Idm Best Alternative

[Yaima President]

Itis really annoying that all useable colors are always sold out. I mean always lol. It is kind of a joke - especially because bambu is selling memberships for filaments. Anyway, I wanted to ask if anyone has some good available alternatives, I tried 3Djake, Sunlu and Extrudr so far, where the sunlu was by far the best. Which 3rd party filament gave you the best results?

Hello Alex, can you indicate how you came to that discovery? Just curious! Last year, people stated that Bambulab PLA is the same as eSun Pla+

If it is true (polymaker I mean) that could be a solution for the stupid shortage of Bambulab Pla Basi in their european store: At the moment there are only 3 coulours available of the 20 (spool) an 13 (refill) colours.

But there is another point: the polymaker spools are cardboard spools and my experience with these spools is not very good . . .

Many ISPs block port 80 (HTTP) and port 25 (SMTP), as well as some other ports to home users. Typically, their response to this is that these protocols are "business related" or something along those lines. I assume this is the case for you.

When port 80 is used for one address/webserver, it's fairly common to use port 8080 or 8000 for another site on the same address/webserver. This is most likely because they are similar enough to 80 that they are easy to remember. I have seen this done for external facing sites as well.

Alternatively, you can use any port you want. See this list of standard and unofficial ports. You could run it on port 23, if you didn't plan on using telnet to your Linux machine. In a web browser, you would just type domain.com:23.

If you run Linux as a non-privileged user (non-root) you can listen to any port above 1024, so 8008 and 8080 are good candidates. Then to access the server from your browser, you will need to specify the port in the url, such as :8080.

Note that port 8000 is sometimes used for HTTP, but IANA assigned it to iRDMI (Intel Remote Desktop Management Interface). While it is unlikely to be an issue in a private environment, it is best to refrain from using it for HTTP given better alternatives are available.

As everyone else on here has said, it is basically pointless to host a web server on any port other than port 80... unless you're hosting it from home. Many ISPs throttle outbound TCP/UDP ports 80 and 443 (IANA defines as HTTP and HTTPS, respectively), and in this case, using those ports will detract from site loading speeds, etc. However, IANA has assigned 3 HTTP-ALT ports for both TCP and UDP. These are: 591, 8008 and 8080. Using these ports is also acceptable, but you will be making the life of server admins hell.

The better alternative is not moral relativism. The better alternative is moderation, a commodity that is rapidly disappearing in political life, with dangerous consequences for the American republic.

I do not aim here to settle old scores or to criticize friends and former colleagues. After all, the beliefs that I find wanting today are the very beliefs that I myself held for most of my adult life. I simply mean to put in stark relief the pitfalls of ideological thinking, to illustrate those pitfalls in the world I know best, and to make the case for something better.

The first pangs of doubt about my old ideological attachments arose from my loss of faith in the case against climate action. As I began to express doubts about the narratives offered by climate skeptics, I found it impossible to offer an argument that resonated with my libertarian colleagues. But just how, exactly, does an ideological commitment to limited government, free markets, and individual dignity inform an understanding of atmospheric physics or paleoclimate records? And what does libertarianism have to contribute regarding the case for hedging against incredibly dangerous risks stemming from the misuse of a common pool resource, such as the atmosphere?

Libertarians have nothing at all to contribute to the conversation about the science of climate change as libertarians. They could, however, marshal ideological insights to suggest the best means of addressing global warming if it indeed turns out to warrant a policy response (as I believe it does). For libertarians, that could mean a carbon tax, but for other, more hardline libertarians, it could mean that greenhouse gas emitters should be held liable for climate-related damages via common-law legal proceedings.

This problem extended beyond the realm of climate change. Over and over again, libertarian friends and colleagues were engaged in fierce, uncompromising debate about empirical matters that had nothing to do with libertarian principles or commitments. Is the Keynesian multiplier consequential? Is Thomas Piketty correct that returns to capital are greater than the rate of growth? Do tax cuts pay for themselves? A libertarian could take either side of those disputes without having to recant any of their principles or fundamental beliefs. But to cross the party line on these or an ocean of similar empirical matters was to risk unemployment.

The point is that what ideologues fiercely believe about empirical arguments has little to do with their ideological priors. It has to do with the policy implications of those empirical arguments given their ideologically-driven preferences.

We should not shrink from the truth based on what that truth might mean for our pre-existing beliefs. I know libertarians well and they tend to accept this in theory, but like all ideologues, they have difficulty accepting it in practice. Libertarians do not care for government because they believe it is inherently coercive and destructive of individual liberty. Hence, they are highly motivated to dismiss arguments that might suggest an important need for government, or evidence that offers a cautionary warning about the negative consequences that might follow from a curtailment of governmental power.

Reason, as David Hume famously noted, is a slave of the passions, and libertarian passions point in one direction and one direction only: hostility to government. This passion is a powerful engine of motivated cognition, which invariably leads to weak policy analysis and dogmatism.

How should we interpret and apply our ideological principles? It is often far from clear. It turns out that applying general nostrums in the real world is not such an easy task. Despite the fact, for instance, that most libertarians offer principled objections to state-mandated racial preferences, one can also find libertarians repairing to those very same principles to defend affirmative action and reparations to African-Americans. Despite the fact that most libertarians object to labor unions as coercive, socialist enterprises, libertarian principles have also been marshalled to justify opposition to antilabor laws like the Taft-Hartley Act and right-to-work statutes.

Moreover, all libertarians agree that there are exceptions to their ethically-driven opposition to the use of government coercion and force. If there were not, there would be no libertarians; there would only be anarchists. But what are the scale and scope of those exceptions?

Debates within the libertarian community about how liberty should be understood, how liberty should be applied, and how to adjudicate exceptions to the rule against the use of government force are fierce and unending. Internecine libertarian disputes inflame passions to the same degree as do disputes between liberals and conservatives about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. Factionalism within the libertarian world is rife and irresolvable because the principles themselves say less than you might think about what public policy ought to be (a point made with great force by my colleague Will Wilkinson).

There is nothing wrong with policy advocacy that is informed by a commitment to principles. In fact, it is almost impossible for us to do otherwise given that principles are the projection of personal values into the political realm. Thinking about politics without principled considerations is to think about politics as the exercise of power without moral limit.

But there is no obvious reason why we should hold one principle to be more important than any other in nearly every single policy context. All of the worthy principles marshaled in American politics are important, but some will be more important than others depending upon the circumstance. They cannot all be fully realized at the same time with any given policy proposal. Ethically difficult trade-offs are necessary, and those trade-offs must be transparently considered on a case-by-case basis. There is little room for ideology in this undertaking.

Accordingly, any attempt to govern with an ideological compass runs aground given the extreme unlikelihood that there will ever be a social consensus about which ethical principle should be first among equals in political deliberations. Ideological doctrinairism fails to acknowledge and respect the pluralism of social and political life. It is pregnant with the prospect of political oppression, particularly since the passions stirred up by monomaniacal moral or ethical commitments breed fanaticism, Manichean thinking, and political extremism.

Most importantly, the defense of ideology as a lens for measuring policy effects on well-being begs the question of how, exactly, we should define human well-being in the first place. An equity-grounded ideologue will define it in one fashion, a utilitarian will define it in another, a libertarian ideologue in another, a conservative ideologue in yet another, ad infinitum. In short, any ideological crusade is a crusade of conquest by political force.

What is the alternative to ideology? There is no easy answer. Without some means of sorting through the reams of information coming at us every day, we would be overwhelmed and incapable of considered thought or action. Without any underlying principles or beliefs whatsoever, we are dangerously susceptible to believing anything, no matter how ludicrous, and to act cruelly without moral constraint. Yet any set of beliefs, if they are coherent, are the wet clay of ideology. Hence, the best we can do is to police our inner ideologue with a studied, skeptical outlook, a mindful appreciation of our own fallibility, and an open, inquisitive mind.

3a8082e126