okamiueru @ okamiueru @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

457

Joined

2 yr. ago

I'm curious. Does anyone like PowerShell, and the syntax you end up with?

Why do I get the feeling you might be younger than the average age here? Maybe missing an /s?

Do you know if flatpak leverages the memory side of this? With shared libs, you only keep one copy in memory, regardless of how many applications use it. Makes application launch faster, and memory usage lower.

For flatpak, it of course will load whatever it needs to load, but does it manage to avoid loading stuff across other flatpaks?

It reached the point of being very much intentional. But hey, your reading comprehension is better than I gave you credit for. Good on you.

I see. I should have been clearer. You went from seeing this statement by me:

Gun owners might have to deal with some extra process in the acquisition of a tool explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds

To then this next reply by me:

By this logic, you should also have to jump through those same hoops to get things that can be used to create with minimal experience said tools explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds

Nope. Not my argument in the slightest? Guns are made for it, have hoops for what it’s made for, especially when it’s used for stuff you don’t generally like.

And then reading that the it in "Guns are made for it" is referring to crime... and not "sending projectiles at lethal speeds", and that "when it’s used for stuff you don’t generally like" is something other than "crimes / gun violence"? I might be wrong here. It's hard to understand how it is you are reading it, that is different from what is clarified so many times.

In any case, I don't think we think sufficiently in the same way in order to have any hopes of a productive conversation. The stuff I've written is congruent enough that you should be able to get my point, if you either read it enough times, or ask a friend. To help you along: this doesn't mean that I expect you to agree with me, but at least you know what it is you would be disagreeing with.

Just keeeep moving those goalposts and avoiding my argument.

You have to state your arguments in a way that are relevant to my arguments. Which requires you to first understand my arguments. I'm not avoiding your arguments, I'm just ignoring them because they are not relevant to my arguments. I hope you see the difference. Not addressing a red herring is ignoring something irrelevant to the original premise.

I will not reply to anything beyond this. (Again, this is meant as a courtesy. I don't want to waste your time). Have a good one.

Not your point, but why don’t you like self defense? Or IDPA, USPSA, Skeet (lol), Cowboy Action, Biathlon, Hunting, or any other shooting sports?

Two logical fallacies here. Red herring, in that it's not not relevant to the argument, and a straw-man, because the supposition of me not liking self defense is not stated by me, or implied.

There’s a fourth. I don’t believe reducing the number of guns nor 3d printers sold would even reduce crime, as they could instead 3d print a lower, or make a LutySMG, or mill an 80%, or buy a CNC mill, or abandon guns entirely for another weapon like the Boston Marathon. I’m a gun and 3d printer enthusiast. I think the only thing that will actually reduce crime is actually making this country better so less people want or need to commit crimes.

You'd... be surprised to find that this is in part the first one, and clearly the still the second, with yet another straw-man argument, this time only implied. Perhaps go through my argument again. It isn't saying a single thing on the restriction on guns. There is a tiny commentary as to that effect, but please don't confuse that with the argument presented.

Other than that, I don't see anything else that I need to comment on. Happy to oblige if you do relate it to my argument. The only relevant part, if I understood correctly, you suggest that for X="3d printer" and Y="gun crime" that... there might be a basis for some restrictions? But then you say you don't believe there should be restrictions there... so, I'm confused why you would argue both sides there. I assume your point is therefore: "neither should be restricted, because if one should be, so should the other"... something like that?

So, a clarification... for your sake here, so please to take this with good intentions. These are the relevant points I was making:

• 3d printers shouldn't be restricted with any hoops motivated by "crime mitigation"
• If it is desirable to reduce "gun violence", hoops that deal with "guns" vs "3d printers" are not in the same ballpark when it comes to what makes sense.

The first one of those is clearly also your point. So, we agree on that one. But it seems you disagree with the second one. Is that the gist of what you're saying? You object to the second point, in that if one should be restricted, the other makes similar sense, as to be in the same ballpark?

Because if so... I find that strange.

• No 3d printers => approx the exact same amount of gun violence.
• No guns => approx. no gun violence.

I don't see how you could disagree with me, without also disagreeing with one or both of these. They seem like pretty obviously true statements to me.

By this logic, you should also have to jump through those same hoops to get things that can be used to create with minimal experience said tools explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds, or: this bill.

Nope. Not my argument in the slightest? Guns are made for it, have hoops for what it's made for, especially when it's used for stuff you don't generally like. Have those be in proportion to that. Conceptually, this should be easy enough to understand, and it just describes the foundation for the argument of what is a "reasonable hoop", when it comes to "crime prevention". That's what's being discussed here no? I responded to someone arguing that gun owners need to go through "similar hoops". To which I only called BS on it being in the same ballpark.

Simplified... "What is a reasonable measure, regarding purchase of X, when it comes to what that measure, can help with problem Y."

Place X="cars", and Y="car related deaths and injuries", sure... I can see some hoops there making sense. Americans seem fine with the concept of a driver's license.

Place X="guns", and Y="crime / gun violence", yeah.. I can see some level of hoops making some sense. (I'd suggest a lot more,... but that would offend too many over there)

Place X="3d printer" and Y="crime / gun violence"... my argument: It doesn't make much sense at all..

You seem to think that my argument was to suggests hoops on X, based on the maximum capability of X, when it comes to Y. I don't know why you would think that, because I said that it must be in the correct proportion to the problem at hand. A bag of sand can be used to cause injury. But if what you want is to "reduce injuries", you don't restrict access to bags of sand. You can revisit that once you start having a bag-of-sand-causing-injury-problem. Similarly, if you want to reduce "gun violence / crime", you don't restrict "access to 3d printers". I have a hunch that normal guns outnumber 3d printed guns, in crimes, at least at a generous 10000000:1. And you can make a better one with a metal tube and some welding. Hence... "not in the same ballpark". Which is why you also don't need any hoops to buy a kitchen knife.

So, either you are arguing the same point as me, or you didn't get my point.

(PS: There's also a third option of disagreeing with my argument, in which case you would believe the hypothetical that if 3D printing technology was removed from existence, that it would reduce crime, or whichever Y is in question. That's the loosest possible hypothetical, which would be in your favor to argue.).

Don't be so hard on them. Consider that media is owned by private interests, and that's been their whole life. Unions are evil, worker rights are a privilege, and you wouldn't want to regulate or tax businesses if it means they would make less profit. They create the jobs, don't forget that. Nor should you tax private fortunes, that's already been taxed, even if it is actively used as collateral for loans and a mechanism to avoid income tax. On that topic... higher taxes on very high income is also unwise, because, you can avoid paying income tax by leveraging aforementioned loans, and why would you want that to be inconvenient? Private ownership on necessities of life is also not a problem, especially when you have a legal obligation to maximize profit for stock owners, which I'm sure won't motivate higher health care prices, or motivate denial of coverage or reduced level of treatment. Same goes with housing being an investment. People got to live somewhere right? That's a business opportunity right there! Better not regulate that or tax that too much either.. It might reduce the value of housing... and you wouldn't just want anyone to get in on that.

Tipping culture, on the other, if only you could do something about that....

Not entirely a fair comparison. Gun owners might have to deal with some extra process in the acquisition of a tool explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds. There is a good reason why some of those hoops might be tied to "crime prevention". Because it is a tool remarkably well suited for it...

Adding such loops for 3D printers would make as much sense as for a bag of sand, because you could drop it on someone... But that's not what it's used for... and the extra hoops should be in proportion.

edit: Have I stumbled on some gun-loving easily offended part of lemmy? Let's see some congruent argument against anything I wrote. I encourage it. Be a brave snowflake.

If they place something behind MTs, then I completely agree. But, if they want to add more cosmetics that don't exist yet, and they finance it MTs, and at a fair price, it's less unethical.

Announcing it after reviews... Hm. Sketchy at best.

Sheesh. You should try to be less you.

Is Divinity the same as Divinity: Original Sin? If so, isn't that a completely different type of game? Not saying that it's a bad suggestion for a great time. But it doesn't sound like what OP is asking for. Unless they are very into the particular camera angle.

Cameron is one of those who reveal themselves to be a gigantic political fucktards. The kind that a lot of people know ahead of time, but the rest just have to wait for the shit to unfold, like Bexit, and Trump. But, once they do, why the fuck would you care what they have to say?

Capitalism hasn't reached the same level of endgame as in the US. Headed there tho.

Gnome is weird. A dusted off a laptop that has Gnome 40, and it felt better. Nautilus didn't have broken folder trees that don't refresh, and workspaces were vertical so that movement travel is shorter (much more so on ultrawide monitors).

I miss the days with Opera. Not only could it group tabs, but it had previews too. Mouse gestures. Keyword searches. Page link filters and batch operations. RSS-reader. Chrome didn't even exist back then, and IE and Firefox are still playing catch up. Kinda amazing to think about it.

Vivaldi is the spiritual successor, but having to use chromium rendering engine, it's so many concessions and steps back. Has the mouse gestures, tho.

Don't they teach to show the abbreviations on first use?

Hitler only succeeded on the second attempt.

Only reason why that is weird to me, is just how much better Linux is. I'm too old to give a shit about a fanboy mentality. Linux used to be something you suffered through in order to get a tradeoff only available to power users. Now, my 90 year old grandmother has an easier time with Linux. It's more consistent, and doesn't break stuff nearly as often.

A more controversial take, is that I feel the same about MacOS. It was a lot of work in order to reduce how often it is annoying.

By how some teams operate, and some developers think, there is certainly cases where the "engineering" aspect is hard to find.