Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:44 pm
Okay, so about AMD's new Ryzen CPU. Benchmarks just got out. Personally I'm excited. Intel was already forced to do a pricecut.
Now, as it stands, for current gaming Intel still seems the better choice, in particular the 7700K. For productivity application it is AMD.
Though this is just the beginning, with more versions and refinements coming out. I think AMD succeeded in closing the gap at price point.
When you consider the lower costs of the AMD Mainboards on top of this, it's almost a steal.
Still waiting to see what their new all-in-one chips will do later on, based on this tech.
Personally, if I were to build a machine now, I'd go Ryzen. I'd probably go R7 1700X with 8 core / 16 thread at about 400$.
I've been waiting for a monster like this for a long time for the things I'd like to do, without having to pay 1000$ for the CPU alone.
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:13 pm
I can't count how often SJWs called me uninformed for not reading the depressed blog posts of teenagers, while they had no clue whatsoever about the true extend of tragedy that their logic patterns caused in history. Left extremism has been normalized into social acceptance, too long without check by conservatism. After all, we have come to a point that Progressive sounds like absolute good, and Conservative absolute evil. And what critical obstacle stands in the way of utopia, must be dispensed of by any means. I think that's the point of Jordan's efforts to educate on the matter from a historical perspective. Everyone has some clue that Nazis were bad. But not everyone actually understands anymore how bad Marxists were. Yes, especially those that meant well from the bottom of their hearts. When you say punching whoever you like to identify as a Nazi is okay, well, there are a lot of communist survivors that would like to do the same to Marxists and socialist sympathizers. Many of the bad developments we allow happening today come from no longer understanding the threat of Marxism the same we understand Fascism.
It is incomprehensible how anyone ever thought that calling your social movement Social Justice, the historical burden of these very words, verbatim, that rang in the cold ears of so many million dead, would be a great name to use. I mean, the kids are bad in any name, and what they do honestly is to the tenets of this despicable ideology. But having the upfront audacity to actually use these words, and get away with "looking good" at any point in time, is incredible. It's like the Young Turks, a popular political channel on the Left. Historically, The Young Turks were a fascist movement that had their hands in the genocide of the Kurds.
All the while you see the Left go crazy about the political correctness of words and "dangerous speech". What a sick joke.
The lesson is that compassionate naivity is not simply virtue. Solzhenitsyn rolls in his grave. It has caused unspeakable suffering through-out all ages. Probably even a lot more than intent evil. And there is nothing that evil likes more to take advantage of than compassionate naivity. It's the sick masterpiece of life's humour. If you do not place all your very best effort into the honest factual truth of what the situation is, and the limits of what good it allows for, you made yourself complicit in the inevitable suffering of others much more than you ever hoped to save.
Going down the road of basing your efforts for good on a very "liberal" interpretation of truth, how to shape the minds and perception of others your solution to the problems, is the absolute tool of evil. We know historically that in the end nothing good can come of this. Nothing has fueled evil more. No worse has been done in human history, for any cause, than to this principle. It places the worth of ideology above reality, and distracts any effort from concentrating on the most relevant factors of an issue at hand. It prevents actually solving an issue. While feeling good about yourself. While thinking bad about others.
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:02 pm
Zeuter wrote:Is Germany that bad?
I guess that depends on who you're talking to. I'd say the same is true for how the Netherlands are doing.
I think that successful social systems depend on a very narrow set of conditions, a common value system people agree on.
Part of the wonder we live in is that earth can only sustain life because it has a certain distance to the sun, not too far, not too close.
For example, consider our health system. For as long as most people live responsibly, such that it reduces the chance of an ill fate, there will be a common interest in having a system in place that covers the remaining unfortunate events. As long as you assume people are in general agreement about how to approach life, it seems in your own best interest to keep each other covered. You know what to expect, you know what is expected, and it is good.
But what happens if more and more people have a radically different approach to their health? What if many frankly don't care, and inevitably become sick from having bad habits? What if others are hyper fit and like doing extreme sports that put their health at unnecessary risks no less? What if the people that live disciplined and conscious become fewer and fewer, and the burden on them to carry the others higher and higher? What if bad behavior is not only excused and tolerated, but even promoted? What if in a desperate attempt to somehow sustain the systems according to unreasonable ideals, the requirements become more and more extreme.
Every other social system has similar conflicts rising. Our way of life was originally created in a certain social climate. But this climate has changed. We have taken the blessings of our modern civilization for granted so much, that we are almost entirely blind to the risks of losing it all. And in the attempt to look nice, we are making decisions that are unrealistic and dangerous for everyone.
The truth of the matter is this: There is a sweet spot for diversity, what it means and the degree, in which society can prosper.
If you want the cake and eat it too, you get diabetes.
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:09 pm
What makes our lives good is not the wealth itself, it's our running process in which all our wealth is invested. Stop this process, redistribute wealth, and everyone becomes poor in no time, especially the poor, they become poorer. We seem to have a funny definition of poor these days: having less than others. The money numbers by itself are worthless. It's just an effective means of helping us manage our economy process. The rich are not hoarders like Dagobert Duck, sitting on their money. The matter of the fact is, money is nowhere better invested than with the expert elite that know how to invest. And everyone in the world is better off with them in charge of it. We are diminishing real poverty world wide faster today than anytime else in history. Of course the gap of wealth is increasing. But poverty is reduced.
There is this notion that the West is only rich because we steal the wealth of the weak in the rest of the world. This is wrong. We are rich because we create our wealth, we produce worthy products from worthless material. We buy oil and transform it into higher end products. If there were no West who knew what to do with oil, it would be just worthless dirt in the earth. The by far most important reason other countries have less, is because they don't know what to produce from what they have. The good news is, this can be easily changed, by learning from the West. Not spiting the West, learning from it. Learning success. Learning from our culture that enabled success. Part of what made the West successful was learning from everyone else. Every country that did take example by the West is now wealthy too. Every country that didn't, still is poor. Destroying the West does nothing but keep people ever so much poor. Europe wasn't the only colonial power in history, and even Europe was once conquered and colonized itself by others. We got over it. And so can everyone else.
Every cell in a body has a border membrane, by which it maintains its own special chemistry needed to function. Yet even so, all the different cells in the body work together for mutual benefit. Well maintained borders and competitive cooperation are important concepts you find everywhere in nature. The most valuable resource nations seek is not natural materials, but human talent. The most successful countries are those that attract the best talent from all over the world, while keeping bad people out. But ironically, being this attractive can hurt other parts of the world, since the talent that goes is the talent they lack. And it needs rare talent to build your country and improve your culture. However, talent also becomes more valuable with experience. By learning in attractive places from other talents. So a well traveled talent can be of even greater help to a home country. The real question is not, how many people can we take in to help the world. It is how can we help the world foster its own talent.
We could witness in the Soviet Union what happens when you get rid of the damn rich. The opposite-world ideology of the Marxist doctrine killed hundreds of millions, not only by manual execution and forced labor camps, but also by consequence of mismanagement. So what happened when they took away all the farmland of the more successful farm owners, and have them run by "the people", in the assumption everyone is equal and replacable, and no one deserves his wealth? Millions of people starved to death soon after, because "the people" were nowhere near as productive as the former farmer elite managing their own farms.
Sometimes there's an intersection of interests, and this can make it hard to figure who's behind what or who takes advantage of whom. Of course there's rich guys who will think how to use the socialist situation that's in front of them. You saw business men dealing with the Soviets in the past. But that doesn't mean at all that the capitalists were behind what happened in the Soviet Union. This is just the usual way western Marxists try to spin the blame so they don't have to face their responsibility. It is well documented by the survivors what actually transpired, what drove the developments. What happened back in the day, and what happens now, is firmly grounded in Marxist ideology. And at the same time Marxist have always taken advantage of the greedy stupidity of business men.
Here is another perspective on capitalist greed. Business men and merchants always had an interest in having good trade relations internationally. Free market trade capitalism has always been the most effective means of anti-racism, cultural exchange and mutual understanding. A hardcore capitalist doesn't see people in the colour of their skin or their gender, but only in terms of productivity. How much money can this person make me? Who gives a fuck if it identifies as a Pokemon. And productive talent is exceptionally rare. So rare and valuable that you cannot afford to just rely on normal locals, you have to look for talent everywhere, you have to compete for attracting talent, you have to keep it. The more complex your project, the more difficult to find people with the appropriate ability to handle it, and the harder to replace them. If you are good at what you're doing, and willing to put in the effort, your career and salary is open all the way to the top. On the flip side, if you are not productive and don't bring in the cash, it doesn't matter who you are either.
At the same time what's also interesting, is how salary works in this regard. Low wages give people from difficult backrounds a chance to enter the job market. When there is little reason for people to like you or trust you, at least you can offer to start work for less, and depend on greed to work in your favour. As you become more skilled through work, your productivity more valuable, and trust has built, the employer will have to pay you more, or you go elsewhere, this time with a better resume. Many people have found a decent place in society this way. And if not improving their own condition, earned a good social reputation for their kids, demonstrated good example, and the money to finance a better education and chance at least for them. It's how it works. Getting into a work relationship also immensely helps people integrate into society. Which is one of the prime reasons why when giving people incentives to not work, it dramatically increases alienation.
However, socially minded people have a bit of a split attitude towards capitalism. On one hand it has been a proven boon for the inclusion of minorities: be smart and work hard, and you can work yourself up in our system, whoever you are, given the will, you do have a chance, and as you do so, with your success you will find greater acceptance, not only for yourself, but for all your kind. On the other hand, the sort of folks that are socially minded often hate the idea of measuring people by their productivity. So what they actually end up doing is telling minorities that our system is bad, everyone hates you, don't even try, don't integrate, fight with us against it. And end up increasing resentments everywhere, opposite to what they claim this is about for them. Marxists are not actually interested in improving the life of minorities. Minorities are just useful tools to fight their war on capitalism. And the source of political power for a Marxist comes from poor and unhappy people that supposedly need help. So if this is your source of power, why would you ever be interested in actually improving someone's situation? Think. and what do you know.. it just so happens that communities under Marxist "friendly care" ever so much decay and despair.. and continually introduce new groups, as different as possible, as difficult to integrate as possible, and in numbers hard to handle. Because that's the point, you see. The point is not that the integration is successful. That's the pretense, undermined every step of the way. The point is to have more political allies against a common enemy.
What really improved the lives of any kind of people never was socialist support and activism. It was smart people on their own, willing to work and integrate. They never depended on "benevolence" from above, and this notion does nothing but cheapen their achievements. Yet those individuals that managed to be successful, be accepted, have good relations, as part of the running system, instead seeing them as an example of what is possible, and learning from them, they are titled Traitors to their kind. This is what bad culture does: promote failure. Because all this is really about is ideology. The most destructive and deadly ideology in all the history of mankind, that is well in action all over the world even now.
But yes, those people that like to be "nice" usually don't have to live with the consequences of their naivity. They live far away from the problems they supposedly would like to solve but cause. Or are very selective in whom they listen to, in so far as it reaffirms their own believes. They are not the family that has to send their daughter to school through a "no-go zone". They are not the social worker or police officer, who lives with post traumatic stress syndrome from the madness they have to deal with everyday, and the unrealistic expectations placed on them, and the idiotic politics and activism that make everything worse for everyone, cheap talk so that some people can look good on social networks, since everyone else with objections is simply a racist bigot.
I have grown up in poverty, and in mixed migrant neighborhoods. Actually I still live there. I could never afford to be racist in any meaningful interpretation of the word, as little as I could ever afford to be naive. And there were no reasons to be racist, as much as there was no room for naivity. I know plenty migrants that are good people, work hard, take care of family, live peacefully, build up a life, deal with the hardship responsibly, and gather the respect they deserve. Obviously it is very possible. But not even they like what is happening today in Europe's uncontrolled flood migration policy.
The Left has a very nasty habit. Making excuses for bad persons, as fits their class theory. And let me tell you this: nothing hurts migrants more than making excuses for criminals among them, supposedly in an effort to protect the image of the rest, to protect them from our racism. But it is criminal migrants that prey most on the good ones, it is where protection is needed most. Yet according to Marxist theory, criminals do only bad because they are oppressed and poor. So in response, let's be extra nice to them. Let's take the blame on ourselves whenever they do bad. You gotta understand them! Don't rule with an iron fist! This is no criminal! it's a poor person of colour being oppressed by white supremacy! They are Freedom Fighters! If you seriously don't want to understand that criminals have figured out how to take advantage of this liberal stupidity, to intimidate, threaten and even murder their own conservative people, you know, the actually productive sorts, that honestly came here to escape exactly this sort of madness, then you are the biggest enemy of migrants. Whenever you excuse assholes, you are spitting in the face of decent folks. "If you are kind to the cruel, be cruel to the kind." And of course covering up and excusing criminals, and thus encouraging them and prolonging crime spree, instead of a swift if painful closure, does nothing but create ever more resentments in the country, more than honesty and resolute consequence would have.
In fact, my mother was a migrant. She came to Germany with nothing, at 16 years old, from the countryside, not speaking a single word of the local language, no money, no skills, not knowing anything about modern city live or the world at large, just the dress she was wearing, no family, no friends, nothing. Words can't describe how hard it was. She had a choice. The easy way or the hard way. The easy way is crime, riots, indecent livestyle. Instead, she chose living upright on her own and with pride. She never made excuses, she never took shit from anyone. She deeply appreciated the very conservative migration policy at the time: an amount the society can realistically handle with success. Understanding that migrants are not all equal, that some are more difficult to handle than others. Zero tolerance for criminals. Kick them out immediately, they deserve nothing. Stability and security are of prime importance, especially for people that escaped tough parts of the world.
And going along with that, no moral relativity. Our values are no oppression. They are worth appreciation. They are worth respect. They are worth saving. And those who respect them, earn respect and appreciation of their own contribution. Who benefits most of this is the oppressed within the oppressed. This is what we are all about in the West, the individual, not the group. Groups are not "good" or "bad". Individuals are. Individuals are worth protection. From the group. And every group has as much bad in it as it has good. But again, class struggle is the center piece of Marxist theory. You are not defined by the merits of your deeds, but by the group you belong. Hence, a person that is classified as oppressed by group membership, to whatever definition, would be worth support, no matter what this person does. It's just part of their culture! And even cultures are classified not by the merit of their good, but by which seems more oppressed! Somehow whatever bad happens in the world is our fault. So we better let theocratic fascist regimes take over handling the international business of "their" people.
If you want to see what Europe's sanity currently looks like, just watch what happens in Sweden, the former poster child of socialist theory, turning into a veritable hellhole. The net is full with people coming out, that normally are too afraid to speak for fear of repercussions on their "racism".