Facebones

Oh fuck off already, nobody cares.

Do we have an iamverysmart community? We could use one.

For a point of comparison, a ChatGPT request uses 2.9 watt-hours (and rising) to a google searches 0.3 (which per your example would only be run once assuming you're checking different blogs from the same list of results.)

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/chatgpt-google-search-need-power-to-run-heres-how-much-water-and-electricity-are-used-to-answer-questions/articleshow/111382705.cms

This is the way I've come to look at it: non-violence is ideal, but non-violence is one of many "languages." (Obviously here we're just talking about violence, but yknow some is political, some is social, etc.) Some people can speak many of these, some people only speak one or refuse to use others (like how you say you will only use nonviolence.)

The issue is that some people only speak one language, and aren't going to "understand" (be persuaded or moved by) others no matter what. A bigot only understands hate and emotion so they aren't going to be swayed from that position by logic or facts because they don't "speak" that language.

What I'm getting at, is that for people who only speak violence - non-violence doesn't mean anything to them except an easy target. They aren't going to consider your viewpoint because you won't fight back, they won't back down because "clearly you aren't a threat." They're going to violence until they reach their ends. With somebody like that, you have to "speak their language."

Of course on an individual level you (maybe) can get the police to handle it, but on a social level like dealing with nazis you have to keep them scared of return violence. They are violent by nature (the entire ideology is elimination of undesirables) and should be treated as such. Let them know that we punch nazis. Let them know they aren't the only ones with guns and unlike most of them we go to the range. Let them know if they wear iron crosses and shit they're getting kicked the fuck out. Fuck them, and let them know we'd be happy to fuck em up if they want to give us the opportunity.

I'm generally anti-violence myself, but I'm also a large guy so I'm lucky enough to be able to avoid it. I can't bring myself to be a pacifist though. Knocking some kid around is easy come take a swing at me and see how it goes. Shrug

Maybe I missed it being mentioned elsewhere, but I think the writeup I'm familiar fits well with this angle of the discussion. Basically, it says tolerance is a social contract that we're all born into and protected by so long as we uphold our part of the contract (by being tolerant.) If you are intolerant then you break that contract and are no longer protected by it, therefore making intolerance toward you acceptable and not a breach of the contract for others.

(Also, I agree that religions/race/etc are invalid for judging somebody's tolerance)

You're quick to imply that this study is bullshit, yet offer no counter argument except "believing statistics is for losers lul"

So where are your sources to refute the article?

I can't speak to how often, but it definitely happens.

Its a perception thing, they see it as "I dont have to'learn' anything I just follow these tutorials" even though a similar amount of effort would get them through the few commands they might need on Linux.

Eh, no use crying over spilt milk, youre here now. :) Linux is still stuck in a weird cultural hole, its not your fault it took a while.

Ive always been familiar but a daily driver of windows. I started self hosting a year or two ago, and recently switched my office PC to Linux with a secondary win partition. Ive just never had issues with windows but I'm pretty tired of what they've been up too lately so for me it was time. Whenever I get around to grabbing another m.2 for my living room rig I'll do the same for it.

This is the thing that gets me about that level of user. I understand basic users who dont care prefering windows, but I always kind of found it amusing to watch people "Linux too hard booo CLI.........now excuse me while I learn to manipulate the registry, and run scripts/disable certain things via the checks notes CLI."

I don't think it'll be that easy. Once people have to pay (or the functionality is reduced to compensate) there are plenty of alternatives waiting to provide better products for the same price if not better. The Google singularity depends on being a whole suite of premium product being offered for free, once that's gone it won't have the same oomph as a brand.

How do you feel about Musk owning Twitter? Because that's (depressingly) considered important to free speech, but the "free speech" crowd happens to cheer as Brosef openly censors things he doesn't like and promotes baseless falsehoods and whatever else tickles his whims. I don't want to assume you're in that camp, but 9 out of 10 "Keep govt out of my free speech" folk tend to celebrate Musk's particular brand of it and consider it "free speech" when he censors but oppression if it's done to somebody who agrees with them.

Do you think search would be free and open under the ownership of some private equity group or another billionaire with money to burn like Musk? Hell, do you think it's free and open NOW under Alphabet? They play dirty ALLLLLL the fucking time with search. If we brought Google (or some other search engine, or hell built a new one) under a government team we could just......pay the engineering team to build and maintain a product without all the games of profit and clout chasing that gives you relevant results instead of specifically engineered middling results designed explicitly to make you have to run another search (and all the other crap they do.)

Google has, Google isn't the only tech company.

Google also wouldn't survive being broken up. Their entire business model revolves around the strangleholds they have. Somebody would absolutely pick up the search product if it went under and I'd rather it be public than owned by another Musk who will just decide that only fox news and breitbart can be displayed on the first few pages.

Some things SHOULD be publicly owned, in everybody's best interests.

I said what I said. Properly fund shit and put people in charge that understand it instead of politically charged appointees.

Big tech has done nothing but hemmorage money and make everything worse, why are you celebrating them instead of calling it busted when they do it?

On today's episode of "underfund government agencies so we can argue govt doesnt work and privatization is bae"