Except that the idiot in office regularly DOES describe official policy from twitter - the transgender ban, for instance. Thanks to the extraordinary lack of discipline in the oval office it means that the distinctions between executive policy and the insomniac ramblings of an incoherent narcissist no longer exist. "It's just twitter" isn't a defense.
Plus, Trump campaigned on his promise to violate constitutional rights and has continually attempted to make good on those promises. He's no friend of free speech or freedom of religion, except to the extent that they protect him and his followers.
Sure, there could be a universe prime, one level "higher" than us, that is spawning child universes as part of an infinite loop bug in some CS student's first Hello World program. However, imagining that requires us to suppose an entire universe that operates according to fundamentally different physics than our own. There's no evidence to suggest such a place exists, and there's not even any conceivable experiment that could prove or disprove its existence. Imagining such universes is the realm of sci-fi novelists and theologians, but not scientists.
If the conclusions of this study survive peer review, it provides good evidence that our universe cannot produce a simulation of itself. That means that this whole simulation question leaves the domain of this universe's physics, and enters the domain of an imaginary universe's physics. Which tells us that this deserves no deeper consideration than invisible pink unicorns or any other imaginary phenomenon. Since that's the realm of ideas that can't be tested or verified or used for any meaningful purpose, this study has succeeded in something very important... showing in a rigorous way that the simulation concept isn't meaningful or worthwhile.
Only about 9% of guns are registered. So, what you're telling us is that owners of registered guns commit crimes just as often, proportionally, as owners of unregistered guns.
It rules out simulations that anything within this universe, no matter how advanced, could come up with.
There is no reason to believe that our Universe has the same physical laws as the "higher" Universe that is simulating us. Video game simulations do not rigorously recreate physics, and focus more on entertainment than accuracy.
The study in TFA actually is a evidence FOR a simulation, since obviously the simulators added this constraint to prevent "nested" simulations from overloading their servers.
Here's the thing, though: this study does, very successfully, lower the probability that we are in a simulation. Because prior writing on the subject has made the point that if accurate simulation is possible, then it is likely that any civilization will end up simulating itself to answer various questions of interest. If the simulations are accurate enough, the simulations will themselves contain simulations. At that point, you get infinite simulations and it's turtles all the way down. In that case, we are infinitely more likely to live in a simulation than live in a "real" world. The probability that we are living in a simulation is inf/(inf+1), to be exact.
So, by showing that no computer following this universe's physics could simulate this universe accurately, the problem becomes constrained. Nesting of closely related universes is no longer possible if each universe must be simulated by a universe with fundamentally different physics. Infinite simulation chains are no longer possible. Which means that instead of our chances being virtually 100% of being in a simulation, are chances are more like zero, at least based on the evidence we have. A universe like ours cannot accurately simulate a universe like ours.
Whether the universe is computable is a really interesting question. Consider the resolution of the probability values of QM experiments; ie - is there a limit to the resolution one can have on a probability measurement?
Isn't that just the planck length? We've also got Heisenberg uncertainty and I'm sure other QM principles that at least have the flavor of a universal resolution limit.
The 1900x is looking to be THE go-to processor for data science needs, or really anybody who is serious about massive multithreading or deep learning. You've got more PCIE lanes than anything else on the market, to support multiple GPUs with high-bandwidth x16 PCIE interfaces. Single-thread performance is almost never the bottleneck here, so really what you want to optimize on the maximum number of PCIE lanes per dollar, and this cheap Threadripper wins by a mile.
Time to start prepping the Newegg wish list. And convincing the wife that the bare minimum for this system is a Geforce 1080 Ti... or 4.
You're contributing to the problem by making ludicrous and disengenous claims that have no grounding in reality.
Well, your version of reality doesn't seem to be doing you much good since the only explanation you have for the implosion of the Democratic party is that everybody other than a select elite of voters like you is a stupid, uninformed conspiracy theorist.
Reading comprehension: try it. There are lots of interesting explanations for the various failures of the democratic party, as I have mentioned above. I don't think that all non-Democrats are uninformed conspiracy theorists, but I am saying that YOU present yourself as an uninformed conspiracy theorist, judging by your obsession with a radical activist that Hillary has explicitly rejected from the earliest point of her career and your naive portrayal of democrats as cackling cartoon villains.
I personally think there is a clear difference between 1080p and 4k, even in a more "normal" scenario, such as a 48" TV viewed at ten feet. I remember people saying something similar in the late 2000's: that there was no point in getting 1080p over 720p if the screen size was less than 32" because "you can't tell a difference anyway," but I think most people would now agree that is incorrect.
That's actually not far off from the truth - at a 10' viewing distance, on a 32" TV, the improvement going from 720P to 1080P will be marginal. It's a pretty easy hypothesis to test - do a double blind study. Across a wide variety of human experience (wine, audiophile products, etc) you'll find that people are willing to pay far more for a "premium" product, but in an actually fair test, the supposedly superior qualities can't be reliably distinguished from lower priced items. I'm more inclined to trust the science here than human impressions.
If by "the problem" you mean that Hillary and people like her aren't in power, I'm glad to hear it.
Nope. You're contributing to the problem by making ludicrous and disengenous claims that have no grounding in reality. You are contributing to the state of polarized shit-slinging that characterizes the current political dysfunction in the U.S. Hillary was more pro-business and pro-bank than Obama, and more hawkish as well, all of which push her to the right. Judging by her actual policy record and proposals, rather than by whatever fabricated conspiracy piece you happen to find, she was fairly to the right of Obama. Essentially, she would have been the second incarnation of GWB. Hell, she even opposed gay marriage quite a bit longer than McCain did!
Hasty generalization: Some people chanting that they won't be replaced, is not all people chanting.
Never said it was. That said, if you protest in lockstep with the "Jews will not replace us" crowd and the KKK, what does that make you? Conservatives regularly condemn BLM by association with hooligans and vandals at the protests, and in some cases with merit. If you are protesting on the same side as the KKK and choose not to leave, you deserve condemnation. Richard Spencer and a lot of other known white supremacists were advertised as part of the event. Anyone joining that protest is CHOOSING to associate with neonazis, so it is CORRECT to call them nazi sympathizers, at the very least.
Hasty generalization: Just because some of the people were bad does not mean they all were. You claim to know the marcher's motives. Do you know them all?
See the above. If you knowingly hang out with your buddies while they commit a crime, the law calls you culpable. Same principle applies here. Being friends with a felon doesn't make you a felon. Going along for the ride while a felony is committed, though, does make you guilty. In the same way, being associated with someone who happens to be a nazi doesn't make you a nazi. Holding a sign right next to them at a protest, though...
Just plain wrong: He was not defending Nazis, he was defending the right of people to speak out. They have the RIGHT, whether you agree or not.
This had nothing to do with free speech. It was about a false equivalence between nazis and anti-nazis. "There were fine people on both sides".
Just plain wrong: Supporting Nazis when his daughter, a trusted supporter that he keeps close, is Jewish would be ridiculous. Flying to support Israel while being a Nazi support would be ridiculous.
How so? I didn't say that Trump is a Nazi, and neither did the parent. It's an indisputable fact, however, that Trump has called them and their associates "fine people", and consistently rationalized their actions. Here's another fact - Trump IS ridiculous. He pardons Arpaio for "the ratings". He loves applause and adulation, whether it comes from nazis or not. I don't think he's actually, himself, a neonazi, because that takes a level of ideological commitment that Trump has never demonstrated. He is, however, an authoritarian demagogue who will do absolutely anything to further his own selfish ends.
A lot of it is placebo - unless someone is sitting 5' away from their 75" screen, they probably couldn't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k in a double-blind test. There's a limit to the angular resolution of the human eyeball, and after a certain point the extra pixels are packing in information that we can't even perceive at realistic viewing distances.
The overall trend seems to be that we can still use more resolution in our PC monitors, which store VERY detailed information at a very close range, but for most people 1080p is more than sufficient for TV viewing.
Hence my point: as far as Democrats are concerned, anybody who didn't vote for Hillary or opposes the Democrats is considered "alt-right" by the Democrats.
No, they really aren't. Sure, you can find a random twitter user saying anything, but Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and many other establishment republicans oppose Democrats and Hillary. I don't see them being called alt-right. Alt-right is a designation reserved for the nationalist, isolationist, authoritarian wing that put Trump in power. The majority of establishment Republicans don't fit.
Your concern for Republicans is touching, but Democrats used to abuse GWB and Romney the same way they are abusing Trump: Bush was portrayed with a Hitler moustache, compared to Nero, called a Nazi, a racist, a homophobe, etc. Cry wolf too often and this is what happens.
I don't disagree. It has been a mistake to create this hyper-partisan polarized atmosphere, and it has been happening on both sides since the Clinton administration, at least. But the solution is for people to stop the hyperbole, not to hit back with it in the opposite direction.
Trump voters have no business claiming to be members of the party of Lincoln.
But Hillary voters certainly are entitled to claim being members of the party of slavery, eugenics, segregation, scientific racism, the party on which European fascists modeled themselves.
What? I get that you hate Democrats, but you're just applying random insults at this point. Voting for Hillary was voting for a centrist policy wonk who would probably have governed slightly to the right of Obama. Slavery and eugenics? That's utter nonsense. You're contributing to the problem.
Well, the definition of "alt-right" is evidently "anybody who didn't vote for Hillary". That's because in the minds of Democrats, Trump was so awful that even decent Republicans should have come around and voted for her, as much of the Republican establishment and conservative dutifully did.
Of course, that makes about 3/4 of US voters "alt-right".
Good luck trying to win the next election, Democrats or establishment Republicans!
No, the definition of "alt-right" is essentially an umbrella label for the assortment of ignorant and/or reprehensible ideologies variously held by Trump supporters at this point. And in the minds of Democrats, Republicans committed far more errors than that: Trump was so awful that the Republicans never should have run him as their nominee, and the Republicans should have been more forceful in the repudiation of his corrupt influence as it slowly built momentum through the Obama administration. No decent Republican did vote for Trump - he's antithetical to every principle that the party claims to hold dear: individual liberty, constitutionalism, fiscal responsibility, moral uprightness, and the basic politeness and sense of down-to-earth decency that gave even unpopular Republicans like GWB an inherent charm. The principled conservatives that I know either bit the bullet and voted for Hillary, or voted for a third-party candidate that they truly believed in. The unprincipled alt-right (the folks who actually put Trump in power), amount to 26% of the electorate, far less than the 75% you claim.
Trump voters have no business claiming to be members of the party of Lincoln.
We are not comparing Trump to Hitler, we are pointing out that there are literal, actual Nazis involved in his administration and in his electoral campaign. And many others who are not literal Nazis, but have supported Nazis or nationalists, or are nationalists, or are just generally awful people.
You mean, the same Trump whose first foreign visit was to Israel, and whose daughter is Jewish, is a Nazi sympathiser? While your side keeps shouting praise of a vile theo-political ideology who literally (in the real sense of this word) tend to have "death to Jews" on their flags?
Did you not hear the chant of "Jews will not replace us" at the Unite the Right rally? Did you not hear Trump call those demonstrators "very fine people"? In case you want to see some cold, hard evidence of the KKK and neonazis at this rally, here you go: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictur....
Your failed attempt at a rebuttal is nothing more than a sampler pack of logical fallacies. False equivalence: Muslims/BLM are not Nazis. Hasty generalization: All Muslims are not anti-Semitic, just as all Christians are not anti-Semitic. Association fallacy: Just because Trump's daughter is Jewish doesn't mean he isn't defending Nazis. Red herring: This question isn't about BLM, it's about whether Trump defended Nazis. And just plain wrongness - Trump going to Israel has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he is defending Nazis.
My challenge to you: see if you can defend Trump without resorting to a fallacy, diversion, or outright lie. I'll bet that you can't, because if you're being honest, he's simply indefensible.
It's always been here to some extent. I mean, come on:
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
That said, it is surprising just how cynical this place has gotten. If there are legitimate technical objections to something, it's fun to have a conversation about it, but a lot of the commenters lately are just reactionary naysayers.
It is a good read, but there are a couple things worth noting. The process described in the article isn't really a description of software engineering - it's a description of how aerospace engineering is done, period. It's also a description of why the U.S. spends a ludicrous amount of money on defense. At the end of the day, you've always got a balance between risk and budget. Risk will never reach zero, and for any substantive piece of software it will never be perfectly tested and perfectly bug free. So the question is, what's your risk tolerance? And even more importantly, can you afford to pay down the risk to that level?
At these aerospace places, the risk tolerance is very, very low. So they spend 100x as much to get something that fails 10% as often, typically. You have to pay for an army of requirement jockeys and endless layers of bureaucracy and auditing to try to control that process. And since the risk tolerance is so very low, change is extraordinarily painful.
And the unfortunate truth is that, at least in some areas of testing and product assurance, you can easily spend 100x as much money but get no real improvement to your risk profile. There are a ton of consultants out there that will invent fake problems, and then come up with "solutions" to the fake problems that require hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement. How do you know, when you spend that money on testing or product assurance or adding checks and balances to the process, that you have actually caught the biggest risks? Or that you've improved the risk at all? You really don't.
So what ends up happening is that it's easy to point at how some of these engineering groups do a really amazing job with process control and they catch a lot of bugs. But then you also get less talented groups that try to emulate the same approach, and superficially they add the same bureaucratic checks and religiously follow Process, but they don't really understand that process or they don't know how to apply it in the right place, and so you can end up with all the inertia and cost and dogma of a strictly controlled engineering environment, but without any of the actual benefits to the project.
Agree 100%. I think it's a habit people become accustomed to as kids and they never really consider ditching it. But, I think it's also partly about "designing" your life - you have to decide that you aren't just going to meander through life, following momentary impulses to do whatever is comfortable, and instead you have to proactively cultivate the habits you want and get rid of the ones you don't. A lot of people don't see it that way, though, from what I can tell.
Real estate is one of the few areas where prices (especially in the last couple decades) have inflated WAY beyond what they've historically been, and I wonder if part of that is because we're still building houses with a lot of the same old inefficiencies that we've always had. Bringing some serious automation into the sector could be a good thing for prices, however, that threatens one of the few remaining industries where someone could come straight out of high school and start a decent career.
Oh sure, I still watch movies and do enjoy theater, but it's a rare week that I'm able to watch more than one. My main contention is that cable sucks. Netflix alone has more content than I could ever get through, I don't have to put up with commercials, and I start watching exactly what I want to watch, when I want it. So why channel surf?
If I really want to rest, about the best thing out there is to just drink a beer or sip some scotch and sit. I feel like TV is the worst of both worlds - too stimulating to allow your brain to slow down and process whatever it wants to, but not stimulating enough that you're learning or improving at anything.
I get that different folks have different preferences, and I'm not trying to tell you that you have to live your life the same way - but for me, TV costs a lot of time and money for very little benefit - and just about any activity (or non-activity) out there seems superior. I think a lot of people would come to the same conclusions if they tried ditching TV for a week or a month.
When I get home after 11 hours work + commute, I don't want a worthwhile use of time. I want to flop in my chair.
I understand the impulse, but honestly, ever since I was a kid I've always felt this sense of waste after spending hours flipping through channels watching reruns of shows that I barely like in between commercials that I really hate. Why not try ditching it for a while to see what happens? It's not like you have to take up high intensity non-Euclidean basket weaving in its place. Read a book or argue on Slashdot or get some extra sleep or sit on the porch for a beer or three.
Instead of TV, I generally use my free time to read sci-fi or practice an instrument - I always keep an instrument in my front room, and if I want to veg out for a bit I play a few songs. Honestly, I think just about any use of time (even Slashdot!) is superior to watching TV, because TV is one of the very few pastimes that requires zero mental engagement whatsoever. In contrast, those Slashdot comments aren't going to read themselves.
Must be fucking awesome inside your simple little black and white world.
In a world of moral ambiguity, one of the few concrete principles that everybody can agree on is this: Nazis are fucking evil. Seriously. You are just demonstrating my point. It is black and white, and easy, when almost nothing else in the world is. The fact that this simple truth is even being debated speaks volumes about Trump - specifically, that he's at best a failure of a president, and at worst, a shameless Nazi sympathizer.
Just stop watching TV and you save the full bill. Seriously, cable cutters aren't doing it because they are getting an equivalent service for cheaper - they are opting out of some or all of the service because they don't see value in it. In fact, I would say cable provides negative value for many people, because it's time that could be better spent doing something a lot more rewarding. Seriously, when was the last time that you spent an evening flipping through channels on cable and felt like it was a worthwhile use of time?
So you want Trump to implicitly support Antifa violence?
Nice strawman you have there. Trump should have done one very simple thing: condemn homicidal Nazis. There was only one terror attack using ISIS signature moves in Charlottesville, and that attack had nothing to do with purported leftist violence. No lives were lost due to the counter protest. No terrorist attacks were committed by that side. There was blame on one, and only one side for the Charlottesville tragedy.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the idiot in office regularly DOES describe official policy from twitter - the transgender ban, for instance. Thanks to the extraordinary lack of discipline in the oval office it means that the distinctions between executive policy and the insomniac ramblings of an incoherent narcissist no longer exist. "It's just twitter" isn't a defense.
Plus, Trump campaigned on his promise to violate constitutional rights and has continually attempted to make good on those promises. He's no friend of free speech or freedom of religion, except to the extent that they protect him and his followers.
In that case I recommend to improve the registration process.
Sure, let's make it mandatory, the way we do with motor vehicles and other technologies that are expensive and/or potentially dangerous.
Sure, there could be a universe prime, one level "higher" than us, that is spawning child universes as part of an infinite loop bug in some CS student's first Hello World program. However, imagining that requires us to suppose an entire universe that operates according to fundamentally different physics than our own. There's no evidence to suggest such a place exists, and there's not even any conceivable experiment that could prove or disprove its existence. Imagining such universes is the realm of sci-fi novelists and theologians, but not scientists.
If the conclusions of this study survive peer review, it provides good evidence that our universe cannot produce a simulation of itself. That means that this whole simulation question leaves the domain of this universe's physics, and enters the domain of an imaginary universe's physics. Which tells us that this deserves no deeper consideration than invisible pink unicorns or any other imaginary phenomenon. Since that's the realm of ideas that can't be tested or verified or used for any meaningful purpose, this study has succeeded in something very important... showing in a rigorous way that the simulation concept isn't meaningful or worthwhile.
Only about 9% of guns are registered. So, what you're telling us is that owners of registered guns commit crimes just as often, proportionally, as owners of unregistered guns.
It rules out simulations that anything within this universe, no matter how advanced, could come up with.
There is no reason to believe that our Universe has the same physical laws as the "higher" Universe that is simulating us. Video game simulations do not rigorously recreate physics, and focus more on entertainment than accuracy.
The study in TFA actually is a evidence FOR a simulation, since obviously the simulators added this constraint to prevent "nested" simulations from overloading their servers.
Here's the thing, though: this study does, very successfully, lower the probability that we are in a simulation. Because prior writing on the subject has made the point that if accurate simulation is possible, then it is likely that any civilization will end up simulating itself to answer various questions of interest. If the simulations are accurate enough, the simulations will themselves contain simulations. At that point, you get infinite simulations and it's turtles all the way down. In that case, we are infinitely more likely to live in a simulation than live in a "real" world. The probability that we are living in a simulation is inf/(inf+1), to be exact.
So, by showing that no computer following this universe's physics could simulate this universe accurately, the problem becomes constrained. Nesting of closely related universes is no longer possible if each universe must be simulated by a universe with fundamentally different physics. Infinite simulation chains are no longer possible. Which means that instead of our chances being virtually 100% of being in a simulation, are chances are more like zero, at least based on the evidence we have. A universe like ours cannot accurately simulate a universe like ours.
Whether the universe is computable is a really interesting question. Consider the resolution of the probability values of QM experiments; ie - is there a limit to the resolution one can have on a probability measurement?
Isn't that just the planck length? We've also got Heisenberg uncertainty and I'm sure other QM principles that at least have the flavor of a universal resolution limit.
The 1900x is looking to be THE go-to processor for data science needs, or really anybody who is serious about massive multithreading or deep learning. You've got more PCIE lanes than anything else on the market, to support multiple GPUs with high-bandwidth x16 PCIE interfaces. Single-thread performance is almost never the bottleneck here, so really what you want to optimize on the maximum number of PCIE lanes per dollar, and this cheap Threadripper wins by a mile.
Time to start prepping the Newegg wish list. And convincing the wife that the bare minimum for this system is a Geforce 1080 Ti... or 4.
Well, your version of reality doesn't seem to be doing you much good since the only explanation you have for the implosion of the Democratic party is that everybody other than a select elite of voters like you is a stupid, uninformed conspiracy theorist.
Reading comprehension: try it. There are lots of interesting explanations for the various failures of the democratic party, as I have mentioned above. I don't think that all non-Democrats are uninformed conspiracy theorists, but I am saying that YOU present yourself as an uninformed conspiracy theorist, judging by your obsession with a radical activist that Hillary has explicitly rejected from the earliest point of her career and your naive portrayal of democrats as cackling cartoon villains.
I personally think there is a clear difference between 1080p and 4k, even in a more "normal" scenario, such as a 48" TV viewed at ten feet. I remember people saying something similar in the late 2000's: that there was no point in getting 1080p over 720p if the screen size was less than 32" because "you can't tell a difference anyway," but I think most people would now agree that is incorrect.
That's actually not far off from the truth - at a 10' viewing distance, on a 32" TV, the improvement going from 720P to 1080P will be marginal. It's a pretty easy hypothesis to test - do a double blind study. Across a wide variety of human experience (wine, audiophile products, etc) you'll find that people are willing to pay far more for a "premium" product, but in an actually fair test, the supposedly superior qualities can't be reliably distinguished from lower priced items. I'm more inclined to trust the science here than human impressions.
If by "the problem" you mean that Hillary and people like her aren't in power, I'm glad to hear it.
Nope. You're contributing to the problem by making ludicrous and disengenous claims that have no grounding in reality. You are contributing to the state of polarized shit-slinging that characterizes the current political dysfunction in the U.S. Hillary was more pro-business and pro-bank than Obama, and more hawkish as well, all of which push her to the right. Judging by her actual policy record and proposals, rather than by whatever fabricated conspiracy piece you happen to find, she was fairly to the right of Obama. Essentially, she would have been the second incarnation of GWB. Hell, she even opposed gay marriage quite a bit longer than McCain did!
Nope. Let's go line by line.
Hasty generalization: Some people chanting that they won't be replaced, is not all people chanting.
Never said it was. That said, if you protest in lockstep with the "Jews will not replace us" crowd and the KKK, what does that make you? Conservatives regularly condemn BLM by association with hooligans and vandals at the protests, and in some cases with merit. If you are protesting on the same side as the KKK and choose not to leave, you deserve condemnation. Richard Spencer and a lot of other known white supremacists were advertised as part of the event. Anyone joining that protest is CHOOSING to associate with neonazis, so it is CORRECT to call them nazi sympathizers, at the very least.
Hasty generalization: Just because some of the people were bad does not mean they all were. You claim to know the marcher's motives. Do you know them all?
See the above. If you knowingly hang out with your buddies while they commit a crime, the law calls you culpable. Same principle applies here. Being friends with a felon doesn't make you a felon. Going along for the ride while a felony is committed, though, does make you guilty. In the same way, being associated with someone who happens to be a nazi doesn't make you a nazi. Holding a sign right next to them at a protest, though...
Just plain wrong: He was not defending Nazis, he was defending the right of people to speak out. They have the RIGHT, whether you agree or not.
This had nothing to do with free speech. It was about a false equivalence between nazis and anti-nazis. "There were fine people on both sides".
Just plain wrong: Supporting Nazis when his daughter, a trusted supporter that he keeps close, is Jewish would be ridiculous. Flying to support Israel while being a Nazi support would be ridiculous.
How so? I didn't say that Trump is a Nazi, and neither did the parent. It's an indisputable fact, however, that Trump has called them and their associates "fine people", and consistently rationalized their actions. Here's another fact - Trump IS ridiculous. He pardons Arpaio for "the ratings". He loves applause and adulation, whether it comes from nazis or not. I don't think he's actually, himself, a neonazi, because that takes a level of ideological commitment that Trump has never demonstrated. He is, however, an authoritarian demagogue who will do absolutely anything to further his own selfish ends.
A lot of it is placebo - unless someone is sitting 5' away from their 75" screen, they probably couldn't tell the difference between 1080p and 4k in a double-blind test. There's a limit to the angular resolution of the human eyeball, and after a certain point the extra pixels are packing in information that we can't even perceive at realistic viewing distances.
This site lets you calculate for yourself how much you might benefit: https://referencehometheater.c...
The overall trend seems to be that we can still use more resolution in our PC monitors, which store VERY detailed information at a very close range, but for most people 1080p is more than sufficient for TV viewing.
Hence my point: as far as Democrats are concerned, anybody who didn't vote for Hillary or opposes the Democrats is considered "alt-right" by the Democrats.
No, they really aren't. Sure, you can find a random twitter user saying anything, but Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and many other establishment republicans oppose Democrats and Hillary. I don't see them being called alt-right. Alt-right is a designation reserved for the nationalist, isolationist, authoritarian wing that put Trump in power. The majority of establishment Republicans don't fit.
Your concern for Republicans is touching, but Democrats used to abuse GWB and Romney the same way they are abusing Trump: Bush was portrayed with a Hitler moustache, compared to Nero, called a Nazi, a racist, a homophobe, etc. Cry wolf too often and this is what happens.
I don't disagree. It has been a mistake to create this hyper-partisan polarized atmosphere, and it has been happening on both sides since the Clinton administration, at least. But the solution is for people to stop the hyperbole, not to hit back with it in the opposite direction.
But Hillary voters certainly are entitled to claim being members of the party of slavery, eugenics, segregation, scientific racism, the party on which European fascists modeled themselves.
What? I get that you hate Democrats, but you're just applying random insults at this point. Voting for Hillary was voting for a centrist policy wonk who would probably have governed slightly to the right of Obama. Slavery and eugenics? That's utter nonsense. You're contributing to the problem.
Well, the definition of "alt-right" is evidently "anybody who didn't vote for Hillary". That's because in the minds of Democrats, Trump was so awful that even decent Republicans should have come around and voted for her, as much of the Republican establishment and conservative dutifully did.
Of course, that makes about 3/4 of US voters "alt-right".
Good luck trying to win the next election, Democrats or establishment Republicans!
No, the definition of "alt-right" is essentially an umbrella label for the assortment of ignorant and/or reprehensible ideologies variously held by Trump supporters at this point. And in the minds of Democrats, Republicans committed far more errors than that: Trump was so awful that the Republicans never should have run him as their nominee, and the Republicans should have been more forceful in the repudiation of his corrupt influence as it slowly built momentum through the Obama administration. No decent Republican did vote for Trump - he's antithetical to every principle that the party claims to hold dear: individual liberty, constitutionalism, fiscal responsibility, moral uprightness, and the basic politeness and sense of down-to-earth decency that gave even unpopular Republicans like GWB an inherent charm. The principled conservatives that I know either bit the bullet and voted for Hillary, or voted for a third-party candidate that they truly believed in. The unprincipled alt-right (the folks who actually put Trump in power), amount to 26% of the electorate, far less than the 75% you claim.
Trump voters have no business claiming to be members of the party of Lincoln.
We are not comparing Trump to Hitler, we are pointing out that there are literal, actual Nazis involved in his administration and in his electoral campaign. And many others who are not literal Nazis, but have supported Nazis or nationalists, or are nationalists, or are just generally awful people.
You mean, the same Trump whose first foreign visit was to Israel, and whose daughter is Jewish, is a Nazi sympathiser? While your side keeps shouting praise of a vile theo-political ideology who literally (in the real sense of this word) tend to have "death to Jews" on their flags?
Did you not hear the chant of "Jews will not replace us" at the Unite the Right rally? Did you not hear Trump call those demonstrators "very fine people"? In case you want to see some cold, hard evidence of the KKK and neonazis at this rally, here you go: https://www.cbsnews.com/pictur....
Your failed attempt at a rebuttal is nothing more than a sampler pack of logical fallacies. False equivalence: Muslims/BLM are not Nazis. Hasty generalization: All Muslims are not anti-Semitic, just as all Christians are not anti-Semitic. Association fallacy: Just because Trump's daughter is Jewish doesn't mean he isn't defending Nazis. Red herring: This question isn't about BLM, it's about whether Trump defended Nazis. And just plain wrongness - Trump going to Israel has nothing whatsoever to do with whether he is defending Nazis.
My challenge to you: see if you can defend Trump without resorting to a fallacy, diversion, or outright lie. I'll bet that you can't, because if you're being honest, he's simply indefensible.
I think it's gotten worse.
It's always been here to some extent. I mean, come on:
That said, it is surprising just how cynical this place has gotten. If there are legitimate technical objections to something, it's fun to have a conversation about it, but a lot of the commenters lately are just reactionary naysayers.
It is a good read, but there are a couple things worth noting. The process described in the article isn't really a description of software engineering - it's a description of how aerospace engineering is done, period. It's also a description of why the U.S. spends a ludicrous amount of money on defense. At the end of the day, you've always got a balance between risk and budget. Risk will never reach zero, and for any substantive piece of software it will never be perfectly tested and perfectly bug free. So the question is, what's your risk tolerance? And even more importantly, can you afford to pay down the risk to that level?
At these aerospace places, the risk tolerance is very, very low. So they spend 100x as much to get something that fails 10% as often, typically. You have to pay for an army of requirement jockeys and endless layers of bureaucracy and auditing to try to control that process. And since the risk tolerance is so very low, change is extraordinarily painful.
And the unfortunate truth is that, at least in some areas of testing and product assurance, you can easily spend 100x as much money but get no real improvement to your risk profile. There are a ton of consultants out there that will invent fake problems, and then come up with "solutions" to the fake problems that require hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement. How do you know, when you spend that money on testing or product assurance or adding checks and balances to the process, that you have actually caught the biggest risks? Or that you've improved the risk at all? You really don't.
So what ends up happening is that it's easy to point at how some of these engineering groups do a really amazing job with process control and they catch a lot of bugs. But then you also get less talented groups that try to emulate the same approach, and superficially they add the same bureaucratic checks and religiously follow Process, but they don't really understand that process or they don't know how to apply it in the right place, and so you can end up with all the inertia and cost and dogma of a strictly controlled engineering environment, but without any of the actual benefits to the project.
Agree 100%. I think it's a habit people become accustomed to as kids and they never really consider ditching it. But, I think it's also partly about "designing" your life - you have to decide that you aren't just going to meander through life, following momentary impulses to do whatever is comfortable, and instead you have to proactively cultivate the habits you want and get rid of the ones you don't. A lot of people don't see it that way, though, from what I can tell.
Real estate is one of the few areas where prices (especially in the last couple decades) have inflated WAY beyond what they've historically been, and I wonder if part of that is because we're still building houses with a lot of the same old inefficiencies that we've always had. Bringing some serious automation into the sector could be a good thing for prices, however, that threatens one of the few remaining industries where someone could come straight out of high school and start a decent career.
Oh sure, I still watch movies and do enjoy theater, but it's a rare week that I'm able to watch more than one. My main contention is that cable sucks. Netflix alone has more content than I could ever get through, I don't have to put up with commercials, and I start watching exactly what I want to watch, when I want it. So why channel surf?
If I really want to rest, about the best thing out there is to just drink a beer or sip some scotch and sit. I feel like TV is the worst of both worlds - too stimulating to allow your brain to slow down and process whatever it wants to, but not stimulating enough that you're learning or improving at anything.
I get that different folks have different preferences, and I'm not trying to tell you that you have to live your life the same way - but for me, TV costs a lot of time and money for very little benefit - and just about any activity (or non-activity) out there seems superior. I think a lot of people would come to the same conclusions if they tried ditching TV for a week or a month.
When I get home after 11 hours work + commute, I don't want a worthwhile use of time. I want to flop in my chair.
I understand the impulse, but honestly, ever since I was a kid I've always felt this sense of waste after spending hours flipping through channels watching reruns of shows that I barely like in between commercials that I really hate. Why not try ditching it for a while to see what happens? It's not like you have to take up high intensity non-Euclidean basket weaving in its place. Read a book or argue on Slashdot or get some extra sleep or sit on the porch for a beer or three.
Instead of TV, I generally use my free time to read sci-fi or practice an instrument - I always keep an instrument in my front room, and if I want to veg out for a bit I play a few songs. Honestly, I think just about any use of time (even Slashdot!) is superior to watching TV, because TV is one of the very few pastimes that requires zero mental engagement whatsoever. In contrast, those Slashdot comments aren't going to read themselves.
Must be fucking awesome inside your simple little black and white world.
In a world of moral ambiguity, one of the few concrete principles that everybody can agree on is this: Nazis are fucking evil. Seriously. You are just demonstrating my point. It is black and white, and easy, when almost nothing else in the world is. The fact that this simple truth is even being debated speaks volumes about Trump - specifically, that he's at best a failure of a president, and at worst, a shameless Nazi sympathizer.
Just stop watching TV and you save the full bill. Seriously, cable cutters aren't doing it because they are getting an equivalent service for cheaper - they are opting out of some or all of the service because they don't see value in it. In fact, I would say cable provides negative value for many people, because it's time that could be better spent doing something a lot more rewarding. Seriously, when was the last time that you spent an evening flipping through channels on cable and felt like it was a worthwhile use of time?
So you want Trump to implicitly support Antifa violence?
Nice strawman you have there. Trump should have done one very simple thing: condemn homicidal Nazis. There was only one terror attack using ISIS signature moves in Charlottesville, and that attack had nothing to do with purported leftist violence. No lives were lost due to the counter protest. No terrorist attacks were committed by that side. There was blame on one, and only one side for the Charlottesville tragedy.