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.

Prior to the election I would have agreed wholeheartedly. Now, I am much less certain of anything anymore. Difficult, sure, impossible, probably; especially in four, possibly eight years. But absolutely impossible, well, unfortunately, no. Edit: In addition I am not sure he would need an amendment, executive orders are powerful, especially if he can convince people that anyone who burns a flag is high enough risk to warrant them being classified as threats to national security. Then they could be held indefinitely without charges.

See but I don't believe it is up to me. My consent is irrelevant in an ideals sense. I do believe that if someone were to acquire them and that was their modus operandi then yes, I would accept that. I would do what I had the power to do, delete my Twitter account and encourage others to do the same, but ultimately I do think the decisions rest with them, consequences and all.

I totally agree this does not violate ToS, but that is not why I quoted that tweet, I quoted it as evidence he has said things that warrant adversity, that the people against him are not warrantless in their criticisms and opposition.

I would argue Twitter has every right to censor whoever they please, it is their platform. Is just censoring whoever for whatever a good idea? A good business move? Of course not. But they own the platform, they can do as they please. I would also go so far as to say there is a line between outlandish and toxic, has the President Elect crossed that line? Not for me to say, but if Twitter has decided he has, then I am of the opinion it is their right to take the actions they deem appropriate.

For NO reason? Just to make sure I understand, are you suggesting he has never said or done anything to warrant adversity? What about any of the following tweet (I am lazy, but so much to not provide an example): Agree or not that burning a flag is freedom of expression, loss of citizenship or a year in jail both seem extreme to me.

Greetings all, especially Luke, I have just listened to the portion of The Wan Show discussing the possible ban of the President Elect from twitter. I am sorry if this post seems hastily written and/or poorly thought out. I am posting it now because I am genuinely curious, and a bit riled up, but if I wait for a cooler head I will also be waiting for apathy to set in. After listening to the discussion I cannot but feel stanch disagreement with Luke on his position regarding not banning the President Elect because of his position. I want to clarify that I believe I understand that Luke is not saying all politicians should have blanket exemptions for statements made on social platforms, and that if someone, even the President Elect, were being toxic on his own forum he would act differently and ban them. But the position Luke takes where the twitter or facebook, or any social media, account belonging to or operated by a person in power is a place to get meaningful information regarding the current political administration I cannot help but feel wholly opposed to. I want to begin by admitting I have want I believe most would consider a rather cynical view on politics, perhaps people in general, and especially social media's role in politics. I believe I could make an entirely different thread just about some of those positions but that is not what this thread is about. So to begin, Luke, I completely disagree that the President Elects twitter is even somewhere you should look to get information regarding him and his political doings. I am of the position that if someone, anyone, is in a position of power and influence then you need to be incredibly weary of the things they say, period. I believe that you simply cannot trust anything they say, they have far too much incentive to lie, mislead, or otherwise attempt to misinform or misrepresent their own positions, actions, or those of their conspirators in order to maintain their outward appearance and their credibility. I am not claiming this view is some kind of a revelation in politics, in fact quite the opposite, I take it to be one of the most fundamental attributes of politics, and even social behavior in general. To put it differently I believe that the President Elect's twitter at best is a place they post 100% true and well meaning but only positive information regarding themselves and their administration, and at worst are fabricated pieces ment intentionally to misinform and to maintain face. I believe it is not true that if twitter or facebook where to ban the President Elect, and not just the current one as of the time of this post, or any major influencer, any meaningful information would be lost. I believe there are plenty of sources that one can use to attain information regarding the current political administration and that due to the amount of misinformation in the media one is all but obligated to use as many sources as they can to construct their viewpoints and "Internal Model of the World". I am of the opinion that the worst thing that could come out of banning these figures from the social forums is the loss of the ability to say, "This person has said this on twitter, I now need to go find every piece of information I can in order to vett this and find all the reasons why what they said is a gross misrepresentation of the truth". If you are lucky what they said is not a gross misrepresentation of the truth, but I am sure we all have a feeling of which is the exception and which is the rule. In conclusion I am of the opinion that all the users on the twitter platform, President Elect or otherwise, should be subject to the same rules as any other users of the platform. Further I believe the argument that banning them will cause anyone to be ill informed or less informed that otherwise rests on the assumption anything someone with influence says on the platform is trustworthy or is even capable of meaningfully informing. tl;dr: The President Elect's social media accounts are garbage places to try and stay informed about their politics.

I have 2x GTX 780 so I am not itching to upgrade in terms or horses but I have a buddy who would appreciate the early birthday gift.

I can tuck it away in a cabinet in my media room much more easily than my desktop.

My favorite is the headset, as long as it sounds acceptable. The wood finish is quite nice.

I just noticed it was San Holo's Victory in the video Giant Inflatable Soccer Ball - Kicking Linus While He's Down (https://youtu.be/R8eSifAcu-8) and thought that was really cool that we listened to some of the same music. Really made the world feel that much smaller for a second. As someone who has been following LTT for a while, and already feels "close" to the crew, knowing that we share some of the same taste in music is just icing on the cake.