SoylentNews

Comet Lake Core i9-10900T CPU at 35 Watt rating hits 123 watts in Sandra benchmark

TDPs are often a very tricky thing, but this one definitely falls into the category, odd. In the SiSoft Sandra database, an entry appeared of a pending Core i9-10900T processor, that T in there is for the energy-friendly 35 Watt models.

Now, make no mistake, we're talking about a 10-core/20-threads processor. So in low base-clock loads achieving 35 Watts, I would find it amazing by itself all together. That, however, is not the case, the benchmark shows that the Core i9-10900T actually draws up-to 123 Watts under load. Again, 10 cores, I am not shocked, but with a rating of 35 Watts, it's definitely on the high side if you think about it for a small form factor build. The base clock (the absolute lowest load clock for all cores) should be 1.9 GHz for the Core i9-10900T. The processor is listed as having a 4.5 GHz boost frequency (single thread).

Top-end 10-core could draw up to 300 Watts.

More than a month ago, after I watched some censored videos of unconscious CoV people dying in all-body convulsions, I noted in conversations on private communication channels it looks like a brain failure. I was downplayed by true experts that such effect is possible with just a lungs failure.

Elections are being postponed in the US... How idyllic! And just in time! The credibility crisis is real and must be contained!

Choosing the rubric "Nexuses", since I have no idea what it is. But here we are talking about, "Begging the Question".

This has come up several times here on SoylentNews. And several times I have called out those using the phrase incorrectly. Since they were "conservatives", they also were "relativists" who believe that nothing is wright or Wrong, but that thinking makes it so. (Scholary Note: this quote actually occurs in Shakespeare's Hamlet (cite:Hamlet: Act 2, Scene 2), but has precedents back to King Alfred's translation of The Consolation of Philosophy, by Boethius, 4th Cent Roman.) And if it is true, then people using "begs the question" for "raises the question" is perfectly acceptable, because usage determines meaning. I am here to raise a wall of fire, or, a firewall, against this sort of nonsense, palavered by idiots and ne'erdowells, Knaves and poltroons, textbook publishers and NPR reporters, and just say, NO, you are holding it wrong.

As many, many websites explain, "begging the question" in fact does not mean "begging that a question be asked", which is what current usage seems to be suggesting. But this means that the shift in meaning is not just a shift in meaning, as when "Phat" replaced "Rad" which replaced "Cool", which replaced "Groovy". Yes, words and phrases can shift in the milieu of a living language, no question. But, there are differences.

  On the one hand, the incorrect use of "begging the question" may seem to only be a shift in signification within a language. But the argument here is that it both an insidious and deleterious change in language, or in fact, an error. There are somethings that usage cannot justify, and among those are semantic misunderstandings, like the one underlying the misuse of "begging the question". And, I might point out, the worst offenders are reporters on National Public Radio, who ought to know better, but after several Project Veritas attacks, the organization has added some Affirmative Action conservatives, who are not really all that well educated.

To begin: "begging the question" is a translation of the Latin phrase, petitio principii, which, as any literate person can see, means "petitioning the principle". This is an informal fallacy, or common incorrect reasoning, that proves something based on the assumption that thing is true, or in other words, assuming the truth of what was to be proven. An example is an argument that defends laws outlawing marijuana, because use of marijuana is in fact illegal! This is called "circular reasoning", the idea that something is true, because it is true, and it is true, because it is true, and, . . .

Now, this is what "begging the question" is, assuming the truth of what you are trying to prove, or circular reasoning. Hardly convincing, unless you are already inside that particular question begging bubble. Most Black on Black crime is committed by Blacks? Absolutely true. But when you look at it, it is true by definition, and has no bearing on whether race is a factor in criminality, which is of course what the racist cracker coming up with the argument assumed.

      This is why it is important to stand up for the correct usage of "begging the question". Mistaken usage by people educated enough to have heard the phrase, but not educated enough to understand it, undercut the devastating use of the accusation of the fallacy to refute all the question beggers out there. Earth flat? Well of course it is because it has no curvature! Begging the question. Blacks in American have less wealth and education? Well they must be an inferior race. Begging the question. You see how easily hidden, or not so hidden, presumptions and biases and prejudices, for the basis for erroneous conclusions. So misusing the phrase "begging the question" incorrectly weakens the force of accusations of those who actually do, "beg the question."

We go to the source, The Philosopher, as later he was called: Aristotle.

The original phrase used by Aristotle from which begging the question descends is: τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς (or sometimes ἐν ἀρχῇ) αἰτεῖν, "asking for the initial thing." Aristotle's intended meaning is closely tied to the type of dialectical argument he discusses in his Topics, book VIII: a formalized debate in which the defending party asserts a thesis that the attacking party must attempt to refute by asking yes-or-no questions and deducing some inconsistency between the responses and the original thesis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Obligatory XKCD, which totally explains the problem.

So now, the explanation. Languages can change, granted. Once, "Merde" meant "honored above all others in our village". (Look it up, it is not true.) And of course, "bad" can become "good", and "rad" can become socially comformist Millennial fodder, but I digress, which begs the question (NOT!!!) of why the change in meaning of the phrase "begs the question" is even a thing. Now, I will tell you. Pay close attention. If you are Runaway, you can runaway at this point, since rational thought is required.

Words change. Sometimes, words are purposefully, intentionally changed. Once "Christian" meant "crucified". Kind a downer when you are trying to catapult the propaganda and hype the religion. So suddenly "crucified" meant not "dead" (which was the Roman intention), but "Saved". As an American comedian in the Sixties pointed out, if Jesus had been execute in America in the Fifties, it would have been by electric chair, and all Christians would be wearing little gold electric chairs on gold chains around their necks. But really, imagine the power of taking a Roman expression of fear and subservience, and turning into a symbol of hope, equality, and liberation? Brilliant.

"Begging the question"? Not so much. Changes in language based on ignorance of language, and superficial similarities, are quite different. They are just dumb, not to put too fine a point on it. The bare similarity of "begs" to "ask" misses the entire point of the original phrase, and takes it to another place. Begging the question is not asking any question, and current usage needs to recognise this. It is simply and purely a mistake on the part of partially educated persons, often, for some reason, journalists, who have heard the phrase "begs the question", but know nothing of its actual meaning or history. So they fuck it up. Excuse me. I beg for your forgiveness?

Confusing this phrase, out of ignorance, is often compared to the modern Brit illiterate screw-up, "a wet squid". I recommend that one watch the full episode of "The IT Crowd", where a Pedal Stool, is compared to a "damp squid", but squids are already damp, so it is "damp squib", the definition of which begs the question, oh, darnit, at this point look it up for yourself!

So it is a misunderstanding of language that has given rise to this "begging the question" to mean "raises the question", and anyone who makes such a mistake should be suitably ashamed. There are many such mistakes, they are called "eggcorns", after a failed attempt to enunciate "acorn" as the nut or seed of an oak. Kinda makes sense, a nut is a seed, which is an egg, which is, ok, it is just wrong. For a long list, see The Eggcorn Database", which seems to have gone dark circa 2017. but is still full of lovely examples, such as "Death nail" for "death knell", and many, many more, all attributable to the reduction of literacy under Republican administrations since Reagan. Which begs the questions of why Republicans hate education? See what I did there?

A more insidious approach, however, is the mis-interpretation by Grammar Girl, who I am sure is well-intentioned, but is still something of a damp squid.

The Right Way to Use "Begs the Question"
Begs the question is actually a term that comes from logic, and it's used to indicate that someone has made a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support (1, 2). It can be a premise that's independent from the conclusion (3) or in a simpler form, the premise can be just a restatement of the conclusion itself (4, 5).

So far, so good, but then:

For example, let's say Squiggly is trying to convince Aardvark that chocolate is healthful, and his argument is that chocolate grows on trees, so it must be healthful. Aardvark could rightly say there's no proof that something is good for you simply because it grows on a tree. Some things that grow on trees are poisonous--Chinaberry tree fruit, for example (6). So Squiggly's argument is based on a faulty premise.

Fatal error, Grammar Girl, whoever you are! It is not the premise that is at fault, it is the circularity of the argument. Whether the assumption that things that grow on trees are natural is in fact true or not has nothing to do with the fallaciousness of the reasoning, it is the thinking that the assumption is sufficient that is the original petitio principii that makes the reasoning fallacious.
Grammar Girl digs herself in deeper,

I remember what begs the question means by thinking that the argument raises a specific question--it begs *the* question--What's your support for that premise? OR more informally, What does that have to do with anything? You use the phrase begs the question when people are hoping you won't notice that their reasons for coming to a conclusion aren't valid. They've made an argument based on a lame assumption. The question is What's your support for that premise?

The lame assumption is the problem. It does not beg for other support for the conclusion, it is the fact that the conclusion, or some disguised rewording of the conclusion, is being offered as support for itself. Which, by the way, is totally valid. If p is true, then p is true. Such an argument cannot be invalid, because if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true. Petitio principii is not invalid; in fact, it is too valid. Premises in an argument have to be different enough so that the argument is not merely the restating of what was assumed ab initio.

So this is why T-Rex rules. He is in no doubt about the validity of his arguments, because when you beg the questions that no one dare unbeg, well:
T-Rex begs the question of whether he is a pretty sweet dude.

In conclusion, mistaking "begging the question" for "raises the question" is not a simple matter of language change or evolution. It is devolution, illiteracy, and the profligation of this mistake harms logical thinking. And, NPR needs to reign in its reporters, and fire them if them make this mistake on air again. I am looking at you, Steve Inskeep! Token conservative, which means only hired to fill a perceived quota, not because of question begging competence. So join me, Soylentils one and all, in sending offenders to Beg the Question.info, where they have cards you can print out to hand to offenders. Often times, they may not even be aware they offend, being illiterate, so be gentle, my noble Soylentils! May your squid ever be wet.

So if you need to get to the US from Europe, stop at a Trump resort first.

Trump’s travel ban sidesteps his own European resorts

^{The president announced new travel restrictions on Europeans as the coronavirus pandemic escalated, but a few key spots on the continent were spared.}

President Donald Trump’s new European travel restrictions have a convenient side effect: They exempt nations where three Trump-owned golf resorts are located.

That's the Kwik Kourteous Konvenience you expect from Trump resorts.

These viruses are "foreign" viruses (listen to his speech). Thus good people coming from Trump resorts cannot possibly have been in contact with these "foreign" viruses.

They are postponing the start of baseball season

And, as I have previously speculated. There is talk of postponing the election... in the UK, for now... I suspect the same could easily happen in the US if a certain person feels threatened by media polls.

The "Families First" bill was killed because it did not include corporate subsidies. It's a good idea to take lots of money out in case an unpaid creditor tries to put a lien on your bank account. Don't do it too fast, or they'll close the banks to "keep them solvent".

Wall street gamblers are safe... Where now is time to take from them to help people who need it, they get 1.5 tril of free money!

This is sabotageee! And all these damn people will be reelected! If there is an election. Shit! why not postpone it then?

Oh, and locusts in Africa! Gettin' all biblical 'n shit!

The way to prevent violence? Free Netflix for all!

Well, Trump did!

Just...read this LOL https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/matt-gaetz-mocked-coronavirus-wearing-223948359.html

Gaetz is a special kind of childish moron even for the Trump administration, and Lady Karma really could not have picked a better target to shit thin shit all over. I hope this guy's wetting himself every time his throat itches. Maybe pickling himself in booze-a-hol will help a bit...though, note to Mr. Gaetz, the recipe calls for isopropyl alcohol and glycerin, and it's topical, not oral.

...okay, there are two people karma could choose that would be even better: Donald Trump and Mike Pence. Pence is for me at the top of this list, since his willful inaction and religious whackaloonery precipitated an HIV crisis in Indiana so severe the federal government had to intervene. Drowning slowly in his own lung exudate would be a fitting and very poetic fate for him...and don't worry, after he's done it'll only take a few minutes in Hellfire before it's all evaporated out!

Trump being taken down by the virus he keeps calling a hoax and blaming on the Democrats (?!) would be perfect too. He's in his 70s, overweight as hell (if he's 239 pounds, I'm Callista Flockheart!), apparently doesn't sleep much, and subsists on a steady regimen of Diet Coke, covfefe, and hamberders. Oh, and well-done steak with ketchup, the nekulturny bastard.

But the best part of this? CPAC. This happened at CPAC, the epicenter of coronavirus trolling. I can't think of anything more fitting than CPAC turning into the major vector of coronavirus spread, and taking down the most deserving people in the nation. Of course they'll get the best treatment on earth--they have Medicare for All, after all, and on our dime!--but even if it doesn't kill these three waterheads, I'll still laugh myself hoarse.

The absolute best outcome would be if this virus ends the Trump administration, specifically because of their utter malicious incompetence in handling it. Let us not forget Trump's practice of hiring worthless yes-men has hollowed out the Cabinet and many federal agencies, not to mention he's explicitly gutted the CDC and specifically the pandemic response team. I can't think of a more poetically-just outcome of their willful mishandling of this pandemic than having it destroy them.

We live in interesting times indeed. Sweet Lady Karma, I wish you good hunting...

Feel free to flame away, everyone. I give fewer fucks than Deadpool barebacking a rabid honey badger well into the third day of a cocaine-and-PCP bender.

Hey! Ya old farts! Guess what's being sabotaged now!

https://www.foxnews.com/media/hillary-clinton-bidens-vp-john-sununu

Is Hillary THAT stupid?

Is Biden?