DeepFriedJif

I feel bad that you typed out this thoughtful reply. While I appreciate the engagement, ultimately your reply makes exactly the same point(s) that many of the other replies do. If it is not clear from the way you phrase some of your rebuttals that you are assuming an objective when you say something “is objectively better” then I can have no hope of being understood. My point is not that things cannot be objectively better, it is that for something to be objectively better there must be some objective, some measure, some shared way of making the comparison. Following that point is that the selection of objectives is arbitrary, that there are not universal objectives, that for any given objective you can have an equally valid negation, and so on. If you see this is me being needlessly pedantic or making bad faith arguments, I apologize, that is not my intent. If you believe I am mistaken then so be it, reasonable minds can disagree, but please do not keep replying with the same form of rebuttals.

I am honestly overjoyed that someone displayed a better understanding of my point. However, I feel there is still a gap between what is being understood and the point I am trying to make. If you are willing to admit nothing is objective without common compared values then what I am asking is to follow me a bit further. The reason I believe there will always be pushback when someone, anyone, goes on a rant, proclaiming that the way they want something is “objectively better” portrays at best a presumption that the objectives they pick are generally agreeable and at worst an arrogance that their objectives are the correct ones. I am not advocating that everyone go full Kant and write page long run on sentences, filling up huge tomes, just to make a point. Rather if the objectives are to have less pushback, reach and engage positively with a wide audience, and have as many people as possible be open and accepting of your criticisms, I am advocating for the move from these rants, that IMO range from presumptive to arrogant, proclaiming this or that is “so obviously objectively better”, to a more mild “in my opinion, if your objective is <X> then *this* would be better”. Which to be honest, is something I believe Linus already does whenever the focus is something less irritating to him. Sorry for the wall of text, I guess I have some farts to go sniff so I’ll check back in later.

In your example, why is having $10 objectively better than having $5? Is it because you assume the objective is “more money better”? Is that universal? Can one not have a desire to have less money? In terms of the car, why is having one that is 5km/h faster better? Is it because you assume the objective “faster is better”? Is that universal, could one not want a slower car? Is the objective “slower is better” impossible? I apologize if this seems snarky, but I am becoming frustrated that my seemingly simple point seems to be consistently met with the same sort of rebuttals, all of which seem to miss the point in the same way. All things are ultimately subjective. Objectivity is a shared agreement on a set of facts or measures. If we both agree on the objective “be in possession of more money” than sure, having $10 is better than $5. If we agree on the objective of “higher maximum speed” than a car that is 5km/h faster is superior, all else equal, as scored by that objective. However, there is no way of selecting or ranking those objectives as better than “be in possession of less money” or “slower maximum speed” without assuming some other objective by which to rate those objectives.

I apologize that you feel this way. However, I would say my whole post is exactly concerned with the definition of being objective. My purpose in the original post was to point out that ‘being objective’ presumes an objective and attempting to point out that there is not consensus on universal objectives.

'Objectively better' in the RAM speed example presumes an objective of 'RAM speed' and that 'faster is better' with a sprinkle of ‘within some cost delta’. 'RAM speed, faster is better, within some cost delta' is not a universal objective, which is my point. Making any 'objective' comparison assumes some objective. For the display example, the presumed objective is something along the lines of 'Min/Max the resolution against perceivable difference in quality', which, again, my point is that I don't believe there is a reason to presume that is a universal or assumable objective.

Could you please elaborate as to those cases?

I have been listening to the “4K YouTube is getting paywalled” WAN show and during the section where Linus reflects on how to present his takes on certain features I had some opinions strong enough that I came here to discuss and see if I am perceived as being wildly off base. tl;dr there is no such thing as ‘universally objectively better’, an objective must be presumed to make a comparison, and no objective is universal. I believe the issue is the use of the word objective. I abhor the way this word is often used, and I take issue with how Linus uses it as well. To try and make the point short, by the very nature of the word, there must be some objective measure by which it is possible claim something is objectively better, however any objective you presume is exactly that, a presumption. One may feel the presumed objective is universal or obvious, but that is another presumption. I think this use, or in my opinion abuse, of the word(s) objective(ly) is a contributing factor to why so often when Linus claims something is “objectively better” there is backlash. Personally, I would go so far as to deny any claim of absolute objectivity, and rather support the idea that all comparative claims are, ultimately, subjective. Therefore, claiming something is objectively better, especially without stating the objective, is presumptive. I would prefer then, when Linus states his takes, that they be framed or phrased in such a way that at least states the objective he is presuming should be optimized, such as user choice in operation or functionality of software, and then followed up with why the given item furthers that objective. As an example, and please note this is not a direct quote but rather a paraphrase, a claim like “Having a universal back button is objectively better” would be phrased as “If it is desired to have a system wide, consistent, way to for a user to navigate back, having a universal back button would further that aim” I am not a professional write, so I presume one that saw that second phrasing would take issue(s), but because I prefer less informal use of the word objective, I would much prefer something akin to the second phrasing than the first as the second clearly states the objective and what furthers it. I want to end this post by saying that while I clearly have strong feelings, I don’t want to admonish the typical use of the word(s) objective(ly). I think that the way Linus uses it is a common way most people use it, and objectives are largely presumed to not need to be universal, necessarily, but rather just likely to be shared. I don’t think it is necessarily a good use of time to comb over all words and phrases to ensure that they are rigorously adhere to philosophically sound grounding. Thank you reader for your time and consideration.

Check what is included (Will be listed below description). They come with various levels of extras such as earlier access, hanger decals, in game currency, additional vehicles, and more. Sometimes physical items as well such as models of ships. Other than that as long as it is a game package, as in it is not the ship only, the bonuses are reasonably similar, but become better and more numerous the more expensive the package (Call me Obvious, Captain Obvious). Edit: It is the Also Contains Section. For me, in chrome, it is located Directly under the photo of the ship. If this is not what you meant then I must submit a clarification request.

My initial reaction is that this move would not improve the climate of discussion. I feel at best it would do nothing and at worse make it even more difficult. Obviously I do not know for sure, that is just my intuition.

I'm afraid I am not clear on exactly what you mean? Do you mean allowing media personalities to speak hatefully about one another and other public figures? Because they already do that. In fact that feels like it is basically all they do. So I must misunderstand you.

A few points here: I do not see that kind of back and forth as an argument, it is not my place to tell you that you are wrong if you do. I get very little or no pleasure from that kind of back and forth, again if you do more power to you. I agree that someone not well versed on a subject can say valuable things from time to time, but that I do not often find them the ones also commenting as I did in my hypothetical response. Finally, regardless if you in particular would block me, do you agree you would understand if someone did block a person that did post those kind of comments? If not under what circumstances do you find it appropriate to block someone? Must there be sustained personal attacks or threats? (Let's assume we agreed on the definition of "sustained personal attacks" and "threats")

So at a higher "idealized" level I agree. It is imperative that one hears dissenting opinions and has their views challenged. On that we could hardly agree more. Where I believe we part is I do believe it is totally admissible to block whoever you please because you do not wish to engage with them. The subtlety here is not that you are blocking them because they offer dissenting opinions, but because they are not attempting to persuade you to change positions based on facts, or attempting to add perspective, but they are a toxic individual set on ridiculing your views and opinions because they are not the views or opinions they have or believe are correct. I believe we can both agree that if I had responded to this by saying: "User LAwLz if fucking stupid and their opinion is stupid and they deserves suffering because of it. Only some kind of idiot who doesn't understand the world would think the way they do!!11!! - BLOCKED" Is very different and afterwards if you decided to block me and avoid engaging with me, it is not because you are plugging your ears to avoid having your views challenged, you are blocking me because in that moment I would be a toxic individual set on malice and the spread of intolerance.

I agree. But as I said I am not here to discuss that necessarily. Twitter as a business I know very little about, so little I am too uninformed to form a meaningful opinion. But whether I believe the President Elect's Twitter account is a useful source of information with regards to their politics, another matter.

I can't help but feel I have gotten a bit off topic, just to ask again, agree with me on the particulars of the President Elect's deserve of the ban or not, are the social media accounts a viable place to get reliable, meaningful information? Because my whole point is IF they to ban him, not a shred of meaningful information about his politics or his administration would disappear.

Like I said in the edit, anyone labeled a threat to national security can be held indefinitely without charge. All he would need to do was convince people that flag burners are potential threats to national security. He could not take their citizenship literally, but functionally. Edit: Of course maybe I am wrong. I do not spend time reading the exact laws regarding holding potential threats to national security, but I am reasonably sure that is how it is, at least post 9/11.