Can't be emulated efficiently, or at all? Has it been tested or is it based on this comment from Intel?
"Emulation is not a new technology, and Transmeta was notably the last company to claim to have produced a compatible x86 processor using emulation (“code morphing”) techniques. Intel enforced patents relating to SIMD instruction set enhancements against Transmeta’s x86 implementation even though it used emulation"
Or, accept that many women enjoy being nurses and doctors, such that man->doctor | woman->nurse/doctor isn't weird.
It's not a competence thing, or stopped being since woman doctors are a thing, and is a motivation thing. Not to a 'better' place, but a different one.
Right, like we extensively worked out the ethics of automobiles before we allowed them.
Can you imagine if we let cars contribute to inequity by allowing rich people to own them and not poor people? Or if it was possible to just aim a car at people without the self-driving stopping you.
I agree about the red-flag part for avoiding all your exes, but I also find it a red-flag when someone says how well they get along with their exes. "If so, why do you have so many, and why aren't you still with any of them?"
If you were with someone with serious intent of trying to be a compatible partner, and failed despite your best efforts such that you and your partner agree the best thing is to not be together, then probably your instincts aren't as good as you would want... Maybe you don't fully understand why "being friends" won't be as helpful for either party as desired.
It's important to be capable of being friendly with your exes, all the more so the less you actually get along. But it's probably unwise to put this to the test.
Honestly, I'm not in contact with any of my exes. It's not on purpose, we just grew apart and have moved on. If we happen upon a chance meeting, I'm sure we would be friendly with each other, but we're not going out of our way to seek out or avoid each other. I find these black and white rigid "rules" (such as not keeping in touch with any exes as a red flag) to be incredibly judgmental and limiting.
The advice would be to not let a label tell you that you don't like it. If you don't like dancing because men don't dance then that's silly, no matter if it's your deepest held conviction or not.
Yep, agreed. I only point it out because there are certain types of activities where others will assume you only dislike it because of the label, and not because you actually don't like it. Dancing seems to be one of those.
Nuance is sort of counterproductive here because most people don't recognize how many things could trigger an interrogation. Any little personality quirk, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the officer is suddenly taking note of every word you say.
Watch the video about this and how the law professor says that your casual honest comment to a cop might be taken to be a lie based on nothing. Not just wrong, or potentially incriminating, but a lie, and because of that they can and will start to try to fit the evidence to you.
> This perpetuates the mantra that cops are an evil force out to get you.
That's not a requirement for this rule to be useful, but I'll act carefully to protect myself rather than to test that theory in either case.
Many conservatives (that's how I'm labelled on here, so...) do not support the police as is. I've specifically witnessed more than one instance of absolutely treasonous behavior by police - threatening to hurt people and make up charges. It's counterproductive to think that only 'the left' is against bad police - nobody wants to pay people to ruin the system.
However, those people probably don't think that the police "committed acts of brutality against protestors", they likely see the videos of BLM peacefully protesting and police standing by, and Antifa committing arson and attacking police and police fighting back. (Portland, Chicago, Kenosha) And they think that fighting and arresting rioters is exactly what they pay police for.
> their enablers being too ignorant or too hateful to recognize the stupidity of the action and how 2020 has set them back decades in getting people to trust them.
You were talking about BLM here? Because "Breona" is just as fake as Jussie Smollet's story, and Jacob Blake would have been shot if he was white, etc. Watch the videos of woke white people in Portland shouting racist slurs at black cops to show how much they care about black people in general.
Perhaps meditate on #48 from the linked article about keeping your identity small. You may find that you're less likely to assume that a comment that makes no mention of left/right or BLM is an attack on you personally so that you don't feel a need to defend yourself from an imagined attack.
Right, because the issue of calling people 'enablers' of bad policing is generally so bipartisan that I'm coming from nowhere with my group labels... What's the # of the one about psychological projection?
I didn't dwell on my identity (because those aren't the words I'd choose to use if I had to). It was a way of self-disclosure like saying if you work for the company being discussed. It's to say "while I'm probably one of the people you're talking about ...".
> an attack on you personally so that you don't feel a need to defend yourself from an imagined attack.
Oh, no. You're out to left field. I'm explaining, not defending, everyone who tends to be misunderstood. I'm trying to say that people can support a thing without being 'enablers', and that two people who both see the same problems (police violence) can see different solutions.
I'm sharing my personal views to help explain how, regardless of labels, that most of our group hatreds are based on intentional (by others if not us) misstatements about the others, not their own words or actual views.
I've seen conservatives say they feel (have empathy) for the women in Jacob Blake's life, and the children, but not for Jacob himself. Or at least not since he became an adult and chose to perpetuate the cycle.
I think it's more complex than that all (or even most) republicans are racist.
I imagine that when you think yourself better than "them", you're thinking about mask-refusers, literal nazis, and (((dog whistlers))). And when they think of "you" they think of antifa druggies living in a park and burning down stores. We can't really demonize someone if they aren't a bit radical so we have to focus on the radicals.
What I'm trying to say is that the idiots you see probably are dumb enough to think they're geniuses, but there's a huge invisible support base (on all sides) of non-radicals who are fairly rational. And I think experience is the biggest difference between the groups. If you've seen a neighboring store burned you feel one way, if you've seen a neighbor threatened you feel another. The problem then is sharing experiences honestly so we can construct a mutual view of reality and then discuss the same issues.
"Emulation is not a new technology, and Transmeta was notably the last company to claim to have produced a compatible x86 processor using emulation (“code morphing”) techniques. Intel enforced patents relating to SIMD instruction set enhancements against Transmeta’s x86 implementation even though it used emulation"