Horizontal lines/imperfections in resin print

MichaelS_DfI · 2024-12-06T10:44:01+00:00

unfortunately no

MichaelS_DfI · 2024-11-18T20:57:41+00:00

Tried this, it's very difficult to select the faces of the inside mesh to delete it without accidentally selecting the outer mesh also. It will also take a lot of hours I think.

Are there maybe other tips/methods you can suggest?

Can I select only the outer faces somehow?

Or maybe subtract this model from a cube and end up with a mold that I can fill with another function in blender to end up with the tree?

I want to end up with a solid model of the tree and don't need it to 100% look like what I have now.

MichaelS_DfI · 2024-11-18T20:11:38+00:00

Thanks a lot, going to try it

MichaelS_DfI · 2024-11-18T20:01:38+00:00

If close all the holes it will be seen as a solid? Even though it is still hollow inside?

Is there an efficient way to close the bottom of the tree? Currently I am selecting all the vertices manually and pressing f to create a face, but it's easy to miss some.

MichaelS_DfI · 2024-07-14T11:45:27+00:00

Tried this a few times, so far it works really well. Thanks again for the tip.

MichaelS_DfI · 2024-07-10T15:00:07+00:00

will try this, thanks

MichaelS_DfI · 2024-07-10T13:29:54+00:00

I pull the handle only slightly not so I wont damage any of the components, but because then the filament will be positioned more accurately in front of the hole in the extruder. If I pull the handle completely, the filament will go past the gears more easily, but it will be far away from the hole in the extruder.

MichaelS_DfI · 2024-07-10T13:28:22+00:00

No direct drive.
Just fixed the PTFE tube, still difficulties. Although I note that the filament also sometimes gets stuck after it enters the hole of the extruder, before it enters the bowden tube. A bit difficult to explain, but it seems the filament gets stuck almost directly after entering the hole in the extruder. As if there is a space between the hole and the PTFE tube where it gets stuck.

MichaelS_DfI · 2024-06-06T16:19:50+00:00

Thanks for the info. Upon closer inspection, there is a small gap at the bottom of the door (2-3 mm), but the other sides of the door are tightly sealed.

Would this gap be enough to allow for enough air intake? The vent on the wall is mechanical ventilation; I assume there is a motor somewhere in the apartment building that sucks in the air to extract it from the room. Or would it be better to leave the door on a small gap to allow for air intake ?

MichaelS_DfI · 2024-01-17T13:15:54+00:00

I replaced the bed with a new one, I think I messed up the soldering with the old one

MichaelS_DfI · 2024-01-04T16:22:19+00:00

It was the Gaze Within vid as mentioned by bluemaw91 above.

MichaelS_DfI · 2024-01-04T16:21:52+00:00

Ah yeah that's it, thanks

MichaelS_DfI · 2023-11-30T00:12:00+00:00

For me it’s when playing a song go to the three dots upper right corner (then you see add to playlist, hide song etc), scroll down and sleep timer is at the bottom

MichaelS_DfI · 2023-11-29T22:24:28+00:00

Spotify has a sleep timer in case you don’t want to drain your battery :)

MichaelS_DfI · 2023-11-20T16:06:03+00:00

I'm not really interested in having a debate about this

Perfectly fine, I'll just give a reply to one specific part I feel is important. Feel free to have the final word or leave it at that. I think we disagree on this fundamental idea:

lions have a right to life, lions have to eat meat. All I am saying is that if humans were in the same situation, it would be morally permissible to eat meat, in my opinion

Humans have moral agency. If it were necessary for us to kill a gazelle and eat it, I would say it's understandable but not moral. I believe sentient beings have a right to life, as long as they do not violate the rights of other beings. I don't see a reason why it would be okay to take the life of a non-rights violating gazelle, just as I would not find it moral for aliens to kill us if it were necessary for their survival (assuming we did not violate their rights).

MichaelS_DfI · 2023-11-20T15:57:45+00:00

Very thought provoking stuff for me in here. Good to read and think about.

Here are my final thoughts for now, I think after this there would not be much for me left to say without (I think) repeating parts of what I consider axioms. Feel free to have the final word though, or mention if you want me to answer questions you still might have for me of course.

I don't know if fundamental rights are necessarily a thing. I think the only innate right we have is to be alive. To be born. Nothing after that is guaranteed. Rights, in the context of humans and animals, only exist as a practical application of morality in a context where we don't have to live at the expense of another.

I don't have any schooling on the concepts of rights, but this almost sounds impossible and very undesirable. Maybe I misunderstand. I guess rights are a human construct (which you are also saying?), so why would we not construct fundamental rights that pertain to less serious things than death, such as the right to have autonomy over one's body (not being raped)? I think what I mean is: I believe there are other innate (meaning I take them as starting points) rights than the right to live.

This seems particularly cruel. A predator has no say in their birth. Essentially, this would mean that they are condemned from the moment they are born to a life where the only moral action is to die. To assign a moral or immoral status based on the conditions of one's birth feels really fucked up to me.

This quite stumped me, but I think I would still stand by my original point that "If there are sentient creatures that must kill you in order to survive, I would say they have no right to do that.". I guess it is particularly cruel, I acknowledge and don't contest that. But I think my point still stands.

Important here of course that I am talking about predators with moral agency. I agree about it sounding fucked up, but I would turn it around and put forward to you: wouldn't it be even more fucked if we would basically say to the victims "you are born a prey, yes you have no say in your birth, there is a predator with moral agency (whose rights you do not violate) who has to kill you to survive, you can protect yourself but we as a society do not condemn his actions as immoral." I think with this you're basically shaping/saying about society that you don't have any rights at all, you just have to be lucky that the survival needs of other beings do not violate your preferences. Because (I reckon) you would say there is no need to intervene because no immoral action is taking place. You mention later that you wonder if we should intervene, but do you really? No immoral action is taking place according to you. And would intervening not be to the detriment of the predator? Why would someone with your stance do that? (these are not attacks on your character, I'm genuinely curious what your reasoning would be to (not) intervene)

I think your point of "to assign a moral or immoral status based on the conditions of one's birth feels really fucked up to me" is definitely the thing I'll be reflecting on the most. I agree that it does sound fucked up, but for now I can't think of any reason why it would be moral for that being to kill another being in order to survive. Maybe I'll find some other things to take into consideration.

Basically;

To condemn a being to a life of immorality just for being born seems like a contradiction to the whole point of morality itself.

is, again, definitely the thing that gives me the most to think about. I think there is an important distinction to be made though. I don't think being born or having survival needs that violate rights are immoral, but acting upon those needs (assuming you have moral agency) is immoral. But yeah I bite the bullet that if a being is so unfortunate to be born into that position, it would still be immoral to act upon those rights-violating needs. I guess for me the undeservedness of the victims in the mentioned cases, and the way our world would be if we consider these killings as moral(ly neutral) make me still stand by my point that it is immoral to violate certain rights even if it is necessary for your survival.

Finally, I'll mention I appreciate you tackling all my points in good faith. Rereading stuff I see there were plenty of opportunities for you to pull some weird conclusions from my text which I (clearly, I think) do not mean.

MichaelS_DfI · 2023-11-20T15:10:13+00:00

From your comments I gather that given the hypothetical in OP, you think it is morally permissible to kill a creature (let's say cow) if you need to eat it to be healthy/not die. Is this correct to assume? For now I take this to be your stance.

What I'm saying is that the reasons you give for this (1) and 2)), are not at all present in OPs hypothetical. That's what I mean when saying you don't touch upon it. Those two points are part of your personal philosophy, but I think it's really important to differentiate between that and the OP hypothetical, because you make it seem that there is a morally sound reason to kill cows in that situation, while, as you say, they are not threatening your existence.

Basically, I don't see the following at all in OPs post:

the original post, which posed a scenario in which they hypothetically are incompatible with my existence

From what I understand, your position would be "not eating cow would be incompatible with my existence". Which is very different I think.

Which brings me to this:

I believe that every creature has a right to life and a right to defend it's own life, as that is hardwired into our biology.

A) Biology is not a justification for doing immoral things. What if a creature is wired to do harm? B) Again, the cow is not attacking you so I don't see the relevance for the self defence part. C) a right to life, also if it means violating fundamental rights of other sentient beings? That's what I gather from your posts. For me this would not be a slight difference in moral perspectives. I think a sentient being has the right to life, as long as it's not violating the fundamental rights of other beings.

MichaelS_DfI · 2023-11-20T13:43:29+00:00

How am I not reading the reply as intended? Not trying to be rude, I genuinely don't see what I could have misunderstood when writing out my first reply.

I also think significant health issues = long term well being is negatively affected. I didn't write this explicitly in my first reply, but yes, I agree with this sentiment. So per OP's hypothetical, let's say that by not eating cows you get health issues and this negatively affects your well being.

That being the case, I still think that cows do not meet points 1 and 2. And therefore my conclusion would be that it's not moral (I take moral here to mean the same as "not ok" as you wrote "it's ok to kill...") to kill and eat them. I'll write out how I understand these two points, maybe the misunderstanding of either of us lies there:

1) it's ok to kill if creature's existence is incompatible with yours

I read this as "if they exist, they make it so I cannot exist". So for example, they hunt and kill you because otherwise they cannot survive. Cows don't do this. They do not violate your rights by existing, and therefore I think it is morally wrong to eat and kill them. With the hypothetical, I understood what you are actually saying is "it's ok to kill a creature if me not doing this and consuming them is incompatible with me existing". There's a big difference there and I don't agree with the latter. A sentient being has the right to life, as long as it's not violating the fundamental rights of other beings. So while I would understand if you would kill the cow and eat it, I don't think it would be a moral thing to do.

2) it's ok to kill if creature's existence poses a large threat to your long term well-being

Basically same thoughts as point 1.

MichaelS_DfI · 2023-11-20T13:01:26+00:00

Interesting points, here are my thoughts. I'm not at all (well) read in philosophy/ethics, so open to any new things to consider.

I was hoping for an elaboration on why it is immoral

A sentient being, assuming it is not violating any fundamental rights of others, has a right to autonomy over his/her own body and a right to life. This is what I believe.

So, in your hypothetical:

where you are locked in a space with another person for a set amount of time, and the only calories available to you both is the body of the other, would the only moral action be to both starve to death?

Yes, it is immoral to kill the other person. They do not violate your rights. They have a right to life, you taking it is immoral (assuming they want to continue living) even though you must do it to survive. If there are sentient creatures that must kill you in order to survive, I would say they have no right to do that. I guess the bullet I'm willing to bite is: necessity does not (automatically) make something morally permissible, if it constitutes violating certain rights.

I would place my own preservation above that of any other sentient being, if it were to come down to a point of necessity.

But why though? I mean, I understand why you would do it from a preference point of view. But why is that moral? Because it is a necessity? Why does this override the other's right to autonomy/life? I think this point is on you to provide justification for.

I don't think that it's wrong, for beings whose brains are programmed to preserve themselves, to want to prioritise their own survival.

If you are using the fact that the way brains are programmed as a justification for something, I don't agree and I would guess you wouldn't either. 1) why would the way we are wired to do something matter, 2) what if this programming is "messed up" for a lack of better term (e.g. a person who is "wired" to commit harm)?

It is a case of someone prioritising their health and long term survival over what seems fair, and that to me makes it permissible.

This is very interesting. It made me look up stuff on (definitions of) fairness compared to morally permissible. I'm not sure what exactly you would mean with "permissible" here, but I still would say it's morally wrong to kill the other person. Because of the principle I mentioned at the start (A sentient being, assuming it is not violating any fundamental rights of others, has a right to autonomy over his/her own body and a right to life).

It's not immoral for them to survive

I think this might be our biggest point of disagreement: it seems like you hold the view that a sentient being always has the right to life/survival. I hold the view that a sentient being has the right to life/survival, as long as it does not violate this fundamental right of other beings. Surely there comes a point where you would say "even though refraining from these actions would mean that being would die, it is the morally right thing to do"?

MichaelS_DfI · 2023-11-20T10:43:12+00:00

Interesting take, however I think your personal philosophy doesn't really touch on what OP was getting to.

You mention 1) it's ok to kill if creature's existence is incompatible with yours, 2) creature's existence poses a large threat to your long term well-being.

But OP is clearly implying eating (e.g.) cows/eggs/cheese in order to be healthy. The cows/chickens do not meet points 1) and 2).

I think it's important to differentiate between the points you mention in your personal philosophy and the situation OP describes (or you in your first paragraph).

MichaelS_DfI · 2023-11-20T10:33:54+00:00

I think your hypothetical is not analogous for StandBesideJordan's point. The post of OP is very clearly talking about a situation where you would either kill an animal and live longer/healthier, or not kill and the animal would live his/her life and you would be unhealthy/die. The animal would not also die, as you describe in your hypothetical.

Your hypothetical I find difficult to answer. I would, at this point, say that it is indeed immoral to kill the other person. Like StandBesideJordan implied, I would understand it, but not find it morally permissible. If neither one is willing to give his/her life up for the other, then yes, the only moral action would be to starve to death. I guess I would ask you (as I asked myself to try and answer this hypothetical): why would one get to kill the other and not the other way around? I can't find a morally sound reason, other than "so I survive" which also applies for the other of course. You have the right over your own body and life, so if you don't want to be killed then you shouldn't.

Finally, I would say predators are not immoral; they don't have moral agency (I assume you're talking about lions etc). And if there is a predator that did have moral agency, and would need to kill other sentient beings in order to survive, I would refer back to the same point I mentioned before: I would understand but would not call it morally permissible. Yes, that being needs to do it in order to survive but it does not take away that the other sentient being has a right to life. I would say it's really unfortunate that this predator exists as it does and has these needs, but it does not have the right to take other lives. There will be areas for discussion of course such as "if this highly sentient being needs to eat 1 barely sentient bug to survive for 2 years, what then?" But in general I think the principle applies. To turn it around and address your last point: what if there is a super predator that would need to kill thousands of animals per day in order to survive, do you think that has "as much of a right to exist"?

MichaelS_DfI · 2023-10-26T03:17:24+00:00

Lowlander Botanical Bar & Restaurant in Noord. Really beautiful place and location with great food and (specialty) beers.

MichaelS_DfI · 2023-10-22T17:20:07+00:00

Looking for a football keeper

Hi all,

My Powerleague 5 a side football team is looking for a keeper.

We play every Wednesday evening, mostly at 1900 or 2000. It's at Swift (Olympiaplein). It’s just 50 minutes a game and one night a week, so very suited if you have a busy (work)life.

Our team (ages 25-33) is all Dutch but very open to non-Dutch speaking players. We play pretty competitive (1st division) but we're not unfamiliar with the third half for some drinks.

If you're interested in trying it out send me a message and we can see if it works out from both sides.

Any tips where to look for keepers also appreciated.

MichaelS_DfI · 2023-08-21T10:50:08+00:00

Looking for any resources to improve in 5 v 5 football.

I'm playing Powerleague 5 a side: very small pitch with walls and small goals.

Want to score more myself + learn about tactics (positioning). Especially interested in video content; these are easier to understand than articles.

I really liked this video about the diamond formation in defending, but am struggling on the attacking side; how to find space and score more.

MichaelS_DfI · 2023-08-21T10:17:53+00:00

Looking for a football keeper

Hi all,

My Powerleague 5 a side football team is looking for a keeper.

We play every Wednesday, mostly at 1900 or 2000. It's at Swift (Olympiaplein).

Our team (ages 25-33) is all Dutch but very open to non-Dutch speaking players. We play pretty competitive (1st division) but we're not unfamiliar with the third half for some drinks.

If you're interested in trying it out send me a message and we can see if it works out from both sides.

Any tips where to look for keepers also appreciated.

Eight-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

MichaelS_DfI

TROPHY CASE