been effective for everyone I've worked with.
I feel like tailored treatments are a desired path anyway.
Instead of having a one-size-fits-all I'd rather have a process made to fit everyone.
While the "nose" would not fit other dogs; "make nose that fits other dog" seems like a valid process, no?
Do you have proof? A hunch? Quality issues that detracted from the article?
I despise AI slop, but this is a great article and a worthy cause. If AI was used, and helped make this article a reality, then the author did a great job of guiding the AI, and doing quality checks.
The article is cool; there's no doubt. But it could have been written without AI, and it would be better to write the article in human voice than to proliferate AI slop. Is it really so horrible to take the time to write things ourselves?
If you read this article and don't observe the tells of AI content, you have a problem (or maybe you don't, because no one cares anymore).
The tells in this article:
There are lots of parts that look like AI - the specific pattern of lists, the "not this but that", particular phrases that are relatively unlikely.
For example, the strange parallelism here (including the rhyming endings):
"Sunscreen balms – Licked off immediately
Fabric nose shields – She rubbed them off constantly
Keeping her indoors – Reduced her quality of life drastically
Reapplying medication constantly – Exhausting and ineffective"
The style is cloying and unnatural.
"That solution didn't exist. So we decided to create it."
"For the holidays, I even made her a bright pink version, giving her a fashionable edge." -- wtf is a fashionable edge? A fashionable edge over what?
"I realized this wasn't just Billie's story—it was a problem affecting dogs everywhere."
Sure these could just be cliche style (and increasingly we will probably see that as the AI garbage infects the writing style of actual humans), but they look like AI. It's not as bad as some, but it's there.
Everyone should be disclosing the use of AI. And every time someone uses AI, he should say "I don't care enough about you the reader to actually put the time into writing this myself."
Folks should be disclosing when they're using AI to write articles. AI style is garbage. It not only pollutes the internet but will steadily infect the writing style of others.
As someone who often wrote with bullet points, emoticons, some extra formatting, or dashes - albeit using the hyphen (incorrectly, I've learned) and not the em- - (:P) some LLM-generated text uses these things very liberally and much differently than most people did before. I didn't always have reactions like this, but after being baited by enough garbage search engine results and the like, I'm now often put off very quickly after noticing these patterns. And frankly, seeing it just makes it not feel worth it to continue reading and try to guess at what the person's actual ideas and thoughts are.
Serious question: should the whole internet have content warnings for anything that might be found objectionable by someone? This seems super mild. Maybe embed it in site metadata, and then you specify your preferred experience in your browser of choice?
what should happen when some objectionable people would access a site what doesn't have anything in the site metadata?
what should happen when some very objectionable people would access a site what do have all the required data in the site metadata and they would still complain?
Also you are clearly missing the usual "think about the children" drivel.
>what should happen when some objectionable people would access a site what doesn't have anything in the site metadata?
>what should happen when some very objectionable people would access a site what do have all the required data in the site metadata and they would still complain?
Nothing; publishers on the internet don't owe anyone anything, but that doesn't mean they can't try.
>Also you are clearly missing the usual "think about the children" drivel.
That is always going to be a battle; I don't think this suggestion is a meaningful paradigm shift in either way. One could argue that this satisfies the needs of the "TATC" crowd, because it puts the control in the parents hands, via browser, and is therefore a less centralized solution.
If you find these pictures distressing, you might want to consider consciously and carefully exposing yourself to more of the same to build a minimal amount of tolerance. I’m pretty sure it’s literally impossible to go through life without experiencing (sometimes personally) medical conditions that are significantly more visually unpleasant. I’m not a huge fan of the meat-creature-universe we all rolled, but it literally is what it is.
Yes; that's my point. Is there a way of making the internet better, such that this can be handled more seamlessly, so that the people impacted by things that others find mild can just...avoid it?
Not all internet has a landing page where someone can post a "trigger warning" (for lack of a better term). Nor should it: trigger warnings don't work, and may even be harmful.
Now this actually sounds like a good use-case for LLM/'AI'-enhanced browsers. Everyone has different triggers and YUK! levels and it would take an insane amount of time & effort to encode all that, and setup on each different person's client side, but an 'AI-browser' with 'smart filtering' (or whatever they'd call it) would likely be quick to setup for each user's (dis-)tastes and be quite flexible in recognizing the patterns and taking the desired action (hide, warn, summarize w/o the triggers, sanitize, etc.).
Maybe it already exists(?) but I've avoided 'AI-browsers', keeping my use in their apps/sites.
You can find the design on Makerworld, named SnoutCover, make adjustments if needed, and let’s help our pups live their best lives.
Foxtails are extremely lethal and can lead to thousands of dollars in vet bills. All current protections in the market are effectively a bag over your pet’s face, which as you can imagine, are not that popular with the pets.
also have to work on my own CAD skills for complex contours like that, been in parameteric/SketchUp land
> I know there are other dogs and owners out there facing similar struggles. That’s why I’m sharing this design for free. While it’s not adjustable by design, it should fit medium-to-large dogs as is. If needed, measurements can be adjusted using the scaling feature in your slicer software, but some slots, like those for the straps, might deform in the process.
Only missing for it to be a parametric design people could easily adjust based on their own measurements, but trivial to change yourself too, so again, lots of thanks to the author for improving the whole world, not just a tiny piece of it.
It's been a really harsh and long process to CAD this model, it's also really complex to change measurements for it.
As I do wish to have a simpler version for customizing, for now by taking people orders I might either build a new parametric model, or have a growing "bank" of models and measurements to share for free like the main version.
The main issue we've found is she gets them stuck under her "armpits" and under the tail. Places that make them very difficult to find. Even more insidious is when they embed themselves in the harness, only to make an appearance weeks or months later when the outdoor foxtails have mostly been cut down.
The problem is that they can work their way under the skin with a barbed spike that is one-way only. So if they get deep enough the only remedy is to cut the skin with a scalpel - by the vet of course.
Please consider the nickname “Tycho Brahe” for her.
Thank you.
I'm glad the nose recovered too!
I originally measured only Billie because she's my dog and had a problem. But after helping about 50 other dogs, I discovered that the measurements work for most dogs with this condition. So far, I've only needed 2 sizes to cover all cases.
Of course, no two noses are exactly the same, and there will always be minor adjustments that could make an even more perfect fit - just like with any human clothing item. But the core design works well across different dogs.
I'd love to eventually offer truly custom fits for every dog, but for now, this approach has been effective for everyone I've worked with.
Comments like yours do not add value to these discussions.
I despise AI slop, but this is a great article and a worthy cause. If AI was used, and helped make this article a reality, then the author did a great job of guiding the AI, and doing quality checks.
If you read this article and don't observe the tells of AI content, you have a problem (or maybe you don't, because no one cares anymore).
The tells in this article: There are lots of parts that look like AI - the specific pattern of lists, the "not this but that", particular phrases that are relatively unlikely.
For example, the strange parallelism here (including the rhyming endings): "Sunscreen balms – Licked off immediately Fabric nose shields – She rubbed them off constantly Keeping her indoors – Reduced her quality of life drastically Reapplying medication constantly – Exhausting and ineffective" The style is cloying and unnatural.
"That solution didn't exist. So we decided to create it."
"For the holidays, I even made her a bright pink version, giving her a fashionable edge." -- wtf is a fashionable edge? A fashionable edge over what?
"I realized this wasn't just Billie's story—it was a problem affecting dogs everywhere."
Sure these could just be cliche style (and increasingly we will probably see that as the AI garbage infects the writing style of actual humans), but they look like AI. It's not as bad as some, but it's there.
Everyone should be disclosing the use of AI. And every time someone uses AI, he should say "I don't care enough about you the reader to actually put the time into writing this myself."
Bullet points? Must be AI. Em-dash? Obviously slop. Not only this, but that? Holy moly, AI slop.
(we ignore whether or not the writing is actually interesting, engaging, educational, etc. of course)
But, also, seeing "slop!" and "ai!" on every single comment section of every article across the internet is pollution, too.
Now answer some questions:
what should happen when some objectionable people would access a site what doesn't have anything in the site metadata?
what should happen when some very objectionable people would access a site what do have all the required data in the site metadata and they would still complain?
Also you are clearly missing the usual "think about the children" drivel.
[0] eg https://www.isumsoft.com/internet/enable-content-advisor-in-...
>what should happen when some very objectionable people would access a site what do have all the required data in the site metadata and they would still complain?
Nothing; publishers on the internet don't owe anyone anything, but that doesn't mean they can't try.
>Also you are clearly missing the usual "think about the children" drivel.
That is always going to be a battle; I don't think this suggestion is a meaningful paradigm shift in either way. One could argue that this satisfies the needs of the "TATC" crowd, because it puts the control in the parents hands, via browser, and is therefore a less centralized solution.
Not all internet has a landing page where someone can post a "trigger warning" (for lack of a better term). Nor should it: trigger warnings don't work, and may even be harmful.
Maybe it already exists(?) but I've avoided 'AI-browsers', keeping my use in their apps/sites.
Definitely an opportunity there.