It still doesn't matter, because the consumers are paying the bills. They get to decide.
Eventually, you'll put a label on it.
I would argue that consumers also needs to be protected from misinformation. If consumers are falling for fake cancer treatments wrapped with convincing rhetoric, then various agencies -- whether state-operated, independent panels or journalists -- with expertise in the relevant fields should have a voice in the public discourse. You seem to be implying that consumers should be unaware of the science and motivations behind decisions, which I find to be extremely dangerous for a society.
Oh, but it does. I don't want to support companies that would patent basic foodstuffs. I don't believe patents should even be allowed for basic foodstuffs. So I can act upon that information by not buying Chiquita bananas.
Well, patents on foodstuff have existed for over a century, so your original focus on GMO companies seems misguided, as the first modern transgenic plant (which is the technology that typically gets called GMO) didn't exist until 1983. Anyone in the US can get a 20 year patent on a plant they invented or discovered, provided they can reliably reproduce it, among a few other criteria. If you disagree with the concept of patents then advocate changing patent laws instead of going the roundabout way of labeling specific technologies and companies for the tangentially related industry practice of seeking patent protection while they commercialize their product, to get back their R&D spending.
Well, no. I do not find it acceptable, because it doesn't seem to convey any useful information. With labels for e.g. allergens, alcohol, tobacco or cancer risk, useful health information can be conveyed. With kosher and halal it conveys that it is compliant with specific religious practices. But whether or not e.g. a banana is a hybridized polyploid clone from Chiquita doesn't seem to tell the average consumer much for them to act upon.
That's what makes the labeling arbitrary. By that criterion, every product could be labeled for everything that it is or isn't. Should bread be labeled for its wheat being mutation-bred? Should Granny Smith apples be labeled for being clones? Strawberries labeled for being hybrids?
You just seem to be elaborating on the complications of boycotting, but all that was ever asked from you was why you wanted to boycott self-cloning rice. Could you instead elaborate on why self-cloning rice would lead to a monopoly? Judging by the paper's authors it seems to be a joint US-French research initiative, so I suspect it's not because of any Israeli involvement.
Well I was engaging in some hyperbole for comedic effect. But think of the diabetic Frenchmen, not only could their insulin and cheese be GMO, but even their wine grapes have been substantially mutated from their "natural" state.
I've always felt that it seemed arbitrary and ill-willed to force GMO products to be labeled. Labeling products resulting from older GM technology that currently fill our grocery shelves, such as radiation or chemically induced mutation breeding or hybridization is never brought up, even though they're arguably no more predictable or safe. Crops that reproduce asexually already exist; shouldn't they be labeled too?
Unjustifiably labeling GMO can sway uninformed people into incorrect assumptions, such as equating it to dangerous products and ingredients that are also labeled in many countries, like tobacco, alcohol and allergens.
It seems brash to think that society only should bother choosing one specific solution. A seemingly more attainable approach to feeding the world would be a little bit of every solution:
* Introduce crops that are more nutritious, disease resistant, drought tolerant, and can be harvested more often in a year
* Reduce the use of arable farmland taken up by non-food production, e.g. palm oil trees for ethanol, maize for corn syrup
* Reduce the use of inefficient ideology-based organic farming with more efficient science-based farming
* Let land-use-efficient crops be a bigger part of our diets, e.g. by replacing some beef and lamb meals with fish, chicken and vegetables
* Slow down population growth in developing countries by helping them industrialize, increase education rates, decrease mortality and introduce family planning
* Reduce food waste in transportation, grocery stores, restaurants and at home
Though I understood about a tenth of what you wrote, you seem to be saying that you're against monopolies. While I disagree with that premise, the seeming introduction of non-sequiturs (passing laws, criminality, threats, jail time, country X, swearing oaths, employment, blacklisting, BDS, Israel, posting as AC) and your conclusion, I suppose it's at least an argument. That's all I asked for, and you sure delivered a fascinating one.
The paper's researchers are from universities and research institutes:
Department of Plant Biology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
Department of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
Innovative Genomics Institute, Berkeley, CA, USA
Institut Jean-Pierre Bourgin, INRA, AgroParisTech, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Versailles, France
I don't see a specific biotech company being behind this research.
So farmers who want consistently higher yields have to pay for new hybrid seeds every year.
This is seriously used as an argument? really?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how this was used as an argument. It's just describing the process and effect of hybridization, which is a very integral part of modern western food production, whereby two inbred parent crops are bred to produce a very specific hybrid seed. The planted hybrid crop in turn can only produce unpredictable junk seeds, for a similar reason as to why mules can rarely have successful offspring.
We all know there will be yearly licensing costs for using the intellectual property, enforced by an army of lawyers. Monsanto^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Bayer has shown the way, many will follow.
Some biotech company or university may have invested a decade of R&D into this. Using this crop variety may require signing a contract on how it can be used. This is standard fare in a capitalist economy with intellectual property laws. I don't think it's fair to blame specific companies and universities for wanting a way to finance such R&D. Blame the laws.
Again, you're equating what was promised with what people got. History is strongly suggesting that communism as originally defined cannot be implemented successfully, but it doesn't magically change the words that were printed when defining it.
I partly disagree. There are more labels to the various socialist politics than just communism, just like how e.g. libertarianism and fascism are both very different implementations of capitalism. Communism as originally described was never implemented, except for in name. It's a bit like how North Korea or GDR calling themselves democratic doesn't make them especially democratic, and they shouldn't be held as examples of democracies.
I can totally see your point though. Communism can be placed at opposite ends on the authoritarian spectrum, depending on whether you look at the literary description of a stateless utopia or all the socialist totalitarian states that claimed to be communist.
To the point of it all, I just want things to be labeled unambiguously. Call China, say, totalitarian.
To be pedantic, I wouldn't classify China as communist. The irony in the summary was not lost on me either:
[...] enforced by the country's authoritarian Communist Party government.
Communism entails a minimal or absent state, because it would supposedly become redundant once all class struggle has disappeared. China instead has a massive and suppressive authoritarian state, mixing capitalist and nationalistic ideas into socialist ones. They're in no way progressing towards communism, but they are hovering close to national socialism.
It could also mean that if Tesla sells a long-range version of the Model 3, but limits it via software, people might try to remove the block. One could potentially get a 15-day trial of full self-driving for free and extend that 15-day window forever
I'm pretty sure that all cars are using separate computers for infotainment and motor control - one some consumer-based OS, and another a locked-down real-time OS. It would seem foolhardy to place much more than infotainment in the infotainment system.
If the ocean life got a wallop of cosmic rays, wouldn't the land creatures fare even worse?
Neither the article nor paper's abstract went into it, so I instead have to hypothesize that perhaps the ocean surface micro-organisms were especially sensitive to radiation, leading to an ecological collapse... or maybe the supernovae and extinction events are even unrelated.
Turn time was 15.7 for 2600k and 12.5 for 8700k. So, I stand corrected that it's not nil. But it's closer to ~+25%.
Thanks for the correction. I must've looked at the overclocked number there.
Um, if you don't know his workload, using a generic benchmark doesn't contradict him. It only proves that if he *has* a generic workload that his statement is contradictory. That's why I pointed out the Gamers Nexus benchmark because it's possibly much closer to his workload.
I was careful to use the word seems to show that this was my impression based on his unspecific "30% slower" comment. Other readers less versed in the nuances of measuring CPU performance could get the impression that there actually only is a 30% performance difference between old and new CPUs, which I consider to be a misleading measure. This is why I challenged him with more specific numbers, which gives another picture.
YMMV. If you want to argue that the GP was unclear because he didn't specify his workload, that's a potentially valid complaint. The problem is, if he states on the order of a 30% improvement, that's very much in line with the likes of Gamers Nexus results. I'd tend to argue that statement was precisely in reference to those who have been paying attention to results in games and seeing similar numbers. It's not contrived to suggest that most gamers, in the same boat, would understand the comparison being implicitly made.
I also assumed he was talking about single-threaded performance based on that figure (or worse, comparing GHz numbers directly like some of my friends thinks is appropriate). If he had just used some term like single-threaded performance I wouldn't have bothered him. But he omitted it, so I felt the need to correct him.
A lot of times when people advocate for things, they make a set of presumptions that similar minded people (say, people on Slashdot) have similar goals in life. So, they don't go out of their way to spell out a deep philosophical/motivational structure. I really can't say that people who fail to spell out these things are inherently misleading or their statements are contrived. I would definitely agree with an argument that more clarity should be pursued precisely to avoid misunderstanding or additional clarification.
Sometimes, though, it meanders into pointless pedantic arguments. I would suggest that in the future, you try to give more benefit of the doubt. Unless, of course, someone is trying to sell you something. Marketers tend to abuse that.:)
Hmm, in hindsight I should have made it clearer from the beginning that I wanted to call his comment's comparison "contrived and misleading," not his person. Regardless, the pedant in me wanted to correct his comment because I wanted to avoid others (and maybe even GP) from being misled by unspecific numbers and easy answers, when reality is more complex.
The benchmark by Gamers Nexus shows that there is a ~+35% improvement for Civ 6 turn time for 8700K (similar performance to 8700, except overclockable). This is not nil.
Also, GP did not specify his workload, so I gave him generic benchmarking results which seemed to contradict him.
So I still consider GP to have made a misleading comment by making a contrived comparison.
With that said, I agree with you that current CPU performance may not motivate people to switch. That is however a judgement for each individual to make, and I wasn't disagreeing with GP on that point.
It seems contrived and misleading of you to limit your comparison to current quad-core CPUs, as Intel hardly makes those anymore. If instead comparing the launch cost of the 2600K (~300 USD), then a current match would be the 8700.
For that you get approx. +80% multi-threaded performance and +35% single-threaded performance, for -30% power consumption.
Hmm, I found this article that references the 70% number, which also points to "figures from CBS:" https://web.archive.org/web/20...
...but I couldn't find any such figures in their data that you linked. Maybe my search terms are just off or not politically correct enough, but why can't people ever cite their sources? Geez.
You seem to be telling people to prefer anecdotes over clinical studies and recommended guidelines. Your comment could just as well be making the same argument for astrology, homeopathy or fake cancer treatments.
The article and its cited studies are mainly delving into the context of cardiovascular disease, mortality and general health markers. As for your specific case of back pain, the author even seems to agree with you:
[...], but like many things in life, they’re fine if you like them. And if it helps alleviate some back and neck pain, so much the better. It’s just that most people probably don’t need them.
For the record, I've been using a sit-stand desk at work (~80% of the day in standing mode) for four years, and I can't really detect any health difference. Though I appreciate that while sleep-deprived, standing up will prevent me from dozing off.
Poor people don't make good immigration numbers. It ends up a net negative overall.
You can link your usual cherry-picked bullshit stats on how "immigrants totally pay more taxes!!" all you want. Doesn't change the actual facts.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic now, but do you know of any studies that support what you're claiming? I'm genuinely curious what the numbers show.
Slashdot Mirror
It still doesn't matter, because the consumers are paying the bills. They get to decide.
Eventually, you'll put a label on it.
I would argue that consumers also needs to be protected from misinformation. If consumers are falling for fake cancer treatments wrapped with convincing rhetoric, then various agencies -- whether state-operated, independent panels or journalists -- with expertise in the relevant fields should have a voice in the public discourse. You seem to be implying that consumers should be unaware of the science and motivations behind decisions, which I find to be extremely dangerous for a society.
Oh, but it does. I don't want to support companies that would patent basic foodstuffs. I don't believe patents should even be allowed for basic foodstuffs. So I can act upon that information by not buying Chiquita bananas.
Well, patents on foodstuff have existed for over a century, so your original focus on GMO companies seems misguided, as the first modern transgenic plant (which is the technology that typically gets called GMO) didn't exist until 1983. Anyone in the US can get a 20 year patent on a plant they invented or discovered, provided they can reliably reproduce it, among a few other criteria. If you disagree with the concept of patents then advocate changing patent laws instead of going the roundabout way of labeling specific technologies and companies for the tangentially related industry practice of seeking patent protection while they commercialize their product, to get back their R&D spending.
Well, no. I do not find it acceptable, because it doesn't seem to convey any useful information. With labels for e.g. allergens, alcohol, tobacco or cancer risk, useful health information can be conveyed. With kosher and halal it conveys that it is compliant with specific religious practices. But whether or not e.g. a banana is a hybridized polyploid clone from Chiquita doesn't seem to tell the average consumer much for them to act upon.
That's what makes the labeling arbitrary. By that criterion, every product could be labeled for everything that it is or isn't. Should bread be labeled for its wheat being mutation-bred? Should Granny Smith apples be labeled for being clones? Strawberries labeled for being hybrids?
You just seem to be elaborating on the complications of boycotting, but all that was ever asked from you was why you wanted to boycott self-cloning rice. Could you instead elaborate on why self-cloning rice would lead to a monopoly? Judging by the paper's authors it seems to be a joint US-French research initiative, so I suspect it's not because of any Israeli involvement.
Well I was engaging in some hyperbole for comedic effect. But think of the diabetic Frenchmen, not only could their insulin and cheese be GMO, but even their wine grapes have been substantially mutated from their "natural" state.
I've always felt that it seemed arbitrary and ill-willed to force GMO products to be labeled. Labeling products resulting from older GM technology that currently fill our grocery shelves, such as radiation or chemically induced mutation breeding or hybridization is never brought up, even though they're arguably no more predictable or safe. Crops that reproduce asexually already exist; shouldn't they be labeled too?
Unjustifiably labeling GMO can sway uninformed people into incorrect assumptions, such as equating it to dangerous products and ingredients that are also labeled in many countries, like tobacco, alcohol and allergens.
It seems brash to think that society only should bother choosing one specific solution. A seemingly more attainable approach to feeding the world would be a little bit of every solution:
* Introduce crops that are more nutritious, disease resistant, drought tolerant, and can be harvested more often in a year
* Reduce the use of arable farmland taken up by non-food production, e.g. palm oil trees for ethanol, maize for corn syrup
* Reduce the use of inefficient ideology-based organic farming with more efficient science-based farming
* Let land-use-efficient crops be a bigger part of our diets, e.g. by replacing some beef and lamb meals with fish, chicken and vegetables
* Slow down population growth in developing countries by helping them industrialize, increase education rates, decrease mortality and introduce family planning
* Reduce food waste in transportation, grocery stores, restaurants and at home
Though I understood about a tenth of what you wrote, you seem to be saying that you're against monopolies. While I disagree with that premise, the seeming introduction of non-sequiturs (passing laws, criminality, threats, jail time, country X, swearing oaths, employment, blacklisting, BDS, Israel, posting as AC) and your conclusion, I suppose it's at least an argument. That's all I asked for, and you sure delivered a fascinating one.
...Unless the loser is really bitter about the winner, such as medieval English monks writing about vikings.
Java is a very established language and platform for servers. Maybe you're confusing it with the browser plugin?
The paper's researchers are from universities and research institutes:
Department of Plant Biology, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
Department of Genetics, Development and Cell Biology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
Innovative Genomics Institute, Berkeley, CA, USA
Institut Jean-Pierre Bourgin, INRA, AgroParisTech, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Versailles, France
I don't see a specific biotech company being behind this research.
So farmers who want consistently higher yields have to pay for new hybrid seeds every year.
This is seriously used as an argument? really?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how this was used as an argument. It's just describing the process and effect of hybridization, which is a very integral part of modern western food production, whereby two inbred parent crops are bred to produce a very specific hybrid seed. The planted hybrid crop in turn can only produce unpredictable junk seeds, for a similar reason as to why mules can rarely have successful offspring.
We all know there will be yearly licensing costs for using the intellectual property, enforced by an army of lawyers. Monsanto^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Bayer has shown the way, many will follow.
Some biotech company or university may have invested a decade of R&D into this. Using this crop variety may require signing a contract on how it can be used. This is standard fare in a capitalist economy with intellectual property laws. I don't think it's fair to blame specific companies and universities for wanting a way to finance such R&D. Blame the laws.
Apparently motivation enough that ad hominems suffice to counter criticism. Why even bother with presenting evidence or arguments! =)
But people need their steady supply of hard cheese and insulin.
Again, you're equating what was promised with what people got. History is strongly suggesting that communism as originally defined cannot be implemented successfully, but it doesn't magically change the words that were printed when defining it.
I partly disagree. There are more labels to the various socialist politics than just communism, just like how e.g. libertarianism and fascism are both very different implementations of capitalism. Communism as originally described was never implemented, except for in name. It's a bit like how North Korea or GDR calling themselves democratic doesn't make them especially democratic, and they shouldn't be held as examples of democracies.
I can totally see your point though. Communism can be placed at opposite ends on the authoritarian spectrum, depending on whether you look at the literary description of a stateless utopia or all the socialist totalitarian states that claimed to be communist.
To the point of it all, I just want things to be labeled unambiguously. Call China, say, totalitarian.
[...] enforced by the country's authoritarian Communist Party government.
Communism entails a minimal or absent state, because it would supposedly become redundant once all class struggle has disappeared. China instead has a massive and suppressive authoritarian state, mixing capitalist and nationalistic ideas into socialist ones. They're in no way progressing towards communism, but they are hovering close to national socialism.
It could also mean that if Tesla sells a long-range version of the Model 3, but limits it via software, people might try to remove the block. One could potentially get a 15-day trial of full self-driving for free and extend that 15-day window forever
I'm pretty sure that all cars are using separate computers for infotainment and motor control - one some consumer-based OS, and another a locked-down real-time OS. It would seem foolhardy to place much more than infotainment in the infotainment system.
If the ocean life got a wallop of cosmic rays, wouldn't the land creatures fare even worse?
Neither the article nor paper's abstract went into it, so I instead have to hypothesize that perhaps the ocean surface micro-organisms were especially sensitive to radiation, leading to an ecological collapse... or maybe the supernovae and extinction events are even unrelated.
Turn time was 15.7 for 2600k and 12.5 for 8700k. So, I stand corrected that it's not nil. But it's closer to ~+25%.
Thanks for the correction. I must've looked at the overclocked number there.
Um, if you don't know his workload, using a generic benchmark doesn't contradict him. It only proves that if he *has* a generic workload that his statement is contradictory. That's why I pointed out the Gamers Nexus benchmark because it's possibly much closer to his workload.
I was careful to use the word seems to show that this was my impression based on his unspecific "30% slower" comment. Other readers less versed in the nuances of measuring CPU performance could get the impression that there actually only is a 30% performance difference between old and new CPUs, which I consider to be a misleading measure. This is why I challenged him with more specific numbers, which gives another picture.
YMMV. If you want to argue that the GP was unclear because he didn't specify his workload, that's a potentially valid complaint. The problem is, if he states on the order of a 30% improvement, that's very much in line with the likes of Gamers Nexus results. I'd tend to argue that statement was precisely in reference to those who have been paying attention to results in games and seeing similar numbers. It's not contrived to suggest that most gamers, in the same boat, would understand the comparison being implicitly made.
I also assumed he was talking about single-threaded performance based on that figure (or worse, comparing GHz numbers directly like some of my friends thinks is appropriate). If he had just used some term like single-threaded performance I wouldn't have bothered him. But he omitted it, so I felt the need to correct him.
A lot of times when people advocate for things, they make a set of presumptions that similar minded people (say, people on Slashdot) have similar goals in life. So, they don't go out of their way to spell out a deep philosophical/motivational structure. I really can't say that people who fail to spell out these things are inherently misleading or their statements are contrived. I would definitely agree with an argument that more clarity should be pursued precisely to avoid misunderstanding or additional clarification.
Sometimes, though, it meanders into pointless pedantic arguments. I would suggest that in the future, you try to give more benefit of the doubt. Unless, of course, someone is trying to sell you something. Marketers tend to abuse that. :)
Hmm, in hindsight I should have made it clearer from the beginning that I wanted to call his comment's comparison "contrived and misleading," not his person. Regardless, the pedant in me wanted to correct his comment because I wanted to avoid others (and maybe even GP) from being misled by unspecific numbers and easy answers, when reality is more complex.
I partly disagree.
The benchmark by Gamers Nexus shows that there is a ~+35% improvement for Civ 6 turn time for 8700K (similar performance to 8700, except overclockable). This is not nil.
Also, GP did not specify his workload, so I gave him generic benchmarking results which seemed to contradict him.
So I still consider GP to have made a misleading comment by making a contrived comparison.
With that said, I agree with you that current CPU performance may not motivate people to switch. That is however a judgement for each individual to make, and I wasn't disagreeing with GP on that point.
It seems contrived and misleading of you to limit your comparison to current quad-core CPUs, as Intel hardly makes those anymore. If instead comparing the launch cost of the 2600K (~300 USD), then a current match would be the 8700.
For that you get approx. +80% multi-threaded performance and +35% single-threaded performance, for -30% power consumption.
Hmm, I found this article that references the 70% number, which also points to "figures from CBS:"
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
...but I couldn't find any such figures in their data that you linked. Maybe my search terms are just off or not politically correct enough, but why can't people ever cite their sources? Geez.
You seem to be telling people to prefer anecdotes over clinical studies and recommended guidelines. Your comment could just as well be making the same argument for astrology, homeopathy or fake cancer treatments.
The article and its cited studies are mainly delving into the context of cardiovascular disease, mortality and general health markers. As for your specific case of back pain, the author even seems to agree with you:
For the record, I've been using a sit-stand desk at work (~80% of the day in standing mode) for four years, and I can't really detect any health difference. Though I appreciate that while sleep-deprived, standing up will prevent me from dozing off.
Poor people don't make good immigration numbers. It ends up a net negative overall. You can link your usual cherry-picked bullshit stats on how "immigrants totally pay more taxes!!" all you want. Doesn't change the actual facts.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic now, but do you know of any studies that support what you're claiming? I'm genuinely curious what the numbers show.