[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


...i watched a documentary today, while exercising, and i got very engrossed in it. it was called, American Factory, on the Netflix.

i do not watch much netflix, but i had this strongly recommended, so i watched it.

...it is about an American factory that shut down, and was replaced by a Chinese owned and operated factory, but in the United States

it showed the cultural differences between America and China... and much more. i felt the translations were a bit unfair, but i do not think the ... interpretations of the cultures were far off point.

as an asian american... Chinese/Taiwanese American, to be precise, i felt very torn between two worlds i can recognize.

i wonder... have you seen this documentary? maybe you can watch this trailer to get a sense.

and maybe, we can discuss!

i'd like to think this is not a very political discussion or anything, and its not a debate.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
46 posts and 20 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1653456704045.jpg (297.23 KB, 1289x1060, 1289:1060, Screenshot_20210118-113102….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Reading through this thread I just want to comment that I find a lot of arguments about collectivism vs individualism kinda pointless and rooted in a flawed reductionist framing wherein the two concepts are treated as mutually exclusive and that cultures are treated as exclusively one or exclusively the other when in reality most cultures fall somewhere in between the two and analyzing and comparing cultures is more productive when one ask questikns like how each culture is collectivist or individualist or when it's more one than the other.

Would certainly be a whole hell of a lot better (and frankly more honest) than stand-offish arguments about whether or not one should even exist or arguments over who's was worse. It's especially absurd given that there really isn't such a thing as a truly homogeneous culture.


Personally, I'm an absolutist about individualism.
So it'd probably not pan out any different for me.


Not gonna lie, every time I post here I worry that some day this place is going to show up on the evening news.


File: 1652057904580.png (78.57 KB, 615x615, 1:1, 6403268.png) ImgOps Google

"3D video games are running enough math to compute and draw an entire three-dimensional world with tens of millions of triangles and complex interacting physics, and they're doing it SIXTY TIMES EVERY SECOND (at least! More than twice that if you're using a 144Hz monitor). That is, they're doing it once every ~16.67 miliseconds. (6.95ms at 144 frames per second). Consider that fact, next time you open some boring 2D software on your computer and it takes a couple seconds to load a dozen flat buttons and images, and then you click on a menu and it inexplicably hitches for a few hundred milliseconds."

More at: https://AstralCodexTen.substack.com/p/why-do-people-prefer-my-old-blogs/comment/6403268
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


This person may know nothing at all about computers. I don't know anything about computers but I know enough to disregard anything that they say on the topic.

Visual rendering happens almost entirely on the GPU, as stated above. Less stated is that 3D rendering is almost entirely the same calculation. Rendering is fairly unique in that it involves thousands of fairly trivial calculations that don't impact each other so they can be run on thousands of minimal processors simultaneously. Traffic management is minimal and solved in hardware. Some of your most expensive operations you can do are read-writes that are not generally necessary in how a GPU operates. And the 3D rendering possible has strict rules to simplify the linear algebra involved and make it as convenient for a computer as possible. It's why rendering "polygons" are always triangles and never squares. I recommend skimming the Red Book even if you only play games. It's a fascinating read and easy to find free.

By comparison opening a menu is an enormous operation that is limited to a single logical thread. It isn't hanging up because rendering a rectangle on the screen is that hard. It's hanging up because rendering that rectangle is the last step in an enormous data operation and I feel like anybody who even knows what programming is would be aware of that. Word processors and other data programs don't hang up because the letter 'a' is soooo hard to render.

Also there's the priorities. If a primitive just vomits all over itself and the rendering goes tits up for a single frame, or if a frame gets pushed out half finished or missing completely then nobody will care. It matters for 16 milliseconds. In other applications, especially online where packet security is important and data may arrive corrupted or missing portions and so there may be expectations to recover damaged or missing data through a communications delay that can be noticed by humans. Again the lag isn't in rendering a rectangle with letters on it. The lag is in the work you don't see solving other, generally more urgent problems that are designed so you don't notice anything went wrong but a brief second of unexpected waiting.


File: 1652810111504.png (209.53 KB, 676x943, 676:943, input-lag-latency.png) ImgOps Google

>By comparison opening a menu is an enormous operation that is limited to a single logical thread. It isn't hanging up because rendering a rectangle on the screen is that hard. It's hanging up because rendering that rectangle is the last step in an enormous data operation and I feel like anybody who even knows what programming is would be aware of that.
25 years ago, CPUs were 10 times slower just by clock speed alone, but they were still pretty snappy at 2D GUI rendering.  My home machine running Linux on 8-year-old bare metal with a lightweight desktop environment is pretty snappy.  I think Windows is slow due to bloat, useless eye candy, built-in spyware, and no real attempt to keep latency under control.

Somewhat related: https://danluu.com/input-lag/


That's interesting.  That's a kind of slow.

In your original post, I was thinking more of cases where you select Edit in Microsoft Office and it takes 7 seconds to draw the menu, or something.


File: 1651703159203.jpg (100.6 KB, 800x640, 5:4, Supreme_Court_Front_Dusk.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Hypothetical:  A law is passed in 1900.
In 1910, the court rules the law unconstitutional.
After 1910, people violate this currently unconstitutional law in ways that leave evidence, but the state will not punish.
In 1950, the law is judged constitutional again.

Are those violations from the past now subject to prosecution since the law is constitutional?  The law was broken after it was passed, so this is not a clear ex post facto situation.
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


Probably not new laws, but the charges would need be after the changed decisions.


Ok you're trying to answer hardcore constitutional law questions that are going to be up for serious legal debate for years with some middle school civics.


Are you arguing with Sweet Panda and/or Mellow Eagle's answer or my restatement of their answers?


File: 1651629099427.jpeg (305.87 KB, 1400x584, 175:73, w.jpeg) ImgOps Google

What would be perfect society at the absolute pinnacle of advancement be like? Not the most perfect realizable civilization, but the actual best life imaginable for everyone?

Would it be completely free of pain and struggle, with all things we covet and pray for, all manner of sensual gratification, the deepest love and the greatest sense of achievement, absolute enlightenment, available at a mere thought or less?

If you could personally change and improve anything about life, society, technology, to the limits of your imagination, again and again to the unlimited future, what do you think your ultimate, final version of reality would be?
10 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


If you'll pardon the song form, I think this does a good job of exploring that notion;

War is not pleasant, to be sure, but conflict and violence are not inherently wrong.
There's a time and a place for such things. What we must always remember is the cost, that we don't act unduly.


Would you consider that a maximally progressed society, or would those people strive for progress themselves? Would you imagine such a civilization would remain indefinitely, unchanged for millions of years, or might they have their own ideas of advancement? I don't mean to suggest these are easy questions, but it bears putting forward the implications of a "perfect" utopia being reached.


I like the song.  It's a good point -- if you are building a utopia without war you have to ensure there aren't reasons people would want to go to war.  I suppose at the very least you'd have to say no war, and no oppressive police state.

In the end, I do believe violence is wrong.  Or maybe more generally trying to hurt people is wrong, as your song talks about starving people, which might not be violence exactly, but I think you have to count that as under the umbrella.  Or more generally still, trying to hurt people who are not credibly trying to hurt you is wrong and, even then the hurting should be at a minimum and preventative of harm.

And if my utopia starts at peace, nobody will have a reason to make war.  I have to assert there will be societal organizations and sufficient per capita resources to keep people reasonably content, so although there will be rivalries and conflict, things will be stable enough that groups will not desire the extermination of other groups.  Which I guess is utopian, but that's the tread.  :)


File: 1649553007574.jpeg (110.66 KB, 900x1163, 900:1163, 3FA790F6-02B9-448D-811A-7….jpeg) ImgOps Google

Will got banned for 10 years
7 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


In a just world, it would be up to Chris.


The wealthy rarely do anyway. In a practical sense, this may well be a stronger punishment.
Assuming he remains banned for the set time, anyway.



File: 1651260032666.png (711.45 KB, 959x616, 137:88, Disney-CEO-Bob-Chapek.png) ImgOps Google

Have you followed the Disney company losing its special legal status in Florida due to the corporation expressing opposition (especially in terms of CEO Bob Chapek's comments) to recent legal changes by the state's sitting Governor on children's education?

Context: https://www.wesh.com/article/desantis-reedy-creek-wakeup-call-disney/39859459#

Apparently, millions of dollars are at stake. It's not clear who will be left holding the bag. Disney's previous situation had both advantages and disadvantages in terms of taxpayers.

Do you fundamentally think that corporations should speak out about discrimination and prejudice against people who're Jewish, LGBT, and disabled, particularly when it comes to education?

If that does happen, should said company fairly receive pushback from Americans who hold to social traditionalist views against people who're Jewish, LGBT, and disabled, particularly parents who don't want inclusive views on minority rights taught to their children?

In this specific case, what will likely happen to local Floridians with the legal changes? Is it a fight worth having for Disney? For the Governor?
62 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It's not an irrational fear. It's fact. Conservatives are engaged in bigotry in terms of political actions such as this Flordia measure, and people are dying as a result. It should all stop.


I've yet to see evidence that this particular bill is killing anyone.


i'm not even gonna bother linking all the violating posts, just yeah, you were asked to tone it down and completely ignored that warning. You have a history of this kind of posting on townhall and honestly i think the place is just bad for you and your mental health, so i'm issuing a permanent ban (townhall only). You are free to appeal if you want.

Also, locking the thread since we already gave it a chance to recover once.


I heard today trump in court told they judge abs other that he would tell his guards to be aggressive if protester through tomatoes at him appearanlty he is scared of friut And tomotoes
26 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>Fascists are antigovernment, though, that's why they organize as militias.
Fascists are authoritarians first and foremost.

>They're also against tyranny and oppressive states.
Definitely not.  No.  What is your definition of fascist, if it's not most simply first and foremost a totalitarian state?

>Hence why if you look up the Oath Keepers specifically you see them justly described as far right and fascists.
By who?

I can find sources calling Obama an Islamist. Didn't make it true


Are you really not able of understanding that Amercisn fascists claim to be patriotic, libertarian, antigovernment, and so on in opposition to the current U.S. government as a part and parcel of their agenda of replacing it with a right-wing state to benefit right-wing people?


It just appears downright contradictory and conspiratorial besides.

I've no cause to believe these groups want to replace the US with a fascist totalitarian government.


File: 1651259326518.jpg (157.64 KB, 999x575, 999:575, Chickens-Being-Studied.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Are you concerned about the proliferation of the H5N1 disease known as "bird influenza"?

Context: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/highly-contagious-bird-flu-detected-person-first-time-us-health-offici-rcna26581

Health experts in the U.S. state that the danger to humans from the afflictions rapidly spreading among avian species is minimal. Are they right? Maybe they're too cautious?
25 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I agree. Shame you take such strong issue with it.
Pointing out the objective fact that the MSM has significant bias in pharmaceutical interests shouldn't be controversial.


Pointing out the objective fact that scientific reporting still exists that educates shouldn't be controversial.

Again, I hope to God you wake up at some point and put down the kool-aid.


I agree. It's a good thing I never said it didn't exist. You keep trying to make these gotcha's out of stuff I've never said nor ever stood against.

There's no Kool aid beam drunk here, you are jumping at ghosts


File: 1651087843551.png (211.78 KB, 1080x1115, 216:223, Screenshot_20220426-153655….png) ImgOps Google

I found this an interesting blog post.  Any thoughts on it?



This is a great argument, and it's well presented. Thank you.


I like it.


File: 1648154945520.png (655.39 KB, 1514x1220, 757:610, commentorsentiments.png) ImgOps Google

I get a sense of political sentiments on Facebook usually, as it's the site most regular folks seem to use to express these kinds of opinions.  So sometimes you click down to the comments section of news stories.  In these two news stories, I looked at about 30 comments and quickly put them in categories.  I believe they are roughly representative of what I see on Facebook on other stories.  Russia seems to have a fair amount of support.  I come from a little different perspective sentimentally, but perhaps I can ask some open ended questions here to try to understand better and overcome my biases.

Please, if you like, answer which best describes your sense of the Russo-Ukrainian War, especially as escalated a month ago.

a) There is no such war, or there is no reliable way of affirming any significant military force is being used, has been used since 2014, or will be used by Russians in Ukraine.

b) There is some conflict, but it's not significant because Western nations have done so much worse.

c) The conflict is real, but Ukraine is not a legitimate state, so it is really a conflict with Western forces that are attacking Russia through the Ukraine territory, attacking Russians in that territory, or hurting innocents in horrible ways.  The West's evil started this war, basically.

d) The conflict is real, Ukraine is a state, but Russia is responding in self defense to Ukrainian aggression or general evil.  (It is rare to see people believe Ukraine is sufficiently independent for this to be true, but I'll make it an option anyway.)

e) The conflict is real, Ukraine is real, and Russia is the instigator invading a sovereign nation.

What I'd like, if possible, is amplifying information as to why you have your opinion, since I can already access volumes of opinions elsewhere, but they are rather short and repetitive.
62 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It's rather likely that mass use of advanced electronic technology in justice is such a new thing in terms of human nature that it can't be scientifically studied yet, even if we have ideas right now? We need more time? Maybe? I agree with you. I wonder how it all shakes out. All very interesting.


I guess I just think it's interesting because I've been trying to think of ways to use smartphones and other small devices to do science.  And you think about all that data that's out there, or could be out there.

The counter-arguments that come to my mind are: encryption and bottle-necks.

If the Nazi's had encrypted everything they recorded, they would have only needed to destroy the crypto keys.

And then, although there are countless cameras to record war-crimes, assuming you plan to take control of the region and take possession of all digital storage what matters is the data getting out before then.  And that data is mostly going to go through cell towers or broadband internet.  If your fist move severs those connections, you may be able to render the region just as information-dark as if you were marauding a village in medieval times.


It's certainly possible that all that could happen, agreed. Not sure what future post-2000s/post-2010s military conflicts will look like.


File: 1651591560393.png (1.5 MB, 1259x885, 1259:885, Politico.png) ImgOps Google

Have you followed the harlots losing their ability to terminate lives at will due to a leaked SCOTUS ruling indicating the impending overturning of Roe v. Wade?

Context: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

Do you fundamentally think that people should speak out about this restriction of previously liberated sexuality among irresponsible females, pedophiles, and terrorists, when it comes to the inevitable consequences of careless promiscuity?

Should the Supreme Court receive preemptive pushback from left wing individuals in the form of "fiery but mostly peaceful protests" to force the Supreme Court to overturn its impending decision, in what would be another legitimate use of "the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives", and thereby defend the inalienable rights of harlots, pedophiles, and terrorists?

In this specific case, what will likely happen to the harlots following these legal changes?  Is it a fight worth having for Leftist pedos?

This thread is a demonstration of how manipulative framing both poisons the well and is a ridiculous basis for debate/discussion.  If you notice, no arguments are presented.  Things are merely implied.  It is intended to be absurd and demonstrate the point that this is not useful.


File: 1651593863206.png (236.14 KB, 730x720, 73:72, 2797815.png) ImgOps Google

This thread blatantly violates rule #2 (ad hominem and straw man arguments), locking.


File: 1651367963707.jpg (197.99 KB, 1024x834, 512:417, Édouard_Manet_-_Le_Suicidé….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Under what circumstances do you feel that suicide is a moral good and/or ethical?  What are the factors that determine which cases qualify?

from https://www.mdis.edu.sg/blog/four-types-of-suicides/

According to Emile Durkheim, the term suicide is applied to all cases of death resulting directly or indirectly from a positive or negative act of the victim, which he/she knows will produce this result (Pickering & Walford, 2011). Durkheim identifies four different types of suicide which are egoistic suicide, altruistic suicide, anomic suicide and fatalistic suicide.

Egoistic suicide is seen as stemming from the absence of social integration. It is committed by individuals who are social outcast and see themselves as being alone or an outsider. These individuals are unable to find their own place in society and have problems adjusting to groups. They received little and no social care. Suicide is seen as a solution for them to free themselves from loneliness or excessive individuation.

Altruistic suicide occurs when social group involvement is too high. Individuals are so well integrated into the group that they are willing to sacrifice their own life in order to fulfil some obligation for the group. Individuals kill themselves for the collective benefit of the group or for the cause that the group believes in.

Anomic suicide is caused by the lack of social regulation and it occurs during high levels of stress and frustration. Anomic suicide stems from sudden and unexpected changes in situations. For example, when individuals suffer extreme financial loss, the disappointment and stress that individuals face may drive them towards committing suicide as a means of escape.

Fatalistic suicide occurs when individuals are kept under tight regulation. These individuals are placed under extreme rules or high expectations are set upon them, which removes a person’s sense of self or individuality. Slavery and persecution are examples of fatalistic suicide where individuals may feel that they are destined by fate to be in such conditions and choose suicide as the only means of escaping such conditions.

I expect there are substantial overlaps, and the categories are not as cut and dry as they might initially seem.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


>Under what circumstances do you feel that suicide is a moral good and/or ethical?
When the individual who is suiciding so chooses.
If you cannot determine when your life is to end, you've no autonomy.
That is solely the purview of the individual involved.


I feel like both ethically and legally individuals should have the right to end their own lives.

At the same time, though, suicide being one of the leading causes of death for young Americans is a sign right now of a fundamentally diseased culture, and it probably can't be denied if everybody started acting like Mister Rogers from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood that said suicide rate would plummet.

Ultimately, basic human niceness should be more common.


File: 1650476756361.jpg (93.43 KB, 666x666, 1:1, Border-Image-From-AP.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

The Biden administration has expressed bipartisan opposition, both in Congress and among the general public, in terms of a recent decision that would ease the ability for individuals to seek asylum in the U.S. by crossing the territorial borders.

Context: https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/1093529387/as-biden-plans-to-lift-title-42-democrats-want-details-on-how-he-ll-address-influx

My personal opinion is that the legal process of immigration for people who've "stood in line", metaphorically, ought to be streamlined and made more logical. At the same time, I'm concerned about illegal immigration, especially with the rise of organized crime in the context of drug smuggling and other issues. Sending up a "Migrants (Maybe) Welcome!" mat in rhetorical terms, even if practically what's happening is complicated, doesn't strike me as a good idea.

What do you think? Do you oppose the Biden administration on this? Do you have mixed feelings?

<Yes, I did intentionally crop this image to make it 666X666, not that it matters... I just... felt like it for a reason I don't know...>
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Don't you usually seek asylum by going to an embassy? Assuming you 1st cross over to the nearest neighborhood neighboring country as is required by International law as I understand it.

I don't think I quite understand the question.
Shouldn't asylum come before entry?


A lot in the U.S. will argue that asylum seekers tend to be inherently flawed people (such as being uneducated, being susceptible to health problems, being impoverished, being unable intellectually to learn sufficient English, and so on) such that shouldn't be able to even start the process in the first place.

I don't agree personally, but I see such a belief as being kind of popular.


I should be clear that I've seen this only from social media and not from actual elected people, so I genuinely don't know how widespread this anti-refugee viewpoint is.

I would think that given circumstances right now most Republicans and Democrats in actual office are kind of generally alright with refugees? They're (the refugees) getting a lot of positive news coverage now? I guess?


File: 1650668905588.jpg (56.09 KB, 601x347, 601:347, 239668.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This is either a big question in the books I've been reading recently, or it is an important side question.

As I always need to be precise, I will ask -- is a state where important decisions are made by the direct vote of voters and/or by representatives selected by the voters superior to other forms of state organization?  Voters here mean humans subject to state authority, generally residents of the state, and legally mature, however not restricted based on other criteria such as race, sex, formal education, wealth, or political affiliation.  Representatives, where used, are to represent a wide range of political options and be rotated frequently enough to be able to minimize the differential between their actions and what the majority wants.  Representative options should not be vetted by some minority prior to being exposed for potential selection.  The state may operate as practical, as millions of decisions have to be made by state agents, but practical administration won't be dedicated to thwarting majority rule.

The problems with majority rule can be summarized, I think:

a) politics is toxic to society
b) elites can better operate a state (each category of elite will have their own argument for why this is so)
c) the majority will oppress minorities, or in libertarian thought, will oppress themselves as well
d) the majority will make irrational reactionary decisions, perhaps making war for a trifle

Where do you stand on this fairly fundamental question in politics?
7 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


I know a better form of government, but I can assure you many would be inclined to disagree heheh.


"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..." - Winston S. Churchill, 11 November 1947 ( https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form-of-government/ )

I can't agree more.


No, but it's better than most alternatives.

Either way, a raw democracy, one vote for every issue, would be terrible, which is why we have the system we do.
Especially in regards to the separation of powers. Local matters ought be controlled by the people it affects.

The biggest thing of all, and one I think is mostly overlooked these days; Democracy is not inherently right, nor does something being voted in by the people make it good.
Whether it's a dictator, a king, a president, or just a law passed by the mob, your rights are absolute. A violation of them is a violation of them. It's wrong, regardless of what created that break.


File: 1650343355038.jpeg (182.76 KB, 1249x1659, 1249:1659, 49EA0656-C9B1-4F94-993E-2….jpeg) ImgOps Google

the government has ruled if you aren't insured you have to pay for testing now


Isn't that more like the government unruling that they had to pay for testing?


File: 1650387839370.png (203.19 KB, 600x450, 4:3, derpy shy 3.png) ImgOps Google

i have, a big stack of free tests c: you can get some, in the mail!



Coronavirus testing should've been more easily available due to large-scale government action months and months ago, but I still appreciate whatever public actions are still being attempted now.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]