SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Logic Wars
Over at a blog entitled The Sooty Empiric, the author The Last Positivist has an interesting explanation of the uses and abuses of logic, on the internet. It is interesting, first, because it is interesting ("But aristarchus", you might say, "that is a tautology!" To which I reply, "Yes, it is, and therefore logically true!"), and secondly because the misconception he adresses is rampant here on SoylentNews, as it is elsewhere on the Internets. And thirdly, because it highlights one of the essentials of philosophy: Humility; humility and Socratic ignorance. I'm sure many have noticed my humble attempts to exemplify philosophic humility right here on the pages of SN. But this is not about me. On to the Blog.
Boundless Ocean of Unlimited Possibilities
Sometimes (e.g.) on the internet we angst about the kind of person who likes to DESTROY his enemies with FACTS AND LOGIC AND REASON. Ben Shapiro has become the iconic figurehead of this sort, and not without cause - but that is at least somewhat misleading. Shapiro is prominently a fairly traditional conservative in his politics, but that is not an essential property of the sort. It is not tied to any particular political position so much as a self-characterisation and an aesthetic. The self-characterisation is that of an unbiased objective person who calmly follows (to the best of their abilities, accepting human frailty etc) good principles of rationality to reach conclusions. The aesthetic is that of being very impressed by displays of logical acumen, and very persuaded that one's ideological opponents (whoever they may be) can be set aside with relative ease once the tools of reason are brought to bear against them. This post is my contribution to that genre.
The aesthetic of displays of logical acumen, and a faith in victory! I mean, if not for this, conservatives would avoid logic like they do climate science. But let's see where The Last Positivist is going with this.
Now, I am a fan of fairly orthodox notions of logical argumentation. I do in fact think it is a good thing to offer arguments which are perspicuously such that there is no way for their premises to be true while their conclusion is false. All the better if you begin from true premises! Just on this blog I have tried to clarify clarity all the better to achieve it, and put a name to an under-recognised fallacy.
Philosophy vs. Rhetoric
There is a long history of antagonism between reason and argumentation. Plato assigned his protege, Aristotle, to show how the teachers of rhetoric played tricks upon the rest of us. This led to the creation of the discipline of logic. Plato, through his character Socrates in the dialogue "The Symposium", held that "philosophers" were "lovers of wisdom", from the greek φιλος and της σοφίας for "love of" and " of wisdom". But the wise woman Diotima ("honored by the gods") taught Socrates about love, namely, that love is not having what you desire.
Thus, philosophers are "lovers of wisdom" precisely because they do not possess it. And wisdom minimally should contain the truth, and logic (correct reasoning) is a tool for arriving at the truth? Thus one ought to be able to use logic to compel one's misguided and erring opponents to agree with you, using what Jürgen Habermas calls "the forceless force of reason". Of course, if we "other direct" or weaponize logic in this way, we are using logic to win arguments, not to discover truth, and that is rhetoric and not philosophy. And so, our noble blogger's point:
So, after all that set up, and for all my sympathy and similarity to this group, what spurs this post is that I typically find myself totally opposed to the logic fans in aesthetic and self-presentation. Why should this be?
My guess is it comes from a very different idea of what it is that a general improvement in logical acumen would achieve. The internet logic fan imagines that it would often lead to us agreeing on what is true - by contrast, I imagine it would lead to us agreeing on how much we don't know. They imagine it would knock out possibilities, I imagine it would open them up. The rest of this post is just a quick explanation of what I mean here and why I think that.
If we possessed at least some truth, and were able to identify valid deductive arguments, no doubt we could, and indeed be forced to on pain of being irrational, agree on some things being true.
Logic is, among other things, the study of truth preservation. It gives us tools for discerning when it is that some premises being jointly accepted a conclusion cannot be consistently denied. When an argument has this property of its premises ensuring the truth of its conclusion we say it is valid.
But this is not sufficient.
I think the root of the logic fans' vision for logic DESTROYING their enemies is that with it they shall be making arguments that are valid in this sense. In fact there is usually two sides to this. First, their opponents are shown to be not in the business of arguing at all - what "arguments" they offer are little more than emotive pleas (on that contrast see here). And after that these people are sharply contrasted with the airtight reasoning of a scientifically informed and logically precise debater. They thus envision securing agreement by brushing aside their opponents own perspective, then trapping their enemies in the iron grip of a valid argument, and squeezing conclusions out of them whether they like it or not.
A bit more forceful use of reason, aimed not at laying bare the reasoning for our conclusions, but rather at seeking unilateral cause for dismissing our opponents. This is not agreement, it is "victory"!
But validity is only the beginning of wisdom, not its end. For evidently mere validity by itself is not very interesting - we should like to know not just this relationship between the premises and the conclusion, but also whether or not the premises are in fact true. (An argument which is valid and has true premises is known as a sound argument - by their nature, sound arguments must have true conclusions.) In fact, even that is not enough - for logic to really be dialectically effective in this sort of way, it must offer us not just sound arguments, but sound arguments with premises that are known or sufficiently well established to be true that one's opponents cannot very well reasonably deny them.
This is an interesting point, that logic is not agonistic, it is not a battle for the truth. Instead it is a communal search for truth, for agreement, and that means for an argument to be effective, it must be agreed to at the beginning, with the agreement on premises. In other words, διαλεκτική, Dialectic But, then,
And here is where I think the rub lies - I think it is extremely difficult, vanishingly rare in fact, to have arguments which are (i) interesting, (ii) valid, and (iii) possessing premises that are true and established to be so. By (i) I just mean - on the sort of topics that actually concern us in political and social discussion, coming to contentious conclusions about how we should live or arrange our institutions etc. And by (iii) I mean - having premises that are not only true (hard and rare enough in itself in many cases), but are sufficiently well evidenced such that disputants cannot just as reasonably doubt this premise as accept the conclusion.
What, then, is our valiant blogger's alternative?
So to me the more salient tool in the logician's kit is the counter-model. This is the imaginative skill (also taught in intro logic) of coming up with ways the world could be that would satisfy all of the premises while rendering the conclusion false. This shows us possibilities left open by what is established in our premises, sometimes these are ways the world might be that we may not have been inclined to think about were we not set the task of generating a counter-model. When I envision the world wherein logic is better respected, it is a world wherein this skill is more often deployed.
American Philosopher John Rawls once wrote on the situation where there is no forceful argument in favor of liberal democracy and international law:
Some may find this fact hard to accept. That is because it is often thought that the task of philosophy is to uncover a form of argument that will always prove convincing against all other arguments. There is, however, no such argument.
John Rawls, The Law of Peoples", p. 123
The absence of such arguments is not cause for fear, or rampant relativism. It only means that the force of reason is not what the fanbois of logic on the internet imagine it to be. Logic is not a rhetorical weapon, it is not something that can be used without the consent, agreement, and cooperation of opponents. Which means, ultimately, that we can dismiss Ben Shapiro as a raving emo guy, right?
Amazon Sells "Tiny Home" Kits
Something like this is what comes to mind when I hear "tiny home/house", not necessarily a "mobile home". Although they can be even smaller than this $19k cabin kit.
220 Square Foot Tiny House (compare to $19k cabin which is 292 sq. ft. + the loft)
2 of 3 of the reviews on the $19k cabin are bad, pointing out that it is expensive and requires insulation and more stuff to make it liveable. There are better options out there.
"Needed" for no frills house: solar panels, battery, Starlink, camp cooking equipment or a grill, water source, outhouse or shit pit. DIY insulation probably won't cost a lot for something this size. Maybe you could swipe a couple hundred Tyvek envelopes from the post office to help waterproof it some more. You could use the wooden frame to set up brick/concrete/etc. walls if you want more protection.
Nike Betsy Ross Backlash
Nike Drops ‘Betsy Ross Flag’ Sneaker After Kaepernick Criticizes It
But rather than including a flag with 50 stars as part of its design, the sneaker’s heel featured the 13-star model, a design associated with the Revolutionary War, the Philadelphia seamstress Betsy Ross and, for some people, a painful history of oppression and racism.
On Tuesday, Nike canceled the release of the sneaker, again plunging headlong into the nation’s culture wars.
The abrupt cancellation came after Colin Kaepernick, the former National Football League quarterback and social justice activist, privately criticized the design to Nike, according to a person with knowledge of the interaction.
Mr. Kaepernick, who signed a lucrative deal to serve as a Nike brand ambassador last year, expressed the concern to the company that the Betsy Ross flag had been co-opted by groups espousing racist ideologies, the person said.
Nike loses [Arizona] factory aid as 'racist trainer' row intensifies
The state's governor had condemned Nike's decision, which was prompted by complaints about its use of an old US flag embraced by white nationalists.
Nike-sponsored sportsman Colin Kaepernick had criticised the trainers, now selling on websites for $1,500.
But governor Doug Ducey said Nike had bowed to political correctness.
The special edition Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July trainer features the Betsy Ross flag.
With a circle of 13 stars representing the first US colonies, the flag was created during the American Revolution. Although opinion is divided over its origins, the flag was later adopted for use by the American Nazi Party.
Mitch McConnell says he will "make the first order" for Nike shoes featuring Betsy Ross flag
A veteran-owned company releases a Betsy Ross flag shirt after Nike controversy
First Female Dalai Lama Does Not Have to be Attractive
Dalai Lama 'deeply sorry' for remarks about women
The Dalai Lama has apologised for controversial comments about the possibility of a woman succeeding him.
Speaking to the BBC last month, the Tibetan spiritual leader said that any future female Dalai Lama should be "attractive".
But a statement from his office apologised for his words, suggesting he had been joking.
"He is deeply sorry that people have been hurt by what he said and offers his sincere apologies," it said.
Dalai Lama. 14th tidbits:
In 2014 and 2016, he stated that Tibet wants to be part of China but China should let Tibet preserve its culture and script.
In 2018, he stated that "Europe belongs to the Europeans" and that Europe has a moral obligation to aid refugees whose lives are in peril. Further he stated that Europe should receive, help and educate refugees but ultimately they should return to develop their home countries.
In March 2019, the Dalai Lama spoke out about his successor, saying that after his death he is likely to be reincarnated in India. He also warned that any Chinese interference in succession should not be considered valid.
California to Ban Natural Hair Discrimination
California set to be first US state to ban hair discrimination
California is set to become the first US state to ban discrimination against natural hair. The new bill, which the Senate passed in April, amends anti-discrimination laws to include "traits historically associated with race" and "blackness". It bars discrimination against black hairstyles in schools and workplaces. California's assembly voted unanimously in favour of the measure on Thursday, sending it to Governor Gavin Newsom's desk for signing into law.
The update to the law comes after years of nationwide reports of black students being sent home from school over braids or natural styles that violated dress code rules. In the workplace, black employees have often reported unfair policies that describe natural hair as unhygienic and unprofessional. The US military had a ban on dreadlocks for women until 2017.
"Professionalism was, and still is, closely linked to European features and mannerisms, which entails that those who do not naturally fall into Eurocentric norms must alter their appearances, sometimes drastically and permanently, in order to be deemed professional," the California bill states. "Hair remains a rampant source of racial discrimination with serious economic and health consequences, especially for black individuals."
Jeffrey Epstein Plea Deal Must Stand
Jeffrey Epstein's Sex Offender Plea Deal Must Stand, Federal Prosecutors Say
Federal prosecutors say a lenient plea deal struck more than a decade ago with multimillionaire and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein should be allowed to stand.
Epstein was charged with recruiting dozens of girls, some as young as 13, for massages and sex at his mansion in Palm Beach, Fla. Under a plea deal reached in 2007 with then-U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, Epstein was given immunity from federal prosecution and pleaded guilty to lesser state charges. The financier served just 13 months in county jail and was granted work release, allowing him to spend his days at his Palm Beach office. Acosta now serves as President Trump's Labor secretary.
For more than a decade, attorneys representing sex abuse victims in the case have said their clients weren't informed of the plea deal beforehand or given the opportunity to testify about it in court. In February, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the omission by prosecutors violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act. He ordered the government and lawyers for the victims to propose a remedy.
[...] This week, prosecutors responded. In their motion, they concede the government should have told abuse victims about the plea deal before it was presented in court. But they say the law gives the government broad discretion in deciding whether or not to prosecute. And at this point, prosecutors say victims have no right to demand an apology or anything from the government.
See also: At first, Dershowitz welcomed this Epstein-related lawsuit. Now he wants it tossed out
Previously: Jeffrey Epstein Settles Suit
Charlottesville Nazi sentenced to life for car attack/murder
Nearly two years after James A. Fields Jr. rammed his car into a crowd of counterprotesters at a white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, the avowed neo-Nazi and convicted murderer was sentenced to life in prison Friday for 29 federal hate crimes.
Fields, 22, whose vehicular attack killed one woman and injured 35 other people, pleaded guilty to the 29 counts in April in a deal with prosecutors, who agreed to drop an additional charge that carries a possible death sentence. In a separate case stemming from the deadly incident, Fields was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes in December by a Virginia jury that voted for a life term plus 419 years in state prison.
James A. Fields Jr., avowed neo-Nazi in Charlottesville car attack, sentenced to life in prison
(I like how it's posted in the Public Safety department)
2020 Democratic Debate #1B (Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Yang)
2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif.
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.
Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper
Author Marianne Williamson
Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.
Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.
Names are listed in order of their support as measured by polls.
Expect to see a lot of Biden vs. Sanders, or Everyone vs. Biden. Biden will be asked if he's racist. Yang will be asked if he's for real. Buttigieg will be forced to respond to an inconveniently timed South Bend police shooting.
---
Commentary:
Hick: If we don't say we're not socialists, the Republicans will call us socialists. :P
Sanders: (What about being a socialist?) I'm 10 points ahead of Trump.
Gillibrand: It's about capitalism vs. greed.
Some guy: Vermont rejected Medicare for All.
Buttigieg spews some Spanish, explains his lack of support on free tuition for all.
Swalwell has/had student loan debt.
Yang asked about the $1k/person/month plan. Says Amazon isn't paying taxes. Supports a value added tax. Predicts big increase in GDP.
Swalwell asked about Yang's robots taking jobs. Says Biden should pass the torch to a new generation. Biden is still holding onto that torch. Sanders and Gillibrand step on each other trying to respond(?) to Biden.
Harris delivers food fight zinger. Emphasizes that nobody should have to work more than one job to put a roof over their head and food on the table.
Again only 2 (Sanders and Harris) support getting rid of their insurance plan in favor of Medicare for All.
Buttigieg: Medicare For All Who Want It.
Biden brings up his big dead family in response to health care question. Wants to build on Obamacare.
Sanders finds it hard to believe that every other major country on Earth has figured out how to provide (cheaper) health care for everybody, but not America.
Marianne Williamson just tells everyone that Trump is going to steamroll them. Sickness care system.
Harris is trying hard to be down to Earth, bringing up hypothetical parents with sick kids and stuff.
Another show of hands question. All say their health plan would cover undocumented immigrants (some raised their hand slower than others?).
Moderator accuses Biden of not raising his hand even though he did! Biden wants to jail pharma folks (good luck with that).
Harris on immigrants: Day 1 executive order to reinstate DACA status, defer deportation for parents, veterans. Review asylum cases, release children from cages, get rid of private detention centers. Brings up hypothetical mother paying a coyote.
Gov. Hick: Calls immigrant children policy kidnapping. Completely reform ICE, address whole needs of people detained at the border. M. Williamson agrees, says it's state-sponsored crime. Says American foreign policy of the last few decades is to blame for situation.
Gillibrand: comprehensive reform with a pathway to citizenship, asylum seekers given lawyers, fund border security. Says Trump has redirected money from border patrol to private prisons.
Show of hands. Civil offense vs. criminal to cross the border. Looks like most supported making it a civil offense but Biden looked hesitant.
Buttigieg plays Christian card, says God would not like child detention policy (in other words).
Biden would surge money to the region. Claims credit for $740 million spent on the problem.
Something something Biden would deport. But somebody without documents should "not be the focus of deportation".
Sanders says "damn". Brings up failing state of Honduras. Presidents of Central America should be invited to discuss problems.
Swalwell: Trump is weaponizing the census.
Harris disagreed with Obama administration. Didn't want to deport "non-criminals".
Bennet: Russia is bigger geopolitical threat than China. Should mobilize rest of the world against China's mercantilist policies (good luck). Pivots back to immigration and plays Holocaust card. Gets animated about Wall vs. Statue of Liberty.
Yang: Russia greatest threat, hacking democracy, laughing their asses off. Trade war with China is no good.
Buttigieg lives near the SOY fields.
I don't think audience reaction is what is removing talking time.
Buttigieg gets asked about the Eric Logan killing in South Bend. Answer is about as good as it could possibly be.
Swalwell interrupts, tells Buttigieg to fire the Police Chief. Then Marianne cuts in and supports reparations for slavery. Harris gets the last word, puts Biden on the spot, says she believes he's not a racist, but slams him for supporting/working with racist Senators (you might want to watch the clip of her).
Biden INVOKED. Says his position was mischaracterized, says he became a public defender after MLK was killed. He ran because of civil rights.
Harris asks Biden if he was wrong to oppose busing. Biden can't brush it off, recites his civil rights record until his time is up.
Sanders diverts diversity question into 1% thing.
Guy standing next to Gillibrand has been attacking Biden often.
Gillibrand supports publicly funded elections.
Sanders wants to rotate judges off of SCOTUS? Maybe we should just pass a term limit. If Roe v. Wade is gone, Medicare For All would provide abortions?
Gillibrand has been the fiercest advocate for women's reproductive rights for 10 years.
Harris: Climate crisis is an existential threat to the species. Supports Green New Deal, reentering Paris agreement. Donald Trump is greatest threat to the United States.
Buttigieg: We have to prevent climate change from getting worse. Wants carbon tax and dividend. 1,000 and 500 year floods in South Bend? Pittsburgh Summit!
Gov. Hick is a scientist. Close coal plants, methane regulations.
Biden: Obama admin. drove down price of wind and solar (or was that just a trend).
Sanders: The old ways are no longer relevant, we have 12 years left. Make fossil fuels the common enemy of the world (implying that military spending should be diverted).
Marianne: Invokes John Kennedy.
Everyone given a few words on their first issue. Format broken pretty quickly. Audience seemed to buzz a bit at Yang's $1000/month freedom dividend. Marianne mentions New Zealand (probably memeworthy, didn't hear it all).
Swalwell asked about mandatory assault weapon buyback program. "We have the NRA on the ropes." Every other candidate would leave 15 million assault weapons alone.
Sanders asked about 2013 interview on guns. Got zinged by Rachel Maddow when saying he was mischaracterized. Swalwell presses Sanders to support buyback, Sanders dodges. Harris wants comprehensive background checks, executive order to ban import of assault weapons.
Buttigieg asked if veterans will support these gun policies. (Wow, a lot of people are dying in South Bend.)
Biden is the only person who beat the NRA nationally (Brady bill). Supports buyback. WANTS SMART GUNS WITH BIOMETRICS.
Bennet mentions Trump attacking allies at G20.
Marianne would call Europe. Hick would go to China. Yang would "cooperate" with China. Biden wants strong NATO. Sanders wants rebuilt trust in United Nations. Harris: NATO. Gillibrand would engage Iran. Bennet: EU and Latin America. Swalwell: "We're breaking up with Russia, making up with NATO".
Commercial break. Showtime has a series about Roger Ailes.
Final 45 seconds for each candidate. Swalwell: You can't look to the past for your leaderships. "When I'm not changing diapers, I'm changing Washington. Most of the time the diapers smell better." His whole case here is that he's young.
Marianne: Donald Trump isn't going to be beaten by insider politics and plans. She promises to use love for political purposes.
Bennet: His family from 300 years ago was looking for religious freedom. (and some other stuff)
Hick: Small business owner, reduced teenage abortions, legalized marijuana, methane regulations. If we turn to socialism, Trump will win.
Gillibrand: Women are under attack. Roe v. Wade. Stood up to Pentagon (DADT), banks, Trump. Publicly funded elections.
Yang: Thanks his supporters. I am proof democracy still works. Trickle up economy. Says he'll build a broad coalition full of conservatives to beat Trump.
Harris: This election is about YOU, YOUR HOPES, DREAMS, AND FEARS. She has a "3 AM agenda" (health care and economy). PLEASE JOIN US AT KAMALAHARRIS.org
Buttigieg wrote a letter to his family in case he died in Afghanistan. I'm in a gay marriage due to a single vote. He'll be as old as Trump in 2055. He'll end endless war.
Sanders: How come nothing really changes? Stagnant wages, childhood poverty, student debt, etc. Nothing will change unless we have the guts to take on Wall St, insurance, pharma, military industrial complex, fossil fuel industry.
Biden gets the last word. We need to restore the soul of this nation. Trump equates racist, white supremacist with decent people. Unite the United States. We can do anything if we're together. "May God protect our troops" were his last words.
2020 Democratic Debate #1A (Warren, O'Rourke, Booker)
2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums
9 PM EDT on NBC.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.
Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii
Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio
Former Rep. John Delaney
---
Commentary:
First thing they do is ask Warren to defend her policy positions. No opening statements I guess.
LATINX!!!
Klobuchar the first one to go for the Orange Man.
O'Rourke right out of the gate speaking as much Spanish as possible. Cringe? O'Rourke given another 10 seconds to answer the actual question.
Booker has that intense look that he has. And he lives in a poor community.
Castro endorses the Equal Rights Amendment.
Gabbard invokes her enlistment after 9/11. I don't think she was asked about that.
Bill de Blasio fights equality by putting money in the hands of city employees!
de Blasio: "There's plenty of money in this world. There's plenty of money in this country. It's just in the wrong hands."
Union guy: "Lookit. Turbines don't cause cancer, they cause jobs."
Ohio guy: UNBOLT IT AND SEND IT TO CHINA.
Only 2 of the 10 raise their hand when asked about replacing their private health insurance with government health insurance.
Warren: "I'm with Bernie on Medicare for All." I smell running mate.
de Blasio goes for O'Rourke's jugular on private health insurance.
Inslee actually advanced the ball. But Klobuchar kicks hims in the nuts.
Castro believes in REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE. Including for TRANS FEMALES(?).
Booker doesn't take contributions from pharma!
O'Rourke brings in prison population factoid before addressing punching bag Purdue Pharma.
Who is this guy asking the immigration question all dramatically?
Castro: Marshall Plan for Honduras et al.
Booker shows off his Spanish, also promises Day 1 executive order.
de Blasio: The immigrants aren't the problem! It's the big corporations! We have to be a party of immigrants!
O'Rourke is going to speak Spanish every time he's called on.
Castro is seizing the momentum, trying to get others to commit to repealing section whatever.
Klobuchar dodges the question (of making it not a crime to cross the border).
Some guy says the Gitmo detainees get better health care than immigrant kids. Snot and diapers.
Investments in the Northern Triangle. How about the Bermuda Triangle?
Inslee welcomes refugees into his state.
Klobuchar looks like she's about to cry.
Gabbard: "This President and his chickenhawk cabinet..." (Me: I don't agree that a "war" with Iran has to be expensive.) Her red line is an attack on our troops. Some loser tries to cut in, gets hit by commercial break.
You want a meme? How about NBC fucking up everything with the microphones and apparently losing 5 minutes.
Well I missed some of it because the app was acting up. I see O'Rourke talking about gun control.
de Blasio SLAMS THE FIELD WITH HIS BLACK SON CARD. lol
Warren has a plan. Also she's showing more energy in her answer than Clinton did in an entire campaign.
"Does your plan save Miami?" Maybe not, but Inslee is going to mobilize the U.S. to fight the climate.
O'Rourke wants to put the carbon in the soil. Is this thermodynamically possible?
Tim Ryan: We're not connecting to working class people. Coastal and Elital... elitist.
Gabbard getting slammed by moderator on LGBTQ?
She would give her life for them. But not much longer if she becomes Commander in Chief.
Booker compares trans murders to lynching.
What has Klobuchar done for black and latino voters? (Should have said latinx, Maddow) Second Step Act?
What about Tamir Rice? Eric Garner? Christopher Dorner? (funny story about that below)
Gabbard throws shade at Saudi Arabia. But gives weak answer IMO on greatest geopolitical threat.
O'Rourke first to mention impeachment, or I wasn't listening properly.
Delaney is lost in the sauce, doesn't realize it's closing statement time.
The teacher in Texas! The waitress in Wisconsin!
Our White House will be a beacon of light + other generic positions. Also we are already in the new century.
Castro pats himself on the back for being able to speak Spanish. Let's see if Booker and O'Rourke follow suit. Also, "Adios to Donald Trump".
Booker took the Spanish bait. Praises white activists.
O'Rourke did not speak Spanish for once. Good plan.
Warren gives most personal closing statement, ties in education funding.
AnandTech AMD Interview: Rome and More
An Interview with AMD’s Forrest Norrod: Naples, Rome, Milan, & Genoa
There's some clarifications and small tidbits in the article. Not sure why the Rome DRAM question was asked and barely answered; I thought it was known that it would support 4 TiB.
Milan will be Zen 3. Genoa is confirmed to be Zen 4. "Another Italian city" will come after that, likely Zen 5. The Frontier 1.5 exaflops supercomputer will not use Milan, but rather a "custom CPU". IIRC, AdoredTV speculated about a server CPU with 4 attached GPUs (Infinity Fabric) for this purpose.
But the best part is this shade thrown at the end about 3D XPoint/Optane:
IC: Intel has extended out to all the other aspects of the enterprise market in order addressing more TAM than ever before, because that is the goal for investors. One of those aspects is volatile memory and Optane. What can AMD do in this space, or is it worth it the customers that you're going for to do some sort of non-volatile memory?
Forrest Norrod: With all these forms of NVM I do think that there are two value propositions that people have been talking about.
One is the non-volatile aspect, to blur the lines between memory and storage, and customers will get much better large memory database machines etc. On the whole non-volatile aspect, I think people are doing the software work to enable that on a broader range of applications, but at the end of the day, the fact that you still have a failure domain at the node level means that the value is relatively smaller. Before you can commit, you're going to trust a commit to just one machine, to the SCM on one machine. However realistically you're not going to commit until you got a commit on multiple nodes. And so, that tends to somewhat degrade the value that people were thinking about.
So the other aspect of course is lower cost per bit. They’ll use it as DRAM replacement and the fact is that it has longer latency and non-uniform latency, and so there are a bunch of issues there. Now withstanding that it is close enough that we can use it as DRAM replacement, I'd say there was probably more interest in that 12 months ago when DRAM price were at a historically high level. Today there is less interest in that now as DRAM prices have come way down and I do think that DRAM/memory is a commodity market, and commodity markets have a very set of economic rules. The cure for high oil prices is high oil prices right? You know because that increases production and that brings the oil prices back down. The prospect of Optane being a replacement for DRAM in of itself would bring the cost of DRAM down, regardless of the current market factors in play today.
But there are a lot of other storage class memory (SCM) technologies which are in development. I think that you will see SCM settle into a niche of the memory hierarchy over 2-3 years and I think that there will be a lot of choices, not just Optane. But I don't think it's the be-all and end-all. I think that that Intel has made a horrific mistake hitching their system architecture to a propriety memory interface. I think that they've made a key strategic mistake.
I think that in general, Intel may be forgetting what got them here. Truly having an open ecosystem where others could add value to that ecosystem, and that the platform is a key part of the success of the x86 market. Intel still talks about it in that way, but that's not what they are doing, any pico-acre of silicon that doesn't belong to Intel is something that they covet. But I think acting that way is to the detriment of the health of their platform ecosystem long term.
Here's another garbage non-volatile part announcement.
