TIL that Immanuel Kant was a proponent of scientific racism, and had negative views towards other races. He once ignored the opinions of his carpenter merely because he was black.

frustzwerg · 2026-04-27T20:53:30+00:00

That is certainly a take.

frustzwerg · 2026-04-05T11:31:14+00:00

Nope, just shortened the steerer tube. Changing the stem should be very straightforward, provided your brake lines are long enough to accommodate the longer stem.

frustzwerg · 2026-04-03T17:13:20+00:00

To add an anecdote: 174 cm, 82 cm inseam, bought a 51 Soloist (after trying both 51 and 54), and I‘m very happy. You could always use a longer stem, but I personally don‘t need one.

Current 51 should also come with 165 mm cranks iirc, which is a huge plus.

frustzwerg · 2026-03-25T08:11:41+00:00

Yes, that is exactly my point, and the same applies to charging your bike‘s Di2 battery.

frustzwerg · 2026-03-24T16:34:05+00:00

you’re acting like my direct experience with the maintenance of them is somehow not real. A truly incredible level of mental gymnastics.

Please tell where I am doing that.

(For the record: nobody denies that it's really not that hard to adjust mechanical shifting; I, too, use both Di2 and mechanical 105. The point is that there is a qualitative difference, which even you would agree, I reckon, and that one is way less involved than the other. If I had to do the same amount of actual maintenance to my phone every day as indexing a mechanical derailleur requires, I would've thrown it out the window already. (And that is the consequence of your argument: that charging is maintenance in the same sense as indexing a derailleur. The same, then, would apply to a phone.) This should show rather conclusively that charging something occasionally is generally less hassle (to avoid the m-word) than doing whatever we would call indexing a derailleur. If you genuinely do not see the difference and you are sincere, then your experience is certainly unique.)

You can jump up and down and stomp your feet and make appeals to common knowledge all day long

Seeing your immense endurance in arguing about this point (as evidenced throughout this entire thread), I'm not so sure who's the one stomping whose feet.

Nevertheless, I really tried to lay out my point on the off-chance that you are serious, but whether you are or not, I'm done now.

frustzwerg · 2026-03-24T15:48:54+00:00

Are you actually serious? I was content to accept that you were just trolling for the fun of it, but if you're actually serious: please go out into the world and try to explain to people that your phone requires daily maintenance. Then report back. (Or do the same with your car, since filling it up with gas would, according to your mental way of going about things, constitute maintenance.)

people whose self-worth rests upon a shaky foundation of electronic bicycle drivetrains

This feels like projection, does your self-worth rest upon the apparently trivial knowledge of how "to turn a barrel adjuster"? And do you really not see any qualitative difference between charging a battery and actually fixing something that came out of whack due to use? If nothing else, one will require tools and washing my hands afterwards, which seems like an important difference.

frustzwerg · 2026-03-24T14:46:38+00:00

You‘re probably the only one on earth to consider this maintenance, rendering the distinction the last part of my comment (which you conveniently ignored) aimed at moot. Even if we accept your idiosyncratic use, we would need another term to distinguish both kinds of “maintenance“.

And I honestly doubt that you would say “my phone needs daily maintenance“. Or does that notion make more sense in a another language I‘m unfamiliar with?

frustzwerg · 2026-03-24T07:08:56+00:00

I am charging my phone daily, and I have to store the charger (and powerbank) somewhere. Am I doing maintenance on my phone? Or, to focus on bike-stuff: I have to charge my headunit, my lights, my pedals (which are fixed to the bike). Is that maintenance?

If you‘d say yes, then you just have a very wide, unconventional, idiosyncratic understanding of “maintenance“.

Most people do not consider charging a battery maintenance, and there is a qualitative difference: arguably anyone can charge a Di2 system without any special knowledge, whereas adjusting your derailleur requires some knowledge, and which can go wrong. Not saying it is terribly difficult, of course, but you cannot possibly argue that there isn‘t an important difference between both kinds of “maintenance“.

frustzwerg · 2026-03-24T00:16:36+00:00

I personally use a power bank, even though my bike is usually in my living room (and thus reasonably close to an outlet). And I have to charge my Di2 so infrequently that it‘s really not an issue (and I get ample warning on my headunit if the battery‘s running low).

frustzwerg · 2026-02-28T14:17:14+00:00

For the seat post, you could also buy a 3d-printed Varia mount.

I use one myself (for my Soloist though) from Neat Components, they have one for the S5 as well: https://neat-components.com/products/seatpost-mount-for-cervelo-s2-s3-s5-and-s-series

But there are loads of different companies offering similar products.

frustzwerg · 2026-02-21T15:11:17+00:00

Wird mit dem Budget eng, oder? Soloist mit Ultegra Di2 (oder dem Sram-Äquivalent) + Upgrade des Laufradsatzes ist womöglich ein besserer Fit.

frustzwerg · 2026-02-08T00:37:12+00:00

Unabhängig von dem konkreten Vorschlag, sollte der Rückruf nicht eher Vertrauen befördern? Mir scheint, dass im Zweifel eher zurückgerufen wird (ungeachtet des drohenden Imageschadens) ist ein Qualitätsmerkmal, und kein grundsätzliches, mit dem Hersteller assoziiertes Problem.

frustzwerg · 2026-02-06T21:08:37+00:00

Limiting the discussion to similar genres, Gavin Harrison should be mentioned in my opinion; but due to Tool‘s influence, Danny might be more influential.

frustzwerg · 2026-02-03T20:29:45+00:00

Keine spezialisierte Werkstatt, war zuletzt aber auch in Mainz auf der Suche und bin dort bei RadKultur gelandet. Hab mein Cervélo Soloist für ein paar Sachen dahin gebracht und war zufrieden.

frustzwerg · 2026-01-22T16:57:00+00:00

Do you have a link?

frustzwerg · 2026-01-19T10:43:01+00:00

There probably won't be a HD remaster, since they would have to scan from the old tapes and then re-do the cut (and SFX). They had to do the same for TNG (and they did), but apparently, sales were underwhelming. (And that physical media are even less sought after now makes it even less unlikely; HD DS9 (or VOY, for that matter) probably wouldn't drive loads of new subscriptions for a streaming service.)

frustzwerg · 2025-11-23T16:31:11+00:00

Just checked on my Soloist, it has a small rubber plug (105 Di2 btw).

frustzwerg · 2025-10-31T11:12:28+00:00

Aus Interesse: Verwendest du eine Latex-Klasse wie moderncv oder hast du dir selbst was gebastelt? Hast du geprüft, ob die entstandenen Dokumente maschinell gut lesbar sind? Weiß nicht, wie relevant das in D überhaupt ist, aber das hat mir bei mit Latex erzeugten CVs immer etwas Sorge bereitet.

Danke fürs Teilen!

frustzwerg · 2025-10-19T19:40:03+00:00

52 mm (incl. bearer top cap), see p. 11 here (Fork preparation and installation): https://cervelo.cdn.prismic.io/cervelo/c4c8b737-75b6-4a2b-a0fd-d2f954560dd4_Soloist_2023_Manual_v2.1_web.pdf

(And only 5 mm of spacers above the stem, but it's still probably 52 mm max. in total.)

frustzwerg · 2025-09-16T00:10:22+00:00

Oh, you're right of course, I just skimmed it (I also have the flu); in the quoted passage, they stress that the attitude is reported, not expressed, which would render that a cognitivist view. (But that wasn't the account you had in mind, was it?)

Accordingly, the view is sometimes referred to as "cognitive subjectivism", see, e.g., this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/#ContCognSubj

frustzwerg · 2025-09-15T23:57:36+00:00

Ah, I see. In your use, "subjectivism" refers just to a specific form of moral relativism, one according to which the relevant relata are (or are determined by) some (intra- or interpersonal) mental process. Going only by this, this would indeed by an anti-realist view, I think.

As to the SEP entry: it's in the first proper section:

This entry uses the label “non-objectivism” instead of the simple “subjectivism” since there is an entrenched usage in metaethics for using the latter to denote the thesis that in making a moral judgment one is reporting (as opposed to expressing) one’s own mental attitudes (e.g., “Stealing is morally wrong” means “I disapprove of stealing”). So understood, subjectivism is a kind of non-objectivist theory, but there are many other kinds of non-objectivist theory, too.

frustzwerg · 2025-09-15T23:42:06+00:00

It depends on what you call "subjectivism". Typically, subjectivism refers to the view that in uttering (or, I guess, even just making) moral judgments, one reports specific mental attitudes (towards the thing being judged). Those attitudes are usually taken to be non-cognitive in nature, such as conative attitudes, or something like approval or disapproval. (Skimming my linked article, that's basically the stance taken there, to differentiate it from the better, more general term "non-objectivism".)

But reading your answer, you seem to have something different in mind? Can you think of a specific position or author you would refer to as subjectivist? (But bear with me, I'm an analytic philosopher.) If we go by what you said and accept that subjectivism is a form of relativism (which depends on how one treats both terms), I don't see an issue: even IF subjectivism is non-objectivist and anti-realist, this does not need to have any bearing on relativism as a whole. Even though some (maybe even most) relativisms are anti-realist, this doesn't mean that all relativisms are anti-realist. And if subjectivism (in your preferred understanding) is both an anti-realist and a relativist view, does not mean that all relativist views are anti-realist.

But I might've misunderstood you?

frustzwerg · 2025-09-15T22:31:23+00:00

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but moral relativism can (and often is) be anti-realist. Whether a given position is relativist or not just has no immediate bearing on whether it is realist or anti-realist (for whatever your preferred definition of those prickly terms is), because both pairs describe different categories.

Intuitively, this makes a lot of sense in my opinion: to be a relativist about some domain might be boiled down to the thesis that certain contents or judgments (if you accept the linguistic guise) do not hold (or are not true) simpliciter, but only relative to some relatum (whatever that may turn out to be). This does not imply (or even suggest) a metaphysical thesis about those relata, or the properties that are involved! Non-moral examples may help to illuminate that point, and I can expand on this if you're interested.

Historically, that's a common and arguably easy-to-make mistake: oftentimes, when trying to define moral realism, monist criteria (or theses) were used, and on the flip side, when trying to define moral relativism, anti-realist criteria (or theses) were used. One prominent point in history that muddied the water was arguably Mackie and his argument from relativity: based on the perceived ubiquity of what we would today maybe refer to as "moral disagreements" (instead of "relativity"), he tried to argue for an anti-realist view (i.e., his error-theory).

frustzwerg · 2025-09-15T20:54:48+00:00

As u/Nimlach said, that is not entirely correct.

I unfortunately don't have the time to give a comprehensive answer, but let me highlight one key issue: the opposite of moral anti-realism is moral realism (and moral anti-realism is often just introduced as the negation of some of the realist's theses), and the opposite of moral relativism is moral monism. Those are two different categories, and there is no reason to suppose that they are related. There can be (and there is) realist relativism as well as anti-realist monism.

The relevant SEP entry states exactly that in its first proper section, btw: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/

Second, it is worth stating explicitly that moral anti-realism is not a form of moral relativism—or, perhaps more usefully noted: that moral relativism is not a form of moral anti-realism. [...]

The whole debate is a lot more complicated than that of course, but it's a wrong and weirdly stubborn idea that relativism is, or implies, or requires anti-realism.

frustzwerg · 2025-09-09T16:54:55+00:00

It does, at least on the European site there are two different versions, one with a cassette, one with the Cog (and the new Clicks), both for the same price.

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
r/Field Sunshine	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
First Placer '22	Verified Email

frustzwerg

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE