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

/townhall/ - Townhall

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


File: 1559435267262.png (905.05 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Mayor,_Let's_get_galloping….png) ImgOps Google

Welcome to /townhall/! This is an anonymous-only board for debates, dialectics, and discussions of a serious nature.

As the topics discussed on this board may deal with sensitive or controversial subject matter, we expect a higher standard of conduct than elsewhere on the site, and will enforce the board's rules with a greater degree of strictness. Inability or unwillingness to follow the rules will result in a /townhall/-only ban.


1) All posts in a given thread must contribute constructively to the conversation, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Off-topic, contentless, inflammatory, or hostile posts will be deleted and result in a ban.

1a) Derails that occur as a natural result of discussion progressing from the original subject will generally not be interfered with; however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred.

1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.

1c) Be as willing to "lose" as you are to "win", and above all else, be willing to learn and understand. You will not get the most out of this board if your only goal is to persuade, and you will not even be effective at that unless you understand what you are arguing against.

2) Ad hominems and other uncivil behavior will not be tolerated. You may have a significant personal stake in some subjects discussed here, and it is normal to be frustrated when someone cannot relate; however, lashing out is not an effective way to engender sympathy for your position, and will not advance the conversation in a constructive way. Even if you find someone's argument morally abhorrent, there are constructive ways to express this.

2a) Attempting to deliberately provoke an uncivil reaction is prohibited, even if it is done within the letter of the law.

2b) Snark and other forms of mockery are strongly discouraged and may result in warnings or bans.

2c) "Strawmanning" an "opponent" deliberately will be regarded as uncivil conduct and will be dealt with accordingly. This will not apply to genuine misunderstandings.

3) While we do not claim to be arbiters of absolute moral or empirical truth and aim to moderate this board in a fair and even-handed, politically agnostic manner, the following extreme positions are considered "off-limits" regardless of how they are put forward, including attempts to "hint" or dogwhistle:

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1656107606313.jpg (84.47 KB, 586x600, 293:300, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Fluttershy knows best.

Question: should the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade be looked at in isolation -- a technical Supreme court issue of no great concern to non-experts -- or does it signal deeper meaning about human rights, state political directions, or concerns over American demographics (Elon Musk: “Population collapse is potentially the greatest risk to the future of civilization.”)?

Do you think other supreme court rulings based on the 14th Amendment (&etc.) will also be found to have been mistaken in the near future?
57 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It is true that there's some flaw in arguing for abortion only on the exotic cases of the pregnancy posing a danger to the mother.

But even outside those cases, it's worth to ask whether a woman should be forced to carry a baby if they are not in a good place to be a mother (too young, too old, having mental/physical disability / not able to provide a good environment for a kid /...)
heck, if they refuse the responsibility for taking care of the baby/kid, should they still be forced to bring a baby in the world?


It's not exotic, pregnancy IS dangerous. Of course we have better medical care now than we did in the past, but there are many complications and reasons why a women may decide to not become pregnant. But there's also those grey areas, that that video mentions, where what if the women goes into labor and the doctors know, KNOW, the child is not going to live outside of the womb. Can they abort? Maybe, but some doctors or nurses may hesitate for fear of getting sent to jail or prison, risking their own careers and lives. And then the mother dies as well.

Or all these people who are not able to get life changing, or saving, medications because those medications are capable of causing abortions.

There are too many grey areas, and no experts on the matter (doctors) seem to have been allowed to weigh in and provide more clear answers and solutions to those grey areas.


The problem is that the US is a common law country. What you say is completely valid... in a country following a Napoleonic Legal code like France and the rest of Continental Europe where disputes are resolved by statutes and laws are written in a rigidly codified format. We follow an English legal tradition where disputes and discrepancies are resolved by tradition and by the courts. An argument that judges shouldn't be deciding doctrine is less an argument against a particular ruling and more an argument against the Constitution and the Anglo-American legal system.


File: 1654039501586.png (8.34 KB, 315x277, 315:277, Screenshot from 2022-05-31….png) ImgOps Google

I've been going through some books on rampage violence in America.  It's a subject on people's minds on social media, and is generally one of the top 5 or so common debate topics in the USA.

Different ideas about the shape of the curve in the graph [image] account for much disagreement.  You first have to ask what sources may be admitting in filling out the graph, potentially including feelings as a source.

Another element of the debate is over natural rights.  I personally don't see a lot of room for rigor in theories of natural law and natural rights.  But in theory, all the particulars to a God-given right to private arms are self-evident and only tyrants have anything to add.

You are free to share your opinions.  I think I'm in a discovery phase on this issue.
36 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


>If you want to counter with a conservative themed news piece about "Here's the evidence why Jews are inherently untrustworthy", "Here's why transgender people are trying to molest children in schools", "Here's why Putin should be supported in taking over Ukraine", or such, I confess that I'd have an extremely hard time with it.
Neither of us have done anything nor said anything to suggest we believe that Jews are inherently untrustworthy, that Transgendered people are trying to molest children, or that Putin should be supported in Ukraine.

No statements of any kind have been made to suggest absolutely anything of the sort, and such a subject has absolutely nothing to do with anything discussed as of yet here.

That is purely you trying to pin some nasty shit on us, because you lack an argument.

Plainly put: Go fuck yourself.
I am not the figment of your imagination.
I am not beholden to the insane fantasy you think of me.
I sure as shit don't appreciate it when someone throws such rotten presumptions my way.

>I've only ever heard that 3D printed weapons are pieces of garbage and fail after being fired once, though, so if you disagree with this please let me know why and show links.
Check out Print Shoot Repeat's channel.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


Oh, and I guess I should link Ctrl+Pew as well.
Guy actually designs some bits from time to time, memory serves, and is also probably a better goahead for finding the raw files if you're so inclined.


Thank you for the videos.


File: 1657236705048.jpg (45.95 KB, 694x600, 347:300, medium.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'm sure I've created a thread like this before, but how much of politics is really debatable?

If you are a capitalist, you take a limited liability corporation and that corporate person's capacity to control private property as most needing honor.  Although people might tell others this system more efficiently manages resources than any other, implying perhaps that honor belongs to corporations only by deduction, politics feels in general to be something of a religious debate.  And it is impolite to denigrate another's religion.  (I don't mean to pick on free market folks in particular.)

I guess in order for a political matter to be debatable (in a productive way), there must be generally agreed upon values and people's political assertions should not be something like religious faith.  How often would you say that's the case, or what might indicate this is or is not the case?  What's the best strategy when you can't debate politics?
7 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I gather your analysis leads you to think sometimes politics is not debatable in practice.

I've been trying out that idea that as a scientist I am above politics, at least when I don't recognize any scientific claims in politics.  (Arguably when science enters politics, what's really wanted is pseudo-science, not real science.  Recognizing that will free a scientist from unproductive discourse.)


Imagine you want to play a game of tennis, and two strangers offer that they'd like to play with you, separately.

The first comes to you as you're waiting, racket in hand, totally naked. He then holds out a cement brick and refers to it as his 'tennis ball'. He asks if you want to serve first. He then states that he will use his psychic powers to hit the 'ball' back at you if you go first.

The second similarly comes out to you as you wait. Everything seems normal other than how he's accompanied by a spectator not previously announced. You shake hands, and the spector holds out a submachine gun. You're now informed that whomever loses the game is to be immediately executed for their failure.

This is what debating politics amount to.

First, we have entirely different views of what factual reality exists in the world to the point where we might as well be literal space aliens to each other.

Second, the punishment for failing to properly achieve a political cause is literally either direct physical harm or death (not always, but often enough and especially on the biggest issues such as abortion and gun rights).


I've seen politics where people have what I would consider strange ideas, and if people are quite happy with their ideas, even if they are not my ideas, I can accept them.

For the second case, I feel people have a right to self-defense that goes beyond politics.  If the political folks try to shoot you, you should tell them you don't care for that.


File: 1657410219582.jpg (89.7 KB, 845x466, 845:466, Homura-Akemi-Mahou-Shoujo-….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What is your opinion on suicide?

Personally i think the only time it is condoneable is if you are suffering from a terminal illness that will cause you extreme pain before death over a long period or cause you to enter a vegetable state.

Outside of that there really is no excuse to be honest.  There is always solutions to any problem, be it financial, emotional or first world millenial, and honestly if your solution is just to throw away the one life you were gifted with, then you did'nt deserve to be born in the first place.

Which i suppose would have the same outcome for you but suicide generally causes harm or trouble for other people too, making it also selfish and also hypocritical if your reason was no one cared about you, because you obviously didnt care about the feelings of whoever has to clear up your mess after either.
8 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


>Personally i think the only time it is condoneable is if you are suffering from a terminal illness that will cause you extreme pain before death over a long period

What if it causes extreme pain until death but isn't terminal?


Yes, if theres no cure or effective medicine


At least in the case of America, I feel like every suicide case is essentially a murder.

If we didn't have widespread pain, hatred, and misery in this country due to the average person abandoning basic human niceness and most people treating each other in public like insufferable douche-bags, then depressed individuals wouldn't live like statues being eaten away into lumps by acid rain, the gradual pain of living itself due to the abuse and harassment of others being so tough.

I've little clue how to actually make things better, though, other than countless individual small efforts to raise the sanity waterline.

I would argue that a lot of it does come from the top, though, and a country that moves from having icons such as Donald Trump to icons such as Fred Rogers is getting better.

 No.10833[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1650070703590.png (441.31 KB, 1400x951, 1400:951, Moony Money.png) ImgOps Google

For discussing the other thread, in /pony/, concerning Elon Musk
73 posts and 13 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I meant in the contract that Mr Musk signed with Twitter

They signed a contract in April. The ink is dry. The specific contents of that contract are the only thing a court will care about unless the contact specifies otherwise.


So there is a conflict between the text of the contract Mr. Musk has agreed to and Mr. Musk's impression that his purchase of Twitter is contingent on proof that 95% of accounts are controlled by humans directly.  You assert this conflict will be resolved in Twitter's favor by the legal system.


Mr. Musk has an uphill fight. This is civil law, not criminal law, the burden of proof is different. As the plaintiff, the burden of proof still lies on Twitter Inc, but this is a contract dispute. Twitter has a baked in advantage in the form of the signatures on the contract. The contract isn't obliging Twitter to maintain a 20:1 user to bot ratio; the contract is a bill of sale. The facts going in to the court room before arguments have been made are that Musk is not carrying out a contract he signed. Mr. Musk's case depends on an interpretation of the contract which leaves a lot of his success or failure up to the skill of his lawyers and the patience of the judge, and it opens up the floor to the plaintiff's own interpretations. A judge who does not want a long trial would be justified in saying "you should have thought of that before you signed the contract." Considering that the judge scheduled 4 days in the next months, it indicates that she does not intend to look at more than the literal wording of the contract itself, which makes no mention of bots or users.

Also I looking at the contract under Article I the definition of "Company Material Adverse Effects" we have three sections that are immediately relevant in the rather long list of things that this contract does not consider Material Adverse Effects:
>(iii) general economic, regulatory or political conditions
>(viii) any changes in the market price or trading volume of the Company Common Stock, any failure by the Company or its Subsidiaries to meet internal, analysts’ or other earnings estimates or financial projections or forecasts for any period
>(ix) any matter disclosed in the Company SEC Documents filed by the Company prior to the date of this Agreement

The contract specifically defines:
>“Company Material Adverse Effect” means any change, event, effect or circumstance which, individually or in the aggregate, has resulted in or would reasonably be expected to result in a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition or results of operations of the Company and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole
When we consider
>(vii) any action taken pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or with the Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1654462497188.jpeg (81.37 KB, 1140x570, 2:1, 280127119_363355942495661….jpeg) ImgOps Google

If Christian nationalism is something to be scared of, they’re lying to you. And they’re lying to you on purpose, because that is exactly the temperature change that is happening in America today, and they can’t control it. They can’t control it, and that’s what terrifies them the most.

You see… if we’re going to label it Christian nationalism, this movement will actually be the movement that stops the school shootings.

This will be the movement that stops the crime in our streets.

This will be the movement that stops the sexual immorality, and teaches children and brings them up in traditional families and loving homes.

This will be the movement that protects kids innocence and nurtures them into responsible adults that grow up to be successful moms and dads wanting to pursue a family of their own.

This will be the movement that that finally does something about our debt, because it’s something that all of us should be ashamed of. It should have never happened.

This will be the movement that cares about broken and lost communities. Communities that are always forgotten about. Christians should never forget about those people and we don’t. So while the media is going to lie about you and label “Christian nationalism,” and they’re probably going to going to call it “domestic terrorism.” I’m going to tell you right now, they’re the liars. And if anybody’s a domestic terrorist, it’s the radical left. They are the domestic terrorists.

We can even say the Democrats are the domestic terrorists because they funded them, and they burned down our city streets and rioted in 2020. So if we’re going to put labels on people, we should put labels where they appropriately belong, not on Christians, and not on people who love their country and want to take care of it.
11 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


What exactly is the point of going to a My Little Pony website to spout Nazi propaganda? Is this supposed to be humor? Or is this meant to scare people? Can't this thread be locked already?


Pretty sure the American south is a glaring counterpoint to your stupid theocratic claims. Not even that I'm against 100% of the ideas, but it's an idea that's already failed.


Just like the lgbt community :^)

 No.11166[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1653742247781.png (287.74 KB, 800x450, 16:9, medium.png) ImgOps Google

I'm reading a book about Oculus, which is an interesting subject in itself.  Anyway Oculus was sold to Facebook, and following Facebook finding out that Oculus founder Palmer Lucky supported Donald Trump, the Facebook CEO required that Lucky cease support for Donald Trump or resign.  Sadly, it was further found that Lucky ceased to be useful to Oculus even after following this dictate.

So I suppose I can ask a more general question:

Do people who are corporations have a right to choose associations based on the association's political opinions?  That is, should corporations be allowed to fire or refuse to hire people based on who they vote for or which politicians they like?

Alternately, do people who are not corporations have such a right?  For example, some people don't eat at Chic-Fil-A because they (he? she?) support(s) Republican causes.  Is that OK?

(Also, is anyone else struggling with language now that corporations are people?  Like, I tried to google how corporations identify their gender but found...nothing, really.)
107 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


What do you want to do me as punishment for what you perceive as my inferior mental state compared to you? Serious question. Ugh.


Just going to leave this and then leave the chat here for good:




Titles of this nature are usually about 80% exaggerated clickbait. Welcome to the modern information age, where exaggeration and clickbait reign supreme ;-;. Reading the article actually tells you more nuance, albeit with a very clear bias from the author.

I already told you what i want you to do. It's right there in my tiny post.

1) seek professional help to manage your potential anxiety/delusions to prevent you from doing something dangerous.

2) tell me what you think my political ideals are, since you seem to think i have a side, i'd like you to tell me what you think my side is, what my political ideals are, because i'm genuinely curious as to what this twisted image you have of me is.

3) Work on your reading comprehension

I never said anything about punishment, or perceiving you as mentally inferior. There's a difference between being a bit dull and dumb, and being unhinged and psychologically unwell. I perceive you as being delusional, not dumb. I believe you refuse to engage with your higher brain functions because you've built yourself an ideology house, and you refuse to leave it, rationalizing anything you see into place like a hammer forces a nail. Many people do this, to be honest, it's the nature of the house you've built, one that i believe may lead you to violence, that worries me.


File: 1653566576996.jpg (63.55 KB, 1200x675, 16:9, 1200px-Cheerilee_is_sweet_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

In the Western world, there's often an obligation for kids to take up a fulltime education in schools. Some kids have the option to do homeschooling, but even then you are obligated to follow a set curriculum.
While you are allowed to take up a part time employment during your teenage years, there will be restrictions in how much hours you can be employed.

With all the criticism on education and the concerns of the state encroaching on the freedom of the individuals, do you think we should do away with this system?
Should people be free to choose whether to enroll their kids into schools and be free to allow home schooling or self education in the curriculum of their desire if they wish?
Should we perhaps look into options of apprenticeships in the actual workforce rather than a forced curriculum or even open up fulltime employment opportunity for kids of all ages if they so desire?

If a standard education would become optional, should we relieve our society of the value of a preset education? As such should standards for education become a privilege rather than a fundamental right? (id est, kind of like college right now, it will be more of a private school situation with heavier costs if you wish to pursue it, but with the basics picked up from homeschooling and apprenticeships you're encouraged enough to be productive)
4 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Your post seems to address a lot of ideas.  I don't know a lot, but in many places parents may home-school, although the students are still required to get tests to see if they are learning.  I think your example contrasts in giving parents the right to educate their children in a specialty and neglect other subjects.

The problems with child labor, I suppose, are really problems of labor in general: workplace safety, the only available work not helping you learn or develop, and exploitation given power hierarchies.  I guess the conventional view is adults may appropriately make choices that involve these areas, children mostly may not.  You could argue children sent out to the coal mine weren't subject to any greater or lesser harm than adults, so why the age-related views?  But I don't know.  I studied some child psychology, but it's a difficult science because you can only get scientific validity for tiny pieces.  And the questions are often in a form like yours - "what is harmful to a child's well-being?"   Well, that depends on what you consider a healthy child and healthy adult.  If a healthy adult is a coal miner or coder with maximum experience, start early.  If it's something more flexible, another approach.

If you want my opinion, it's that deleting K-12 would be a mistake.  Sure some gifted children with attentive parents would do fine, perhaps even better.  Will students with uneducated parents or overworked parents do better?  When the quality or availability of public education goes down, do things get better historically?


Typically most children who are home schooled have the privilege of such choice as the opportunity usually falls upon if they and their families have freedom for a set of circumstances ie; having the free time and knowledge ability/application. As such, a home school curriculum would generally follow a template based upon an already established general school system, with the freedom to make inclusions or omissions as they see fit.
Privilege in the sense of opportunity not everyone has.
The general education system is far from perfect and could use reform imo, albeit I would go as far to say standard education should be a right as the system is set up and streamlined to be accessible to all. We are privileged to have readily accessible schools in the west, and for the sake of equality it is our right to be able to attend.
Apprenticeships and labor should be exempt from an obligation, as like higher education, its presence is there to bolster and support those that wish to actually pursue such.
>If a standard education would become optional, should we relieve our society of the value of a preset education?
Having standard education become optional would essentially broaden the gap between it being a right as the bar would be set higher, diminishing the right as standard and higher education are separate.


I feel like people should be broadly free to pursue their own educational goals without interference from either any level of government or any other powerful institution standing in the way.

At the same time, desperate inequality means that some kind of radical wealth redistribution so that the lower fifty percent or so of the population isn't reduced to ignorant slavery at the hands of the absolute richest and strongest. Ideally, a universal basic income would allow for self-lead efforts at learning. And specific organizations with state backing can and should work to actually facilitate education. I think. With choice being key.


File: 1651618165794.jpg (23.5 KB, 800x600, 4:3, Full-Moon-Image.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

This is not ideological, political, social, religious, philosophical, or anything of the sort, but it's a serious topic so this is the place to bring it up probably.

Recent news came out about the head of NASA, Bill Nelson, asking the U.S. government for an investment of $26 billion for the fiscal year 2023.

What are the goals? Main thing appears to be the NASA Artemis III mission, which aims for a scheduled 2025 moon landing. Other important advances are coming.

Is this a good idea? I'm personally not sure if establishing a permanent human presence on the Moon is a good investment of time, money, and resources? What else should be happening? Thoughts?

< https://www.clickorlando.com/news/space-news/2022/05/03/watch-live-at-10-am-bill-nelson-testifies-about-26-billion-nasa-budget/ >
12 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


That's the transit costs in relation to how much they brought back.
They didn't bring much to begin with, and besides that, they weren't in a dedicated cargo hauler.
Real prices will be significantly lesser


Especially if there aren't humans aboard.


Research and development from NASA in recent years has been in expanding horizons and furthering understanding of the solar system.
The Mars rover yielded a multitude of excavation finds, but nothing really broadening horizons.
The initial Moon landing was an achievement fueled by research but also the race.
The technological advancement since then is tremendous, so it makes sense to want to revisit a landing. Competition is a substantial driving force.
I think investment in such a project would yield more opportunity for future expansion beyond mining and excavation.
If NASA doesn't set up Moon base, somebody else will.


...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.


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