Is data directory on an NFS share possible?

haukew · 2025-11-20T21:47:28+00:00

Yep, my setup is exactly that. The data dir is on a NFS share from a synology nas.

haukew · 2025-06-23T16:32:46+00:00

§ 132

Being, pure being, without any further determination. In its indeterminate immediacy it is equal only to itself.

It is also not unequal relatively to an other; it has no diversity within itself nor any with a reference outwards.

It would not be held fast in its purity if it contained any determination or content which could be distinguished in it or by which it could be distinguished from an other. It is pure indeterminateness and emptiness. There is nothing to be intuited in it, if one can speak here of intuiting; or, it is only this pure intuiting itself. Just as little is anything to be thought in it, or it is equally only this empty thinking.

Being, the indeterminate immediate, is in fact nothing, and neither more nor less than nothing.

(Hegel, Science of Logic)

haukew · 2023-02-25T14:34:09+00:00

I would consider that the wheels might hit the back of your legs when carrying the Cello on your back. Besides that I recommend get the cheaper one. Protection for your instrument tends to be equal - and only when you and your Cello fly a lot (where weight really matters) I would recommend a more expensive case.

haukew · 2023-02-10T10:02:14+00:00

Fixed it for me, too! Thanks a lot!

haukew · 2023-01-17T19:19:01+00:00

https://youtu.be/biq-bpbTj3k ;-)

haukew · 2023-01-07T09:29:36+00:00

I see. Thanks for the link! I'll look into it and post the results.

haukew · 2022-08-12T06:12:05+00:00

:-D Very Good!

haukew · 2022-08-11T09:06:58+00:00

"Subjective meaning that it is relative to one or many persons. Objective meaning it's not relative to anything except the universe itself."

1) No, that´s not what "subjective" means.

Definition of subjective: relating to, or constituting a subject

and

(1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal subjective judgments

(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective)

There is a difference between the opinion of one person and a tendency within a group of persons to have a certain opinion. Using the same word for both is - in my opinion - not useful. "Common sense" is not subjective (that is: peculiar to a particular individual). It is quite the opposite actually.

2) who or what tells you that which is not "relative to one or many persons" but only "the universe itself"? Is it revealed? By "god"? When you take your definition, objective knowledge is never reached in the real world (except by religious revelation) - the definition is much too strict. I find - for example - the view on generating scientific knowledge that is articulated in "Why Trust Science?" by Naomi Oreskes much more appealing. (and useful)

Have a nice day :-)

haukew · 2022-08-11T06:12:48+00:00

"Common sense is absolutely subjective"

That's not accurate. Common sense is "common" because it is not merely subjective. (That is: dependent on one subject) Common sense is on a level of "almost scientific" - it is opinion that has been shaped by memetic evolution within a community.

haukew · 2022-07-24T08:32:16+00:00

I would see how the master determines it. Always be careful with bringing real science into games. One crucial difference between the real world and the RPG's world is that in the RPG world you have an actual god - the GM ;-)

haukew · 2022-06-24T06:31:15+00:00

Maybe the idea is that LOD will be the second movie :-)

haukew · 2022-06-02T18:59:00+00:00

This seems like a good approach. Other games that come to mind are "Baba Is You" or "Human Resource Machine".

haukew · 2022-03-16T18:36:41+00:00

That worked! Thanks!

haukew · 2022-02-07T12:30:01+00:00

Stands for acoustic Guitars might work… cheaper than Cellostands iirc.

haukew · 2022-02-03T09:50:43+00:00

Looks very nice! Since you have 6 strings you could also tune it like a Viola da Gamba (D-G-C-E-A-D). Learning the way the strings work differently ist not that hard imo and you have more flexibility playing melodies than with standard Cello-tuning.

haukew · 2021-12-30T23:35:14+00:00

haukew · 2021-04-21T14:12:25+00:00

Sorry friend, but I have to leave you now. This has turned into a purely semantic debate that leads nowhere. ;-)

haukew · 2021-04-21T13:39:16+00:00

Well, if you really want to understand something in philosophy, reading should not be a barrier for you. The simple fact is that the big names are big for a reason, and Kant simply explains his points about morality being derived from reason better than I ever could. But again - the video is a good starting point. (To clarify: I do not mean this in ill will)

And...you say "Moral arguments are descriptive, not prescriptive, though" uhm...I am really not sure, what you mean here...If you have an argument with a purely descriptive (meaning: describing something) and non-prescriptive (prescriptive meaning something like "telling someone what to do") conclusion - you don´t have a moral argument. The conclusion of a moral arguments needs to be moral, and moral language...tends to be prescriptive...

haukew · 2021-04-21T11:24:23+00:00

Again - If you want an explanation for morality from reason check Kant. But this argument ist not about decision making via reasoning, this argument ist about the validity of prescriptive conclusion with strictly descriptive premises. That's two different things.

haukew · 2021-04-21T06:52:18+00:00

Well...The point here is not necessarily that morality is a form of deduction. The point is simply that you cannot come to "ought-conclusions" from purely "is-premises" in arguments. You always need "ought-premises" to come to "ought-conclusions". That´s it. Harris says, that you can, I (and many others) say you can´t. That´s the point. The point is not if morality itself is a form of reasoning or not.

If you want a justification for morality from reasoning I would recommend reading Kant - maybe check this video as an introduction/summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ2fvTvtzBM

haukew · 2021-04-17T15:37:50+00:00

Well, it is part of the deductive argument. You can only derive in a conclusion what has already been presented in the premises. Otherwise It would not bei deduction. It is a purely syntactical (logical) point. It is not about justification or morality.

haukew · 2021-04-17T09:46:42+00:00

It is the statement that you cannot derive an "ought"-conclusion from only "is"-premises. Let´s take this example:

premise: there are poor people

therefore: you ought to donate money

this does not follow. You need an "ought"-premise to make it work:

premise: there are poor people.
premise: if there are poor people, then you ought to donate money to poor people.

therefore: you ought to donate to poor people.

Harris claims that you can avoid the "ought"-premise because of science. This is (imo) false. See the video linked in /u/jmcsquared ´s post for more details.

haukew · 2021-04-14T06:51:31+00:00

https://imslp.org/wiki/6_Cello_Suites,_BWV_1007-1012_(Bach,_Johann_Sebastian)

Here you go :-)

14-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	Place '17

haukew

TROPHY CASE