First of all, li-ion covers a very wide range of batteries. Automotive batteries generally can function in around -20 to -30 celcius temperatures, although their capacity dimishes. This is nothing new - a lot of things like mining equipment and such includes high capacity batteries that must function in extreme cold for prolonged periods of time.
Once again: this is NOT untested technology, even though a lot of people with agenda like to claim it is. And it's true that some li-ion batteries are downright dysfunctional in cold. One case that comes to mind were apple's iphone batteries from 1st and 2nd gen iphones, which they actually had the balls to sell in Nordics with a statement that you could not use them in temperatures under 0C. They got hammered for it by consumer protection agencies which pointed out that law required them to sell products fit for local climate, and most Nordics hit -30C during winters.
At the same time nokia used li-ion batteries that work just fine in the cold, party because a lot of testing was done here in Finland, in the cold climate. Which is why my old nokia, while it does indeed lose some capacity while out in the cold, it will continue to function just fine. Just recently we had -25C and I took about hour an a half walks to my local sports hall and back, which means that it went from ~25C to -25C, worked in -25C for about 45 minutes, went into ~20C while I was playing, then hit -25C for another 45 minute walk. And I am a person that likes to watch videos off my phone while walking, which due to my phone not supporting proper hardware acceleration drain the battery in about three hours in the summer climate. When I am arriving home, the phone usually shows that it has about 20% capacity left in the battery. After it warms up back to the room temperature, it shows I have over 40%.
So it is indeed quite possible that batteries sold to you included chemistry not intended for cold weather. But there are batteries that are indeed designed to be able to operate in cold weathers, and as far as I know, automotive batteries do in fact belong in that category.
I would like to emphasize this one more time. This is NOT new and untested technology. Neither various Ni-MH nor various Li-ion technologies are anything new in use in cold climate. And just because your specific battery happens to not work well in cold doesn't mean that all batteries are like that.
First of all, the current console hardware is built on modifications of existing PC design. As a result, they will likely inherit all the benefits, but also all the problems of a modern PC.
Second, one console featuring a special caching feature to offset memory too slow for GPU is not really going to be popular. AAA games already cost too much, and it's likely that developers will simply ignore ESRAM on XB1 completely as several have already stated to be doing, while indies simply can't afford to produce heavily modified code for one system that would be required to take advantage of it. This has also been talked about to death, so we can scratch that one off the list.
Lastly, the fact is that while PCs become more powerful, the consoles do not. So even if you go arguing that modern PCs are somehow monstrously more inefficient than modern PCs and happen to be correct, which appears to be extremely unlikely, PCs are already far more powerful than consoles that just came out. That means inefficiencies become irrelevant, as developers are always forced to target the lowest common denominator. So what is going to happen is that PCs will once again get vastly superior graphics, physics and other options that can be easily improved, while consoles will lag behind from the start. And this time, it's not cell or powerpc exotic stuff that have significant untapped potential - it's x86/amd64+radeon. Not very new radeon either, as these radeon chips are already a generation older than current gen at release.
All in all, in reality outside theoretical bullshitting among us nerds console manufacturers did the only thing they really could - they made consoles so PC-like that cross platform development would become as cheap as possible. But as a result, developers will be both able to tap much more of the system at launch, and progress much less as system ages. Diminishing returns are the name of the game here. And as a result, consoles have largely become modified PCs - hell XB1 apparently runs a subset of direct3d again, and this time it likely shares libraries with windows ones due to same architecture. Which again grants it superior optimization out of the box due to familiar platform with familiar features - and significantly reduces optimization potential in the future.
So even in a worst case scenario for PCs, consoles are in an awful position performance-wise. Consoles have morphed from exotic hardware based single purpose platform to basically living room PCs. Trying to argue that advantages that consoles of the old enjoyed in performance issues will carry over in spite of this is foolhardy.
Solid state batteries based on Ni-MH and Li-ION fair quite decently in cold actually. It's the liquid state ones, such as lead batteries that have severe problems.
Also internal combustion cars have severe problems with hot engine and cold fuel lines leading to it among other things. Just because your engine is running warm doesn't mean that things like fuel lines are. Not to even mention that you need completely different fuel and fuel filters on diesels to even run in the cold.\
As for electric cars proving this, I'm afraid this has already been proven. Priuses have been sold here for about a decade now. They work fine. This is no longer cutting edge new technology, but one that has been in the wild for a good decade and survived the test of time. Hybrids are only becoming more and more popular here in Nordics due to even increasing fuel prices and their excellent fuel economy. To an extent they are actually more reliable in the cold than pure ICE cars as they have less problems with cold starting, especially when compared to the other fuel economy car option which is turbo diesel.
I don't disagree with it. I merely point out that on current generation, advantage of these is going to be minimal because we already have unlocked all but the most arcane tricks for x86/amd64+radeon hardware.
Knowing the specific single set of hardware will help, but not much as architecture in general is mostly well known. Fixing the specs to certain level is not that much of an advantage, especially when you consider that PC to which we're comparing will be far more powerful by the time that devs will need all those arcane tricks to squeeze power out of this generation of consoles.
Actually this has been a concern with ALL cars. ICE cars don't work all that well in cold either. Ranging from cars refusing to start, lead batteries dying out and not supplying power to starter, fuel lines freezing, fuel filters failing, computer systems dying from condencation/corrosion damage and a vast multitude of over issues, northern climate proves a massive challenge to automotive industry even today. Not to even mention the whole "diesels don't work in the cold" issue we had until very recent times, I'd say this argument has been done to death and then some.
Batteries themselves actually fare pretty well in general.
As noted in the OP, the issue is not so much the battery tech but the Norway-specific cable that doesn't work. It charges in cold weather in other countries using different cables and it charges in Norway using a third party cable. But first party cable in Norway is apparently dysfunctional in the cold.
Reason given is that Norway has a different spec for the cable for specific local reasons.
As I understand the chemistry, they do in fact hold the charge just fine. They just become unable to release it as well. Easily demonstrable with a cell phone using similar Li-ION tech - take it outside and let to go to minus 20C and you'll see the charge indicator go low after usage that would normally only use about half of the charge in normal condition. Get it back inside and let it warm up and charge indicator goes back up to show the about half of the charge that remains.
I live in Finland and use one of the older nokia phones that has to survive the cold-warm environment switching on daily basis, so I'm quite familiar with the mechanics.
I'll give you something much, much bigger. It was a different business culture back then, which lasted in some cases to late 20th century. The culture where at top echelons of society, leader was not measured by his salary, but by the level of quality of life of his employees.
Remember the first big Japanese crisis when they actually had to lay people off? Remember who were apologising to the nation and killing themselves over their failures?
The industry leaders. The bosses viewed it as their personal failure and massive loss of status that they had to fire people due to bad economy.
Or not. I've specifically kept this discussion in the realm of practical applications. Theoretically you can find many problems with current setups. In real world on the other hand, what we have works just fine, and hardware testers have to do some seriously convoluted, completely unapplicable to real life situation simulation to get memory bandwith to constrain the game's fps.
So yes, I suppose you could call me dense for not agreeing to the utterly braindead argument of "well if we totally remake the entire architecture of the computers and the way we code games, we could maybe get them to get memory speed dependent on current systems".
Actually not so. Consider the modern consoles of this generation. They have a lot of features that run in the background while you play games.
The main argument for consoles before was that they did not have any meaningful overhead because they were single-purpose machines, unlike PCs that ran a complex OS that had to take resources doing other things while you played a game.
This is no longer true.
As for offloading GPU tasks to CPU, there are several massive problems that make it completely not worth it, ranging from the fact that it's actually impossible to predict the GPU output in many tasks exactly (so if you for example offload a certain portion of the screen rendering to CPU software renderer, it may look distinctly different from the rest of the screen rendered by GPU) to the fact that CPUs are exceptionally terrible at GPU tasks, while GPUs are excellent at highly paralleliseable tasks that are often ran on CPU nowadays for legacy reasons.
Finally the argument about "constant console architechture" has become fairly redundant this generation, because the base underlying architecture is largely the same as modern PCs. It's intended too, to ensure that consoles can capture more of the currently quickly growing PC market.
You answered your own question there. The entire article is about the fact that MS effectively coded requirement to reserve a certain amount of GPU into the XB1 OS. This amount is not released to the game running unless MS recodes the OS as it appears to be doing after understanding just how far behind all of the competition except Wii U they are this gen.
It's also fairly interesting that you're suggesting offloading tasks from GPU to CPU, when in general the offloading goes in the opposite direction, both on consoles and in PC world. Consoles are talked about in the article, and PC games often offload things like physics calculations to GPU as much as possible (PhysX, various CUDA implementations and so on). There's little if any of things happening in opposite direction in both worlds.
I've seen your examples. I now understand that you have no capability whatsoever to interpret the results. The idea behind the faux tests you see is that they push resolution as low as possible and quality as low as possible to artificially load the CPU and CPU memory bus.
These have all the application in the real world as checking how a fast a car will go once you strip out everything except drivetrain and controls.
Now you're just being utterly braindead. Take a closer look at the tests. They are starting to see tiny improvements after they go way over 120FPS.
I will ask again. Show me a game that is CONSTRAINED by memory. As in within FPS range that is actually meaningful to a gamer. Not a "well we have more FPS coming out of this than what expensive 120fps monitors can output, let's see if we can get the game CPU/memory capped at those numbers".
It is as long as system bus is not the bottleneck. Right now and for foreseeable future, it is not. Raw GPU performance limits most games, and a few exceptions are limited by raw CPU power (such as WoW). There are effectively no notable games on the market as of typing this that are constrained by RAM speed or system bus of any decently modern PC.
This renders the argument of potential inefficiencies completely void. We are talking about very specific practical applications (games) which have a known usage pattern that has very specific bottlenecks on the system that limit their speed.
Which doesn't change the fact that modern PCs in game usage can utilize almost entire GPU, while consoles in fact cannot. The argument of "superior because there is no overhead on consoles but there is on PC" has been turned on its head this generation - it's the consoles that now have a big overhead in performance on the main bottleneck of the system - the GPU. PCs have almost none, and the classic overhead bottleneck of the PC, CPU/RAM does not constrain a significant amount of games any more, as most of them hit the GPU ceiling first.
Show me which games are CPU memory speed constrained.
You won't be able to for a very simple reason. There aren't any. This is very clear and obvious and pointed out by countless hardware review and testing sites. Modern CPUs do not benefit from memory bandwidth increase because current DDR3 running at fairly low speeds of 1.3 and 1.6GHz are far more than needed. Even upping the speed to over 2.1GHz produces no significant results in games. This is because essentially all of them are constrained by GPU in the first place, and those few that are in fact CPU constrained are not constrained by CPUs memory bandwidth but actual CPU speed (example: WoW).
It's the exact opposite. Consoles are making a vastly suboptimal choice in bundling CPU and GPU on the same die to cut costs. It's far more efficient to have a powerful GPU with its own fast dedicated memory than have it share memory and die with a CPU.
Swedes do this for their cutting edge tech, through mostly because of US restrictions on exports. Some pieces of technology may be judged as not strategically important, or sold to a very close ally and therefore not subject to controls.
Jews were not so much scapegoated as listed as "enemies of the humanity in the interests of purity of humanity", alongside many others. Gypsies got all but annihilated, but we don't really like talking about it. Several other ethnicities suffered similar fates. But if you actually study the issue, Hitler and his close circle specifically talk about targeting the certain "subhumans" because they weakened the gene pool long before they got power. Scapegoating was convenient for pushing into power, certainly, but the effort put into the action showed that scapegoating was merely a beneficial side effect for Nazism, not the actual goal.
Essentially all tech companies. For example, all automotive companies are now wholly owned or at least co-owned by Western companies. Most of the agricultural companies are either owned by Western companies or worse - were purchased and killed by the West. Russia has to import a huge amount of food mostly from EU's heavily subsidised agricultural export market because of it. It's a very lucrative market for us and a massive strategic problem for Russia.
Countless others. It would be harder to find what we don't own, other than hydrocarbons and a few other key industries that are held by oligarchs that didn't sell out. Mainly metallurgy if I remember correctly. All of the rest was bought up for pennies during 1990s period.
As I noted in my post in the other thread, your statements make you look very US centric to the point of being either ignorant or naive. You actually talk about the fact that we set them up so they would have all the problems of our capitalism in 1920s, and then you actually have the foolishness to argue that this is Russia's fault.
As the internet saying goes, "not sure if ignorant or trolling".
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, li-ion covers a very wide range of batteries. Automotive batteries generally can function in around -20 to -30 celcius temperatures, although their capacity dimishes. This is nothing new - a lot of things like mining equipment and such includes high capacity batteries that must function in extreme cold for prolonged periods of time.
Once again: this is NOT untested technology, even though a lot of people with agenda like to claim it is. And it's true that some li-ion batteries are downright dysfunctional in cold. One case that comes to mind were apple's iphone batteries from 1st and 2nd gen iphones, which they actually had the balls to sell in Nordics with a statement that you could not use them in temperatures under 0C. They got hammered for it by consumer protection agencies which pointed out that law required them to sell products fit for local climate, and most Nordics hit -30C during winters.
At the same time nokia used li-ion batteries that work just fine in the cold, party because a lot of testing was done here in Finland, in the cold climate. Which is why my old nokia, while it does indeed lose some capacity while out in the cold, it will continue to function just fine. Just recently we had -25C and I took about hour an a half walks to my local sports hall and back, which means that it went from ~25C to -25C, worked in -25C for about 45 minutes, went into ~20C while I was playing, then hit -25C for another 45 minute walk. And I am a person that likes to watch videos off my phone while walking, which due to my phone not supporting proper hardware acceleration drain the battery in about three hours in the summer climate. When I am arriving home, the phone usually shows that it has about 20% capacity left in the battery. After it warms up back to the room temperature, it shows I have over 40%.
So it is indeed quite possible that batteries sold to you included chemistry not intended for cold weather. But there are batteries that are indeed designed to be able to operate in cold weathers, and as far as I know, automotive batteries do in fact belong in that category.
I would like to emphasize this one more time. This is NOT new and untested technology. Neither various Ni-MH nor various Li-ion technologies are anything new in use in cold climate. And just because your specific battery happens to not work well in cold doesn't mean that all batteries are like that.
First of all, the current console hardware is built on modifications of existing PC design. As a result, they will likely inherit all the benefits, but also all the problems of a modern PC.
Second, one console featuring a special caching feature to offset memory too slow for GPU is not really going to be popular. AAA games already cost too much, and it's likely that developers will simply ignore ESRAM on XB1 completely as several have already stated to be doing, while indies simply can't afford to produce heavily modified code for one system that would be required to take advantage of it. This has also been talked about to death, so we can scratch that one off the list.
Lastly, the fact is that while PCs become more powerful, the consoles do not. So even if you go arguing that modern PCs are somehow monstrously more inefficient than modern PCs and happen to be correct, which appears to be extremely unlikely, PCs are already far more powerful than consoles that just came out. That means inefficiencies become irrelevant, as developers are always forced to target the lowest common denominator. So what is going to happen is that PCs will once again get vastly superior graphics, physics and other options that can be easily improved, while consoles will lag behind from the start. And this time, it's not cell or powerpc exotic stuff that have significant untapped potential - it's x86/amd64+radeon. Not very new radeon either, as these radeon chips are already a generation older than current gen at release.
All in all, in reality outside theoretical bullshitting among us nerds console manufacturers did the only thing they really could - they made consoles so PC-like that cross platform development would become as cheap as possible. But as a result, developers will be both able to tap much more of the system at launch, and progress much less as system ages. Diminishing returns are the name of the game here. And as a result, consoles have largely become modified PCs - hell XB1 apparently runs a subset of direct3d again, and this time it likely shares libraries with windows ones due to same architecture. Which again grants it superior optimization out of the box due to familiar platform with familiar features - and significantly reduces optimization potential in the future.
So even in a worst case scenario for PCs, consoles are in an awful position performance-wise. Consoles have morphed from exotic hardware based single purpose platform to basically living room PCs. Trying to argue that advantages that consoles of the old enjoyed in performance issues will carry over in spite of this is foolhardy.
Solid state batteries based on Ni-MH and Li-ION fair quite decently in cold actually. It's the liquid state ones, such as lead batteries that have severe problems.
Also internal combustion cars have severe problems with hot engine and cold fuel lines leading to it among other things. Just because your engine is running warm doesn't mean that things like fuel lines are. Not to even mention that you need completely different fuel and fuel filters on diesels to even run in the cold.\
As for electric cars proving this, I'm afraid this has already been proven. Priuses have been sold here for about a decade now. They work fine. This is no longer cutting edge new technology, but one that has been in the wild for a good decade and survived the test of time. Hybrids are only becoming more and more popular here in Nordics due to even increasing fuel prices and their excellent fuel economy. To an extent they are actually more reliable in the cold than pure ICE cars as they have less problems with cold starting, especially when compared to the other fuel economy car option which is turbo diesel.
I don't disagree with it. I merely point out that on current generation, advantage of these is going to be minimal because we already have unlocked all but the most arcane tricks for x86/amd64+radeon hardware.
Knowing the specific single set of hardware will help, but not much as architecture in general is mostly well known. Fixing the specs to certain level is not that much of an advantage, especially when you consider that PC to which we're comparing will be far more powerful by the time that devs will need all those arcane tricks to squeeze power out of this generation of consoles.
Actually this has been a concern with ALL cars. ICE cars don't work all that well in cold either. Ranging from cars refusing to start, lead batteries dying out and not supplying power to starter, fuel lines freezing, fuel filters failing, computer systems dying from condencation/corrosion damage and a vast multitude of over issues, northern climate proves a massive challenge to automotive industry even today. Not to even mention the whole "diesels don't work in the cold" issue we had until very recent times, I'd say this argument has been done to death and then some.
Batteries themselves actually fare pretty well in general.
That's okay. I don't live in the US either, so I don't spend money on gasoline to go shopping. I walk or take a bus on my monthly pass.
Also, boxes look good on my bookshelf.
As noted in the OP, the issue is not so much the battery tech but the Norway-specific cable that doesn't work. It charges in cold weather in other countries using different cables and it charges in Norway using a third party cable. But first party cable in Norway is apparently dysfunctional in the cold.
Reason given is that Norway has a different spec for the cable for specific local reasons.
As I understand the chemistry, they do in fact hold the charge just fine. They just become unable to release it as well. Easily demonstrable with a cell phone using similar Li-ION tech - take it outside and let to go to minus 20C and you'll see the charge indicator go low after usage that would normally only use about half of the charge in normal condition. Get it back inside and let it warm up and charge indicator goes back up to show the about half of the charge that remains.
I live in Finland and use one of the older nokia phones that has to survive the cold-warm environment switching on daily basis, so I'm quite familiar with the mechanics.
I'll give you something much, much bigger. It was a different business culture back then, which lasted in some cases to late 20th century. The culture where at top echelons of society, leader was not measured by his salary, but by the level of quality of life of his employees.
Remember the first big Japanese crisis when they actually had to lay people off? Remember who were apologising to the nation and killing themselves over their failures?
The industry leaders. The bosses viewed it as their personal failure and massive loss of status that they had to fire people due to bad economy.
Ah yes, let's talk theory.
Or not. I've specifically kept this discussion in the realm of practical applications. Theoretically you can find many problems with current setups. In real world on the other hand, what we have works just fine, and hardware testers have to do some seriously convoluted, completely unapplicable to real life situation simulation to get memory bandwith to constrain the game's fps.
So yes, I suppose you could call me dense for not agreeing to the utterly braindead argument of "well if we totally remake the entire architecture of the computers and the way we code games, we could maybe get them to get memory speed dependent on current systems".
Actually not so. Consider the modern consoles of this generation. They have a lot of features that run in the background while you play games.
The main argument for consoles before was that they did not have any meaningful overhead because they were single-purpose machines, unlike PCs that ran a complex OS that had to take resources doing other things while you played a game.
This is no longer true.
As for offloading GPU tasks to CPU, there are several massive problems that make it completely not worth it, ranging from the fact that it's actually impossible to predict the GPU output in many tasks exactly (so if you for example offload a certain portion of the screen rendering to CPU software renderer, it may look distinctly different from the rest of the screen rendered by GPU) to the fact that CPUs are exceptionally terrible at GPU tasks, while GPUs are excellent at highly paralleliseable tasks that are often ran on CPU nowadays for legacy reasons.
Finally the argument about "constant console architechture" has become fairly redundant this generation, because the base underlying architecture is largely the same as modern PCs. It's intended too, to ensure that consoles can capture more of the currently quickly growing PC market.
I do. I despise steam's complete lack of customer support.
You answered your own question there. The entire article is about the fact that MS effectively coded requirement to reserve a certain amount of GPU into the XB1 OS. This amount is not released to the game running unless MS recodes the OS as it appears to be doing after understanding just how far behind all of the competition except Wii U they are this gen.
It's also fairly interesting that you're suggesting offloading tasks from GPU to CPU, when in general the offloading goes in the opposite direction, both on consoles and in PC world. Consoles are talked about in the article, and PC games often offload things like physics calculations to GPU as much as possible (PhysX, various CUDA implementations and so on). There's little if any of things happening in opposite direction in both worlds.
I've seen your examples. I now understand that you have no capability whatsoever to interpret the results. The idea behind the faux tests you see is that they push resolution as low as possible and quality as low as possible to artificially load the CPU and CPU memory bus.
These have all the application in the real world as checking how a fast a car will go once you strip out everything except drivetrain and controls.
Now you're just being utterly braindead. Take a closer look at the tests. They are starting to see tiny improvements after they go way over 120FPS.
I will ask again. Show me a game that is CONSTRAINED by memory. As in within FPS range that is actually meaningful to a gamer. Not a "well we have more FPS coming out of this than what expensive 120fps monitors can output, let's see if we can get the game CPU/memory capped at those numbers".
It is as long as system bus is not the bottleneck. Right now and for foreseeable future, it is not. Raw GPU performance limits most games, and a few exceptions are limited by raw CPU power (such as WoW). There are effectively no notable games on the market as of typing this that are constrained by RAM speed or system bus of any decently modern PC.
This renders the argument of potential inefficiencies completely void. We are talking about very specific practical applications (games) which have a known usage pattern that has very specific bottlenecks on the system that limit their speed.
I believe that just because you are a woman, wondering why others don't need tampons is quite stupid.
Which doesn't change the fact that modern PCs in game usage can utilize almost entire GPU, while consoles in fact cannot. The argument of "superior because there is no overhead on consoles but there is on PC" has been turned on its head this generation - it's the consoles that now have a big overhead in performance on the main bottleneck of the system - the GPU. PCs have almost none, and the classic overhead bottleneck of the PC, CPU/RAM does not constrain a significant amount of games any more, as most of them hit the GPU ceiling first.
Show me which games are CPU memory speed constrained.
You won't be able to for a very simple reason. There aren't any. This is very clear and obvious and pointed out by countless hardware review and testing sites. Modern CPUs do not benefit from memory bandwidth increase because current DDR3 running at fairly low speeds of 1.3 and 1.6GHz are far more than needed. Even upping the speed to over 2.1GHz produces no significant results in games. This is because essentially all of them are constrained by GPU in the first place, and those few that are in fact CPU constrained are not constrained by CPUs memory bandwidth but actual CPU speed (example: WoW).
It's the exact opposite. Consoles are making a vastly suboptimal choice in bundling CPU and GPU on the same die to cut costs. It's far more efficient to have a powerful GPU with its own fast dedicated memory than have it share memory and die with a CPU.
Swedes do this for their cutting edge tech, through mostly because of US restrictions on exports. Some pieces of technology may be judged as not strategically important, or sold to a very close ally and therefore not subject to controls.
Jews were not so much scapegoated as listed as "enemies of the humanity in the interests of purity of humanity", alongside many others. Gypsies got all but annihilated, but we don't really like talking about it. Several other ethnicities suffered similar fates. But if you actually study the issue, Hitler and his close circle specifically talk about targeting the certain "subhumans" because they weakened the gene pool long before they got power. Scapegoating was convenient for pushing into power, certainly, but the effort put into the action showed that scapegoating was merely a beneficial side effect for Nazism, not the actual goal.
Essentially all tech companies. For example, all automotive companies are now wholly owned or at least co-owned by Western companies. Most of the agricultural companies are either owned by Western companies or worse - were purchased and killed by the West. Russia has to import a huge amount of food mostly from EU's heavily subsidised agricultural export market because of it. It's a very lucrative market for us and a massive strategic problem for Russia.
Countless others. It would be harder to find what we don't own, other than hydrocarbons and a few other key industries that are held by oligarchs that didn't sell out. Mainly metallurgy if I remember correctly. All of the rest was bought up for pennies during 1990s period.
As I noted in my post in the other thread, your statements make you look very US centric to the point of being either ignorant or naive. You actually talk about the fact that we set them up so they would have all the problems of our capitalism in 1920s, and then you actually have the foolishness to argue that this is Russia's fault.
As the internet saying goes, "not sure if ignorant or trolling".
As were most capitalists. They viewed fascism as THEIR system.
Because he's not you, and different people have different tastes.