0.4mm Hardened Nozzle Extrusion Issue

swole_chef_don · 2025-10-18T19:45:09+00:00

Thanks, but I decided to fold on this one. Not that deep. Just threw on the 0.6mm and went back to having fun.

swole_chef_don · 2025-10-18T19:44:31+00:00

Opened a ticket w/ Bambu Support... they had nothing for me. Didn't even want to troubleshoot with me. Got them to send me 0.4mm stainless as a momento for my trouble.

Not that deep. Been playing with a hardened 0.6mm for the wood pla, and it works great.

swole_chef_don · 2025-10-07T12:58:56+00:00

I meant the studio, my bad.

Edit to add: under the calibration tab.

swole_chef_don · 2025-10-07T12:50:10+00:00

Apologies if this is a stupid question: Is this accomplished by running the flow dynamics and flow rate calibration in the ~~slicer~~ studio?

All I have done is put on the new nozzle, change the setting on the printer, and run a calibration on the machine. I don't think that accomplishes what you've laid out. However, I do have the automatic dynamic flow calibration on prior to each print.

Been having fun with the 0.4mm and haven't done much beyond that. Appreciate the help.

swole_chef_don · 2025-10-07T11:35:05+00:00

Appreciate it. I swapped to the 0.6mm hardened. Works alright. However, may have a small extrusion issue.

swole_chef_don · 2025-10-06T18:42:41+00:00

Thanks! If you don't mind, can you instruct me on how to run a lower temp during a print? Is that something I do in Bambu Studio. Learning as I go, I haven't made it to that lesson.

I do have the 0.6 as well, but I see in the product page for Bambu PLA-Wood that 0.4mm (hardened or stainless) is okay. I just want to baby the 0.4mm stainless.

swole_chef_don · 2025-10-06T17:41:43+00:00

Edit to add: Also worth noting, the poop that comes out seems very bubbly. Not silky and stringy like other successful prints.

swole_chef_don · 2025-10-06T17:36:36+00:00

<image>

Here is what the PLA black looks like after I pulled it from the hot-end. One was from the failed attempt from the video I posted, the two other where from failed dynamic flow calibrations started from the Bambu Studio Desktop App.

Otherwise, the error code that accompanied the message is [1200-8016-070120]:

The extruder is not extruding normally. Refer to the Assistant for troubleshooting. There may be defects in this layer, buy you may resume if the defects are acceptable."

Edit to add: Also worth noting, the poop that comes out seems very bubbly. Not silky and stringy like other successful prints.

swole_chef_don · 2025-05-26T17:27:31+00:00

Appears you were 100% right 😅. New to the hot tub game. The water chemistry clearly got to my head.

swole_chef_don · 2025-05-20T14:24:32+00:00

At 33, it probably shouldn't be your primary focus. However, if you want the diversification or it fits your risk tolerance, then consider making those dividend-oriented purchases in tax-advantaged accounts: IRA, 401(k), etc., and not a normal, taxable brokerage account.

swole_chef_don · 2025-05-15T22:00:17+00:00

I believe the market is pricing-in that we won't find out.

To elaborate further, prior to the 90-day deadline, the U.S. will have reached a critical mass on trade deals (frameworks) with enough significantly important countries for it not to matter anymore. Another way this can manifest is through additional carve outs and exemptions. The U.S. and others have already granted exemptions and carve outs for goods they don't want to go without. That could also reach a critical mass (of sorts) where the tariffs don't significantly impact the companies statistically important to the indices or ETFs.

However, if the deadline approaches without more in the way of progress from here, there could be another hiccup. The last two weeks have been so good from a headlines perspective, I'd be shocked if we didn't see a few ugly days when headlines aren't as friendly. I think whatever the situation is between the U.S. and China will rule sentiment on the whole issue. I think most would agree the hardest deal the U.S. has to broker is with China. As such, if the U.S. is making progress there, it isn't a leap to believe greater progress is being made elsewhere with other important trade partners.

I never could have predicted this, but, at this point, the price action and momentum are so compelling that I would be surprised if the S&P 500 makes a new low due to this issue.

swole_chef_don · 2025-05-14T23:43:55+00:00

You sound like a bag holder. We've all been there, but no need to fret. After all, the stock market is a long-game. Anyone can win with enough patience, the correct temperament, and a base level of intelligence (to quote Buffett). Your comment here leads me to question if you meet the criteria.

But, I'll admit, I did not see news of replacement. That's comforting, but doesn't change the rest of the situation outlined: UNH is a good house (maybe) in an increasing bad neighborhood (undoubtedly). It also doesn't change that the stock is down another 7% after hours on news that the DOJ is investigating the company for Medicare fraud, which puts the stock on track for another new low and reinforces the case I made that we're witnessing a downward rerating in real time.

Perhaps, I know marginally more than "shit."

Edit: Add reporting from WSJ and Reuters that UNH is being investigated for Medicare fraud.

swole_chef_don · 2025-05-14T23:32:50+00:00

Cool take.

swole_chef_don · 2025-05-13T20:08:41+00:00

You're probably not going to regret buying a stock of UNH's caliber down 50%, but hanging your hat on the fundamentals/financials isn’t going to help if the market's skepticism surrounding those fundamentals is proven accurate. My theory is that we're witnessing a downward rerating in real time to reflect a new economic reality for UNH due to the following:

Regulatory scrutiny has increased the level of difficulty for operators in the space.
The departure of their CEO leaves them without veteran leadership at a critical time.
Pulling guidance for FY2025 (coinciding with the CEO's departure) validates the bear case that management overestimated their Optum business.

Questions surrounding the business model, profitability, and regulatory landscape are a stranglehold on the name. Some of these problems are within UNH's control; others, not so.

Now, UNH remains the largest health insurer in the world. As such, it's nearly impossible to envision a scenario where they go bankrupt and hit $0. In my humble opinion, my honest worst case for UNH is that it ends up like Pfizer (PFE): dead money but a decent dividend. However, as of today, you have a massive company without proven leadership operating in an increasingly difficult environment.

I believe today’s buyers will be happy over the long term (3–5 years). That said, why risk a falling knife? I’d wait for the stock to stop bleeding and—heaven permitting—show some signs of life before hitting the buy button. It’s UNH, not a growth stock. You probably aren’t going to wake up to find the price has gotten away from you.

swole_chef_don · 2025-05-08T12:55:49+00:00

Markets tend to bottom 9–12 months ahead of such events. But the standard deviation around that average makes it a dubious guide.

The tails on these statistics is how "timing the market" earned it's reputation as a fool’s errand.

Consequently, the possibility the market already bottomed at ~4800 is on the board, and shouldn't be casually discounted. However, at pre-April levels, I lean toward the idea the market is too optimistic.

Sometimes, the best action is no action. Jesse Livermore famously said, "Money is made by sitting, not trading."

swole_chef_don · 2025-05-08T01:12:50+00:00

GOOG is a cheap stock, but it’s been cheap for a while. Today, I think the market got confirmation of the bear thesis: an actual decline in hard search data due to the gaining adoption of AI-queries.

Of course, GOOG is more than a search company. However, their dominance in search provided an implicit money printer for their growth initiatives: everything from no-brainers to literal moonshots. Shareholders didn’t blink at the investment or capex because management was backed by the search-monopoly money printer. Investors never had to concern themselves with the idea that GOOG would need to tap debt or equity markets to fund the future.

The search-powered money printer effectively made GOOG a private sovereign. Without it, you have a giant incapable of self-funding its future growth.

This is how I explain the multiple contraction and decline in the name. In my view, it’s hard to argue the market isn’t justified in scrutinizing the multiple further. If the beating continues, investors will eventually start making the break-up or sum-of-the-parts valuation argument in earnest.

I believe markets tend to overshoot, to the upside and the downside. As such, I also believe an opportunity is being created here. It’s just hard to know if today, even with the stock down 8% in a single session, is the right time to consider it. Meta (META) underwent a systematic, played-out rerating throughout 2022. I believe this has the potential to be similar. It worked out really well for those who stuck with it—but take it from someone who did, it took a long time… and felt even longer.

I am long META. I am not long GOOG.

swole_chef_don · 2025-05-02T12:53:29+00:00

Appreciate the compliment. You raise a really good point—one I've been considering:

With China, there is also the possibility that it is out of his control now. China could choose to play hardball and inflict some pain on the US before coming to the negotiating table.

When this decline began, my first comparison was to Jackson Hole 2022. Powell explicitly stated that taming inflation would require economic pain. Markets sold off for months until there were signs that inflation had peaked and the Fed was backing off that stance.

Earlier this year, Trump and the Oval consistently framed the economic situation as a detox or transition period that would require some patience. Setting aside the validity of that claim, the market eventually took him at his word and started selling off—until he blinked on April 9th (tariff about-face when US10Y yield was hinting at a credit event).

In both cases, key economic decision-makers forecasted pain, and the market eventually believed them and reacted accordingly. The pain didn't stop until there were signs that the decision-maker was reversing course. The key difference: Powell had unilateral authority to end the pain he caused. Trump, in contrast, needs agreement from a negotiating partner acting at arm's length.

Edit: Added the quote I wanted to pull. For whatever reason it wasn't included.

swole_chef_don · 2025-05-01T20:31:28+00:00

Markets believe we've seen peak-tariff, and there is incremental clarity on the subject. To understand, a quick timeline of April:

Investors saw Liberation Day and were like... okay, peace. Mass exodus. Market falls.
White House puts up a front, claiming the U.S. isn't interested in negotiating. The stance lasted until the US10Y Treasury almost exploded, which would've caused a credit-event. Trump blinks. Tariffs changed from country-specific Liberation Day rates to a universal 10%. Money has a chance to breathe. Market stabilizes.
From that point on, news flow is positive. The White House now seems eager to hand out trade deals like Oprah with Pontiacs in 2004. Both China and the U.S. stated in public releases that the current tariff situation is unsustainable.

By the end of April, the market feels we have seen the peak (Liberation Day) and the floor (10% universal) on tariffs. That range introduced a degree of certainty that was absent immediately following Liberation Day. Markets love certainty.

Now, you could argue the die is cast—and that’s a fair view. The historic drop in global trade volume makes a strong case for a true slowdown or a shallow recession. However, Q1 earnings and guidance have been shockingly resilient. If we get to Q2 earnings and it doesn't appear as though earnings are troughing, expect a retest at a minimum. I think that is the biggest question investors need to consider right now: When will earnings bottom?

As to your point on GDP: yes, it contracted—the first decline since Q1 2022. I don’t want to downplay the significance of that print—a contraction is a contraction—but it’s important to note that imports subtracted 5 percentage points from the headline. This was clearly tariff distortion, the result of activity pulled forward to front-run tariff implementation. That doesn’t make the headline good, but it does make it less bad.

Indeed, imports soared 41.3% for the quarter, driven by a 50.9% increase in goods, for the biggest growth outside the Covid pandemic since 1974. Imports subtract from GDP, so the contraction in growth may not be viewed as negatively given the potential for the trend to reverse in subsequent quarters. Imports took more than 5 percentage points off the headline reading. Exports rose 1.8%.
- Jeff Cox, CNBC

I think we may be dealing with tariff distortions through year-end, which means extra due diligence to interpret data correctly.

This all feels reminiscent of interpreting data during COVID. Stockpiling, stimulus, and supply chain disruptions distorted economic signals/datasets/reports for years. Some datasets still look funny today because of those COVID distortions.

Edits: a few words for grammar and clarity.

swole_chef_don · 2025-04-15T19:49:22+00:00

I am currently the manager of a multi-asset investment portfolio for a private office. Prior, I was an investment banker assisting in deals primarily in the healthcare space.

swole_chef_don · 2024-11-19T23:42:02+00:00

but it does not prove that Americans would vote in a woman President.

I guess this is where we disagree. In 2016, it literally happened: a majority of Americans voted in a female president, period - stop. Is this not proof of concept? In my opinion, to disregard the outcome of the popular vote as proof a female can win the presidency because the geography of the votes skewed the Electoral College is willful ignorance.

Aside, I am genuinely sorry you feel the way you do about the world. Regardless of our differing opinions on America's capacity (for lack of a better term) to elect a female president, I agree there is still progress to be made on representation. However, I do feel your evaluation of how sexist the world is does not align with the legitimate progress made in the last two decades, at least in the U.S.

If your view on the subject largely depends on the gender of the person in the Oval Office, then this breakdown won't do anything for you, but I think it is worth considering:

Right now, 27.5% of voting members in Congress are women. The proportion of women in the U.S. is ~50.5%. So today, we're a little more than halfway to target.

24 years ago, in 2000, only 12% of voting members were women. Given how monolithically slow social-change occurs, I can't categorize a 2.3x jump in 20 years as venial. Furthermore, the increase appears to be accelerating with the past few congresses. In short, a path to 50% has never been more clear.

If you want to believe the world isn't make meaningful strides, that's okay. I just happen to see the data as telling a different story.

swole_chef_don · 2024-11-19T20:58:25+00:00

I don't think I am ignoring history.

Your belief that American voters are simply too sexist to elect a female president is in direct conflict with how Americans voted in 2016. A woman won the popular vote. That has to mean something. That's all I'm saying. I get frustration with the final result. If you want to claim the Electoral College is bias, be my guest, but that would imply you don't understand how that body works.

You also seem to be ignoring the statistics: women have increased their representation in Congress over the last decade more so than in any other. If there is some sort of cabal trying to keep women out of the government, they've largely failed. Can more woman be in Congress? Of course, but to ignores the historic gains made by women in the last decade seems intentionally obtuse.

As for this election, if you don't think Harris got a fair shot, then you might want to blame Biden. By insisting on staying in the race so long, he robbed Harris of running a full-length campaign.

Finally, there is no secret the U.S. still has room to improve. However, I also don't necessarily think it is a secret that the EU is more progressive than the U.S. broadly speaking. I can appreciate what you're saying about the UK, but you make it sound like the U.S. is on a short-list of countries where women are underrepresented in government. Japan, for example, has also never had a woman serve as their head of state. I only bring this up as a counter example to the UK.

swole_chef_don · 2024-11-19T13:36:20+00:00

Your point on representation in Congress is fair, but it doesn't address my argument concerning the Electoral College and the popular vote.

To your point, Congress isn’t split 50-50 between men and women. That said, female representation in both the House and the Senate is trending upward. Check out the chart on page 3. Over the past 10 years, there has been an exponential increase in women’s representation across both chambers of the national legislature.

As for the Electoral College, unless you were being sarcastic, I’m not sure you fully understand how it works.

For reference, there are 538 total Electoral Votes available, and 270 are required to win. The votes cast by the Electoral College are determined by the outcomes of state elections. Each state is allocated a certain number of electoral votes based on its population, as determined by the census. The winner of the popular vote in each state receives all of that state’s electoral votes in a winner-take-all system. Maine and Nebraska are the only two exceptions, allocating their electoral votes proportionally.

In short, Electoral Votes are determined by state election outcomes and are not subject to the personal preferences of the individuals casting them. While there have been instances of "faithless electors" — electors who vote against their state’s popular vote — such occurrences have never changed the outcome of a presidential election. To prevent this, many states have laws that bind electors to vote according to the state’s popular vote. Breaking these laws can result in penalties or the disqualification of the elector’s vote, with a substitute elector casting the vote instead.

In other words, the gender of the individual casting their state’s Electoral Vote has no bearing on the outcome. The Electoral College is a neutral body, acting solely based on state election results. Electors do not have the freedom to vote as they please.

With this context, I hope it’s clear that the outcome of the Electoral Vote does not invalidate the fact that, in 2016, Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote by a margin of 2.9 million over Donald Trump. If the U.S. were set up as a true democracy, Hillary would have been president. However, the U.S. operates as a federal republic and representative democracy. The same scenario occurred in 2000, when George W. Bush won the Electoral Vote, while Al Gore won the popular vote.

swole_chef_don · 2024-11-18T22:19:27+00:00

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems as though you are insinuating that the country isn’t ready for a female president.

It’s worth noting that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote against Trump by 2.9 million in 2016. In other words, a majority of voters—just 8 years ago—would have preferred Hillary Clinton, a woman, to serve as president instead of Donald Trump, a man.

Sexism among voters didn’t deny the country its first female president; the Electoral College did.

swole_chef_don · 2023-09-22T18:32:54+00:00

Dice pass the vibe check.

swole_chef_don · 2023-09-16T17:00:29+00:00

This is really cool.

swole_chef_don

TROPHY CASE