Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

LAwLz

Member
  • Content Count

    13,720
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


About LAwLz

  • Title
    Pseudo-intellectual Charlatan
  • Birthday 1993-02-11

Contact Methods

  • Discord
    LAwLz#8319

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Sweden
  • Interests
    Anime/manga, networks, some gaming, tabletop RPGs and posting on forums.
  • Occupation
    Consultant (networking)

System

  • CPU
    AMD Ryzen 1700X
  • Motherboard
    Gigabyte GA-AX370-GAMING 5
  • RAM
    32GB @ 2666MHz CL16 (Corsair)
  • GPU
    MSI 1060 6GB Gaming
  • Case
    Cooler Master HAF 922
  • Storage
    512GB Samsung 960 Pro - 500GB Samsung 850 EVO - 1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 - 2TB Samsung Spinpoint F4
  • PSU
    Corsair RM750X
  • Display(s)
    Dell U2312HM - Dell U2211H - a crappy TN monitor (Philips 221EL)
  • Cooling
    Noctua D15
  • Keyboard
    Corsair K95 (Brown switches)
  • Mouse
    Logitech G502
  • Sound
    AKG K702 - FiiO E9
  • Operating System
    Windows 10
  • PCPartPicker URL

Recent Profile Visitors

21,219 profile views
  1. Sounds terrible. It seems like it will have a lot of the stuff I hate about some other password managers. Things like a monthly cost, being closed source, the vault file being stored on servers you have no control over, and possibly other bad things. I'd recommend KeePass instead of this though. Benefits of Keepass: 1) Does not sync to an online server unless you set it up with something like Dropbox, Google drive or OneDrive. It means you are in more control over the vault file. 2) It's open source, so it's much less likely that it's backdoored, and backdooring is something Microsoft has consistently done with their previous encryption functions and services. 3) It's free to use, unlike this which is a subscription service. We don't know how it works yet, but it might be so bad that you can get cut off from your password vault (and thus all your accounts) if you fail to pay the bill for some reason (auto renew maybe fails, or you cancel the service accidentally, etc). If you use this service, then you should only do so fully knowing that you are probably handing over all your passwords to Microsoft as well as any other company/organization they feel like sharing it with (or are forced to share it with by law).
  2. The Snapdragon 865 seems nice but nothing amazing. There should be about a 20% uplift in CPU performance because of the move to A77 cores. The little cores are the ones in dire need of an update though. Apples little cores are way ahead. The GPU is about 25% faster which is to be expected. About 35% more efficient too which is nice. Something really interesting about the GPU is that the drivers will now be delivered through the Google Play store. This means you will now be able to update the drivers (scheduled to be updated quarterly) without updating the OS. Of and it supports 144hz displays now, which we might see in the Galaxy S11 (120hz more likely). The impressive stuff is the memory controller that gets a major uplift (from a maximum of 29.9GBps to 44GBps). The NPU gets a large upgrade. From 7 TOPs to 15 TOPs (NPU, CPU and GPU combined). The ISP also gets a massive upgrade, possibly the biggest upgrade of all parts. It now supports a 200MP camera, which should help out with processing speed of the new Samsung 108MP sensor. "zero shutter lag" is still limited to 64 MP though, but it should still be much Farrer than what we see on the redmi note 108MP camera. It also supports 8K capturing at 30 fps, or 4k at 120 fps. Slo mo at 960 fps is no longer limited to a few seconds either. It can do it sustained. NO AV1 SUPPORT THOUGHT, WHICH SUCKS BALLS! Guess we'll have to wait until next year for that.
  3. I always find it hilarious, but also kind of annoying, how people who claim to be PC enthusiasts continues to not get the smartphone space. "we don't need 5G" is about as ignorant as saying "we don't need GPUs" back in the 90's. Yes we do need it. Not because 4G is bad today, but because 4G won't be able to handle demands that might crop up in 5-10 years. Quite frankly, you'd have to be an idiot to be against technological advancements. It's like the morons who said 1GHz CPUs were more than enough back in 2000. The exact same thing happened with 4G too mind you. People said it wasn't needed because HSPA+ was good enough, that the infrastructure wasn't ready, that it wasn't worth the power consumption, that it was just marketing fluff etc. And yet here we are, 9 years later and the nay sayers have been convinced.
  4. On one hand, this looks and feels like a dystopian nightmare. On the other hand, if it makes the cows happier and makes them produce more milk, why not? It's win-win.
  5. What do you mean by "the ones that can't make decisions for themselves are fairly moot"? It's those people I think would need to be forced to be cursed. Either by the state (like we have with vaccines today) or by their guardians/parents (which also happens today). Again, I have only advocated for forced cures for these two groups throughout this thread: 1) The group of autistic people who are so far on the spectrum that they do not function in society. The ones mr moose said were something along the lines of "so autistic they were diagnosed way back". The ones dalekphalm described couldn't work and needed full time help from someone else. I don't think we're taking away choice from these people because they essentially can't make choices for themselves anyway. That's why they have personal assistants. 2) Newborn babies or fetuses, who already do not have any say in how they are treated because that is 100% the parents. We are not removing choice from these people either because they already don't have any say in things. No. I have never said that. I have never even said anything remotely similar to that. Stop straw manning. Find me a quote where I have said this please. I am getting really, really tired of you constantly misconstruing everything I say just so that you can make me look bad. What I have said is that autistic people are more involved in violence than non-autistic people, and that's bad because I wouldn't want my child to get beat up. Having autism = more likely to get bullied and beat up. I have also said that autistic people are overrepresented in the category of school shooters, and my theory is that it's because they have been bullied and had other bad life experiences. That's what I have said. Well, yeah. Say the wrong thing at the wrong time or to the wrong person and you might get hit. That's life. I am not saying that's right or justified but that's the way things are. And it happens to everyone, not just minorities or oppressed groups. There are plenty of straight white men who has been physically attacked for things they have said too. I am not saying violence is justified. What I am trying to do is explain why it might happen and that it might be a good idea to remove things which might lead to violence. I don't understand what you mean. Can you please elaborate? I am not following you here. I have never said victims of violence and perpetrator of violence are the same thing. You will not be able to find a quote of me saying anything remotely like that. What I have said is that violence breeds violence. Since autistic people are more likely to be victims of violence they are also at a greater risk of becoming violent. That would explain why school shooters are so often autistic people. What do you mean by "internally inconsistent"? Again, I am having a hard time following you here. Could you please quote what I said instead of the type of writing you're doing right now? It might make it easier for me to follow you. It seems like you're referencing some specific sentence have made here but I am not sure which one. Again I am not understanding you. I use straw man correctly. I say something, and then you claim I said something else which is far easier to shoot down. For example earlier I said violence breed violence, and your response to that was "so you're saying being a victim of violence is just as bad as being violent!", which is not at all what I said. I would really appreciate if you could start quoting me because then it becomes really obvious to the rest of the people reading this thread what I have actually said. When did I throw around hypotheticals that were refuted? When did I say the opposite was true? Again, I have no idea what you are referencing here. Wait a minute, you can't have it both ways. First you say I do something, stop doing it and then complain that people called me out for something I stopped doing. Then you say I just rephrase things and never change my arguments. Which one is it? Do I flip flop around or do I stay consistent? A bit earlier you even said I never stopped talking about the things people were angry at me for saying. I am really trying to understand you but I just don't get it. Well, yeah. I have never really changed my arguments. What has happened is that people got angry at me for saying some things and then I elaborated what I meant. I haven't "hidden my stance", I have explained how I came to the stance I have. I was more direct with it earlier but since people seemed to misunderstand me I elaborated more on my thought process. That's not "hiding" anything. It's explaining and elaborating. What do you mean by "the magic pill theory is back"? I don't get it. What do you have against a hypothetical "magic cure with no side effects"? That is the dream goal of all medicinal advancements. This thread is about research that could lead to the a cure for autism. Am I not allowed to say "if this is successful then I would want things to be handled this way"? No, my intent was not to make mr moose angry. My intent is to explain what I would like to see happen (a perfect cure is found), what I would like to see happen (not sure how I would like it handled, but I think forced treatment to certain people would be positive for everything), and why (increase life quality and beneficial to society).
  6. When you say "abort" do you mean let mothers expecting children to have abortions? Because that's not what I think should happen. In the best of worlds I would say we had a "magical pill" which just cured the autism without any side effects. That's what I have been talking about all throughout the thread. I feel like you are not reading what I say and is just getting angry. Is it victim blaming? Maybe a bit, but at the same time I see it as a genuine solution, one that (assuming we had this magical cure) would be far easier than the other solution, which is get rid of bullying and make sure everyone has a great childhood without any problems. That solution seems even more miraculous than finding a cure for autism. I don't really understand which part of my statement and train of thought you disagree with. At which point do you start disagreeing with me? 1) Autistic children has a higher risk of getting bullied than non-autistic children. 2) Autistic children often have a more difficult childhood than non-autistic children, partially or maybe even primarily because off getting bullied. 3) Bullying and difficult childhood is a common theme with violent people, and especially school shooters. 4) Autistic people report a lower life satisfaction than non-autistic people. They also report more traumatic life experiences. 5) The percentage of school shooters who has autism is significantly higher than the general percentage of people with autism. 6) To me, this indicates that autism often leads to a more troubled childhood, which in turn increases the risk of violent behavior as well as dramatic actions like school shootings. Therefore, curing people with autism will lead to fewer troubled childhoods which will lead to fewer things like school shootings. I think it's "victim blaming" the same way telling a drunk woman to not walk through a shady ghetto all alone at night. Does she deserve to be attacked if she walks through there? Of course not, but at the same time not walking there is the most practical solution we got to minimize the risk. Same deal here. It would be fantastic is everyone had a great childhood, but at it stands autism greatly increase the likelihood that you will have traumatic experiences and the end result is that autistic people are less satisfied with their lives (according to studies and surveys). Personally, I would want my child to have as good of a childhood and life as possible, and according to the studies an autistic person has far greater risk of having a bad life than a non-autistic person. In order to maximize the chance of having a good childhood, and minimize the risk of having a bad one, curing autism is a practical solution (assuming we had a cure for it).
  7. Yes, and like I have explained several times is that when I talk about forced treatment I mean either treating fetuses/babies, or the ones who are so far on the end of the autism spectrum that they can't work or function in society. The "45 year old with a full time carer" that @dalekphalm mentioned. I am not sure it should be left up to those two groups of people to decide if they should get treated or not. Children already don't get to decide if they get treated or what they are allowed/disallowed to do, so why should they in this case? The adult example is similar too. Chances are people on the far end of the spectrum get decisions made for them all the time (by their caregiver or guardian), because they are seen as unfit to make their own decisions too. So why should they be in charged for whether or not they should be treated? That's my reasoning. All the statements I have made which references such things are backed up by science. Victims of violence is still "involved in violence", which is what I said. One explanation I gave for this is that they might not pick up on social ques which can lead to fights. Say the wrong thing to the wrong person at school and yes, you will get punched. It's not directly the autistic person's fault, but at the same time facts are facts. Without autism the fight would probably never have happened (again, the statistics show this). I also said that another explanation, which is what your links you posted also talks about, is that while autism might not be the primary reason for these people being violent, it might be an indirect cause. Autism lead to troubled upbringing, which can lead to violent tendencies, which leads to violence. A -> B -> C. A does not directly cause C, but it is an aspect that greatly increases the risk of B, which is directly linked to C. I mean, why else do you think autistic people are so over-represented in school shooters? I am not sure I ever posted the link, but one of the studies I have cited says that 8% of the perpetrators at school shootings were diagnosed with autism, with another ~20% not being diagnosed but potentially had autism. I don't think that's a coincidence. And just to be clear, I am not saying "autism = violent school shooter". School shooters are still a minority. But I think having autism contributes to the factors which causes people to become school shooters, or violent potentially violent in general. Things like troubled upbringing and being bullied. Those things are pretty well documented to breed violence in people, and it's pretty well documented that autistic people are often bullied and have troubled upbringings. Correct? That's indeed a major concern. Just curing and then leaving them to themselves would probably not all of a sudden make them completely independent. That's why I later suggested that maybe we should only treat children so that they do not end up in that situation to begin with? Or maybe it would be possible for some of the cured people to actually adapt and get a normal life? Or maybe they don't fully adapt but they get better lives? If it seems like I have changed my arguments a lot throughout the thread it's because I don't think I have a perfect solution and rather spitball out ideas that might work, and also because people have thrown a ton of hypothetical scenarios at me and strawman me like crazy and then the entire conversation devolves to only be about that specific example, such as: "Maybe we should only treat children with autism so they don't have issues to begin with and their personalities doesn't dramatically change all of a sudden? Assuming we had a perfect cure of course." "That's like what they do on Island with down's syndrome children. They have almost eradicated Downs syndrome in that country! It's just like what the Nazis did to the Jews during WW2!" "I don't see how eradicating a serious illness is a bad thing. I don't think abortion is the good way to do it but at Island it's the best we got right now. I would rather see a cure to treat people though." "So you're okay with aborting autistic children! Stop being such a Hitler! You just said you think abortion is a cure for autism you fucking fascist!"
  8. Yeah I don't get it either. I mean, they have the source code already. Why not release it? They even release it to their hardware partners. Maybe it contains stolen code or something and they would risk getting sued if it was discovered.
  9. Yep, it is entirely possible to make a phone with a MediaTek chip and an unlocked bootloader. What I think the person you quoted meant to say was "release the source code for the BSP or fuck off". MediaTek are notorious for not releasing the source code for their Board Support Package (BSP), which is a crucial component for developing custom ROMs.
  10. Again with the stramwan argument... It feels like you've already made up your mind that I am wrong and you have to disagree with me regardless of what I say. What I said was that the people who suffer from autism so greatly that they can't even work should be cured. Here is one of the many quotes where I advocate for treatment of only ones who are on the far end of the spectrum, to the point where they can barely function in society: And I didn't even talk about "forced surgery". I specifically said: Can you please stop putting words in my mouth when I have repeatedly said the exact opposite of what you claim I am saying?
  11. This is what I have been saying too, but people have been strawmanning it, calling me a fascist, comparing me to Hitler, etc. Apparently curing someone with autism is the same as gassing a jew during WW2. And yes, I am not exaggerating, that's what people have said in this thread (I even had to ask if that person was serious, several times). But I took it a step further and said that the 45 year old adult who need full time care by a professional should probably be forced to be cursed, because I don't think they can make that decision themselves. I see it as the whole vaccination debate again. Vaccines are forced by law because people who are scared make decisions which are bad for everyone. I've already taken this stance in this thread. The counter argument is that abortion shouldn't be used so parents can "pick and choose which child to keep" and instead we should keep such information a secret from the parents, and they should live with whatever child they get. I think that argument is a load of bollocks but I don't think either side of this debate will change side.
  12. Removing accounts which haven't even been logged in to for a long time? Good idea! Removing accounts that haven't been logged into in the last 6 months however seems a bit aggressive. How about at least a year? I can go 6 months without logging in to some website but I don't want my account deleted for that.
  13. The rated megapixel count is for the image signal processor (ISP). My guess is that the megapixel count is how much demosaicing the chip can handle in hardware in a certain time frame (maybe in parallel?). Everything the ISP does can be done on the CPU too, but it's much, much slower. It's just standard A77 cores. They are meant to run at those speeds in a phone. You can't compare a desktop Intel CPU to an ARM CPU.
  14. Holy crap these are some really good stuff in there. Top of the line CPU cores. Possibly better than the current Qualcomm 855+ (better CPU architecture, lower clocks). A good GPU, but it might depend on frequency how good it is. The core count seems a bit low but G77 is suppose to be a major upgrade from the G76 so hopefully it will still perform well. The NPU is fucking massive. 4.5TOPs? The 9820 in the Galaxy S10 does 1.86 TOPs. This is more than twice as fast. Really massive ISP. With the new 102MP Samsung sensor it will hopefully speed up processing, because right now it's really slow. AV1 decoding!!!!! Woho! So glad to see that it's finally starting to arrive. 5G model built in is nice too. Not interested in 5G right now but it's nice to see that support in devices appears to come quickly. This seems like it will be a really, really nice SoC.
  15. So you do not want technological and human progress because you're afraid only the rich will have access to it? Damn, we better stop developing computers too. We should stop developing faster CPUs because only the rich can have access to them! We should stop researching cancer treatment because in the US only the rich might have access to it! "Only the rich might have access to it" is a terrible argument for why we should not strive for technological improvements. No, I answered positively to a very serious disease almost being wiped out. I am not exactly thrilled that it is being solved by abortions and would rather see it solved by a "magic pill" like I've described several times in this thread. But abortions are the best we got right now, and at the end of the day providing information to the mother so that she can make an informed decision whether or not she wants to keep the baby is a good thing. If you are against what's happening in island then you are for keeping information from parents which could cause them to want an abortion. We should provide future parents with all the info they want and that's possible, so they can make an informed decision about if they want to keep the baby or not. Stop advocating for not letting parents abort children they do not want. You're confusing "think this way" and "act a certain way". They are not the same thing. Again, you're moving the goalpost. First you said "thinking this way has a negative impact" and then you link to articles about ACTIONS from people who may think in similar ways. However, you are missing the crucial part where these things would not happen if there were cures for the disabilities. Stop lumping me, who says "I would like a curse for these diseases, and I want future parents to be able to make informed decisions if they want to keep a child or abort it" with horrible people who throw away their children to die because they are not satisfied with them. No wonder you disagree with me when you have completely misinterpreted my points so horribly badly. Yes, which makes all the difference. Holy crap are you for real right now? The method of achieving something can dramatically change how "right" an action is. Giving someone a pain killer and killing someone both "helps relief pain" but, but in your eyes they should be the same because "yeah sure, the method is different but they achieve the same thing so therefore they are the same!". The method of achieving something is VERY VERY IMPORTANT.
×