What I was trying to say is they would just end up using ECC as a crutch, anyways. They already do this with solid state drives. Many reliability errors get swept under the rug because they're caught by error correction. So much so that there's doubt they would function without error correction.
They would just do the same with RAM, force error correction for unreliable hardware so that it passes muster. I want the option to run ECC -- via BIOS, not have it imposed. I want the exact state of my hardware to be known if it's anything less than optimal. ECC would obscure these issues for the layman and make suboptimal performance that much more difficult to troubleshoot. Just food for thought.
A month late, but better than never.
Ah, right. The Supreme Court decided we only get to have the rights we can remember under any given circumstance. Don't let the cops catch you sleeping. Totally normal stuff in a totally normal democracy. Not at all a sign of any sort.
As a devil's advocate; what if they allowed ECC by default and manufacturers became overly reliant on it to make certain RAM chips binnable that never should have been?
There's also nowhere to shoot in most red states, except ranges and private land. They sold it all. BLM land is almost non-existent and NSFS that doesn't have wildlife conservation efforts (thus making much shooting illegal) is exceptionally rare to come by. So most of it has to be done at ranges. Gate keeping ranges would exclude people from shooting altogether.
I mean, I tolerate leftists but not always without discord. If you look at my history -- really, feel free -- you'll see that I go to bat with them all the time. I'm 100% on board with this message:
How about getting pissed off that 7 million leftist can muster the energy to drive miles to stand around for a single day but can’t be bothered to fight the spread of right wing bullshit.
There's no disagreement, here. I call them out all the time. It's.. like what I do.
You seem to be under the impression that I may be part of the tolerant non-auth left. I am not. I am part of the intolerant non-auth left. The right wing is stupid. Fuck 'em and their sympathizers. Also, you're a right-wing apologist if you're actually 'leaning left' as you claim. For your.. uhh.. self-awareness.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Winston Churchill
I commend you for using yourself as an example. You're right. The bar to participate in politics should be raised above you. Unfortunately.. that's not really democracy, anymore. But good argument. I still stand by your right to vote. Even if it hurts a bit inside.
I agree. Showing up to show you support for those out here that still don't accept defeat as an answer and fight the good fight for the few that read this far.
I guess the message I'm not getting is that they believe WWII didn't solve fascism in the US so that extrapolates to today's issues. Thus, according to them, violence is bad. The reason I never acknowledged this message is because we never fought a war against fascism in the US, and thus fascist elements were largely shielded from the violence and never dealt with, only suppressed. So I found that entire argument too absurd to consider.
I get you and respect your approach. I'm referring primarily to a discussion I've had with them before. I'll roughly quote myself from another thread: Treating fascists like fascists by being fascist doesn't make you fascist. It makes you reasonable. This is what treating intolerance with intolerance is and feels like. He's arguing in favor of horseshoe theory. A common tactic to dissuade people from fighting back against violence. They also believe the United States isn't becoming more fascist. This isn't an oddity, it's part of a dangerous message.
Whether they're cognizant or not isn't important because they simply refuse to debate or accept fair criticism of their approach. Also, if you have time: Could you qualify in what case history has attested to their point of view? I can only think of the rise of communism and the left vs right political violence in Germany-pre WWII that someone might consider that. Europe did not become more fascist after WWII, to my knowledge but I'm at risk of sounding like I'm trying to argue your point with that.
I advocate for intolerance towards intolerance which is a choice that fascists make. Fascists victimize people not for choices, but for circumstances outside an individual's control. That difference is the difference between the just and the unjust.
This kid isn't advocating for what you think they are. They're advocating for the oppressed to relinquish their defenses so the oppressors won't use violence against them. The solution, to them, is submission. They've made it clear they don't actually take a stand against fascism in other threads. They are a fascist apologist that uses divisive language to drive wedge issues, and really nothing more. That's why they were so quick to label me. They know that I know what they truly are.
When you can solve the Paradox of Tolerance without the use of violence, then you can try to make a point. Not that I expect you to be able to. You're just not that intelligent.
Your ignorance is on full display. Karl Popper said that. I'm guessing you're also one of those who, when backed into a corner, can't answer a simple yes or no to this question: "Do you support violence against violent fascists?" Can you, without attempting to twist the words or make it about me, answer that question in simple yes or no terms? Just to be absolutely clear; I'm not implying anyone is the violent fascist in this question. Just a simple yes or no will do. Answer that and I'd be happy to entertain the rest of your questions.
Ah, that explains it. I only watch Night Court. It went completely over my head.
What I was trying to say is they would just end up using ECC as a crutch, anyways. They already do this with solid state drives. Many reliability errors get swept under the rug because they're caught by error correction. So much so that there's doubt they would function without error correction. They would just do the same with RAM, force error correction for unreliable hardware so that it passes muster. I want the option to run ECC -- via BIOS, not have it imposed. I want the exact state of my hardware to be known if it's anything less than optimal. ECC would obscure these issues for the layman and make suboptimal performance that much more difficult to troubleshoot. Just food for thought. A month late, but better than never.
Ah, right. The Supreme Court decided we only get to have the rights we can remember under any given circumstance. Don't let the cops catch you sleeping. Totally normal stuff in a totally normal democracy. Not at all a sign of any sort.
As a devil's advocate; what if they allowed ECC by default and manufacturers became overly reliant on it to make certain RAM chips binnable that never should have been?
I understand the distinction, and see what you mean.
There's also nowhere to shoot in most red states, except ranges and private land. They sold it all. BLM land is almost non-existent and NSFS that doesn't have wildlife conservation efforts (thus making much shooting illegal) is exceptionally rare to come by. So most of it has to be done at ranges. Gate keeping ranges would exclude people from shooting altogether.
Not with that attitude, they won't.
I mean, I tolerate leftists but not always without discord. If you look at my history -- really, feel free -- you'll see that I go to bat with them all the time. I'm 100% on board with this message:
There's no disagreement, here. I call them out all the time. It's.. like what I do.
You seem to be under the impression that I may be part of the tolerant non-auth left. I am not. I am part of the intolerant non-auth left. The right wing is stupid. Fuck 'em and their sympathizers. Also, you're a right-wing apologist if you're actually 'leaning left' as you claim. For your.. uhh.. self-awareness.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Winston Churchill
I commend you for using yourself as an example. You're right. The bar to participate in politics should be raised above you. Unfortunately.. that's not really democracy, anymore. But good argument. I still stand by your right to vote. Even if it hurts a bit inside.
The quest to find the true bloodninja continues.
Looks like you're not the washed up one, after all.
I agree. Showing up to show you support for those out here that still don't accept defeat as an answer and fight the good fight for the few that read this far.
Have you ever tried to out crazy the crazy and force them to try to take the reasonable stance? It's cathartic.
I guess the message I'm not getting is that they believe WWII didn't solve fascism in the US so that extrapolates to today's issues. Thus, according to them, violence is bad. The reason I never acknowledged this message is because we never fought a war against fascism in the US, and thus fascist elements were largely shielded from the violence and never dealt with, only suppressed. So I found that entire argument too absurd to consider.
I get you and respect your approach. I'm referring primarily to a discussion I've had with them before. I'll roughly quote myself from another thread: Treating fascists like fascists by being fascist doesn't make you fascist. It makes you reasonable. This is what treating intolerance with intolerance is and feels like. He's arguing in favor of horseshoe theory. A common tactic to dissuade people from fighting back against violence. They also believe the United States isn't becoming more fascist. This isn't an oddity, it's part of a dangerous message.
Whether they're cognizant or not isn't important because they simply refuse to debate or accept fair criticism of their approach. Also, if you have time: Could you qualify in what case history has attested to their point of view? I can only think of the rise of communism and the left vs right political violence in Germany-pre WWII that someone might consider that. Europe did not become more fascist after WWII, to my knowledge but I'm at risk of sounding like I'm trying to argue your point with that.
I advocate for intolerance towards intolerance which is a choice that fascists make. Fascists victimize people not for choices, but for circumstances outside an individual's control. That difference is the difference between the just and the unjust.
This kid isn't advocating for what you think they are. They're advocating for the oppressed to relinquish their defenses so the oppressors won't use violence against them. The solution, to them, is submission. They've made it clear they don't actually take a stand against fascism in other threads. They are a fascist apologist that uses divisive language to drive wedge issues, and really nothing more. That's why they were so quick to label me. They know that I know what they truly are.
When you can solve the Paradox of Tolerance without the use of violence, then you can try to make a point. Not that I expect you to be able to. You're just not that intelligent.
You're still advocating for hugging Nazis into peaceful coexistence out here, huh?
Your ignorance is on full display. Karl Popper said that. I'm guessing you're also one of those who, when backed into a corner, can't answer a simple yes or no to this question: "Do you support violence against violent fascists?" Can you, without attempting to twist the words or make it about me, answer that question in simple yes or no terms? Just to be absolutely clear; I'm not implying anyone is the violent fascist in this question. Just a simple yes or no will do. Answer that and I'd be happy to entertain the rest of your questions.