Splognosticus

I was under anesthesia a few years back and it really opened my eyes to what death actually is. You don't dream. You don't experience anything. It's not scary. You just... stop being.

I went under and then next thing I knew they were wheeling me back to my room. No pain. No fear. I was simply transported from one instant to another.

I have one of these and highly recommend it. Do note it is expressly for converting older digital signals to HDMI though. MDA and CGA are really difficult to find displays for these days, since even old CRT monitors have trouble with vsyncs lower than what VGA uses. And of those, the ones still in working order are exceptionally rare.

Egh, right? It's kind of annoying how whenever anyone suggests trying anything to improve society someone comes out of the woodwork to cry about government overreach.

Never an argument about the merits of the proposal, just some trite hand-wringing that somewhere somehow someone might be able to use it to their political advantage. Never even an explanation of why this one thing would be so dangerous when governments already by nature have vast authority to control pretty much anything they want.

Worst of all you can't reason against it, since it's not a position of reason. Regardless of what point you make they'll just dig in and ignore them. :(

I don't really get this line of reasoning. If the Founding Fathers were in favor of immigration, but in practice their immigration policy was racist, shouldn't the conclusion be that if we want to adhere to the spirit of their policies that we ought to favor immigration but discard the outmoded racist views?

Yeah, the statement is literally just "the exact specific thing we said this project would cause happened." Lamentably the people listening already knew that, and the people who need to hear it won't listen. Honestly the wall doesn't even need to be political to be a bad idea. We could stipulate that every single reason given for needing to build it is true and it'd still only keep out roadrunners. :\

> I don't recall any evidence that the murder was intentional.

You're mistaken, but this is a complicated subject and it's entirely reasonable to not know this. I had to look it up at the time to learn it as well.

Chauvin was found guilty and sentenced to 22 years for second-degree unintentional murder, which would be the crime you're aware of, third-degree murder, which is a catch-all for special circumstances that does not ascribe intent, and second-degree manslaughter, which is when you act negligently in a way that you know will cause death.

Ed: oh, it occurs to me that reconciling one charge of unintentional murder and a another of intentional murder when there is only one victim is probably confusing, so just to clarify the way I understand it is that it's two different intentions that both result in death. In the former case, it's like if you were to find out your wife was cheating and you shot her in a crime of passion. In the latter it's like if you set a spring gun.

> No, there is nothing to indicate that.

Agreed. I'm noticing this idea floated throughout this thread and it's extremely alarming. There's nothing to suggest that any of the officers died under suspicious circumstances, nobody ever supplies any evidence supporting that theory, they're "just asking questions."

After years of watching as ostensibly reasonable people get mired in ever-increasingly insane conspiracy theories I'm incredibly worried to see them introduced to an already dangerously volatile situation. The Jan 6 riots wouldn't have even happened if not for the pervasiveness of the lie that the election was stolen. I really, really wish people would think more carefully before speaking this way.

You're just describing Usenet, which still exists, and is still easily accessible, and has been around for decades on end. Honestly any action to crack down on social media for enforcing their terms of use for their own platform is a solution looking for a problem.

In fairness it's reasonable to not want the sort of inevitable flame war that will come of simply mentioning that Trump did anything whatsoever. Much as I'd like to, it's nearly impossible to have a measured conversation on the merits of the case itself when people keep steering it pell-mell into the wall. :\

You can't seriously be drawing parallels between Facebook and North Korea of all things. What could Facebook possibly do to prevent you from exercising your right to free speech and free assembly? If they have that power why aren't they using it to stamp out all of the various competing platforms that serve people banned from their own? This line of reasoning just doesn't make a lick of sense.

Eh? Who has suggested it does? Disregard for the moment that it's Donald Trump so that we can speak without partisanism mucking things up. It doesn't take a mind reader to gauge the intent of another person based on their actions. Just basic empathic ability and critical thinking.

If you disagree with the conclusion then okay, go ahead and make an actual counterpoint. That's the whole point of discussion. Don't go accusing people of such outrageously ridiculous things as thinking that they have telepathic powers. You know perfectly well that sort of hyperbolic nonsense won't sway anyone.

Probably not if he's wanting CP/M. Time travelers prefer APL.

Yeah, I've heard people complain before about how gas cans suck now because California, but never cared enough to bother looking into it.

It makes sense though that the regulations would be about air quality, since that's a significant issue in a state with such densely-populated areas.