7·
9 months agoI’d have thought the pain point would have been the processor architecture (ARM64) rather than operating system - MacOS still supports AMD64 using a compatibility layer but it would probably be quite a drawback to game performance.
Blake [he/him]
- 0 Posts
- 334 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 12th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Your position is completely indefensible, and you know it, but you continue to hold it because your ego is more important than reality.
Do you know of any other groups who prioritise the preservation of their ideology over reality?
If you had any actual arguments against me, you would use them. But since you don’t, you’re just acting oh so indignant and high-handed that I had the temerity to call you out on your bullshit.
Maybe next time, if you don’t want an education, you should keep your ignorance to yourself.
The extent to which you are arguing against overwhelming evidence cannot be understated. You are arguing against something less controversial than evolution.
We know that unions promote economic equality and build worker power, helping workers to win increases in pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
But that’s not all unions do. Unions also have powerful effects on workers’ lives outside of work.
Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.
Unionized workers are more likely to receive paid leave, have health insurance and pension plans.
Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers.
Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave
Workers get significant economic benefits from labor unions
Unionized workers earn 10.2% more than their non-union peers
Supporting workers’ right to organize is a key way to help boost wages and support quality jobs.
Unions provide major economic benefits for workers and families
Until this moment you haven’t asked me for any sources for my claim, whereas I have asked you multiple times for yours. Your basis is “just my vibes” and now you’re acting like I’m an asshole for pointing out that your position (arguing against science based on vibes) isn’t rational. Now by claiming I haven’t backed up my claims, despite pretty much accepting that they were valid until this moment, you cast me as irrational, and instead of asking for proof of my claims so you can amend your perspective, you just loftily declare that the conversation is over, because you know fine well that if it continues, your world view will be completely compromised.
Anyone who wants to see the proof can simply Google “average wage difference for unionised workers” or anything like that. You can do the same thing. I’m guessing you already have, but decided “that doesn’t apply to me” because you’re oh so special.
Lower risk often means lower reward
For investment and such, yeah sure, but not everything follows the same pattern. Unionising and collective bargaining is a perfect example, because it consistently has been shown to lower risks and increase rewards, again and again.
Act all indignant if you want to. You’re giving me a perfect platform to demonstrate the superiority of my ideology against your very weak, irrational reasoning. If you think that I’m somehow hurting my cause by revealing the inherent incoherence of your position, then yeah, sure, I’m really destroying my cause right now.
I’m in the same field as you are with years more experience. Not only that, I have experience in management in the same field.
I am not denying that you have individual bargaining power that I’m sure you’re leveraging successfully.
I am just pointing out to you that if you were unionised, you’d have even more bargaining power which would almost definitely have resulted in a better outcome for you.
Collective bargaining may not be risk free, but it’s lower risk than individual bargaining, by definition.
There’s plenty of proof, and I don’t see why I need any more. You’re just refusing to acknowledge it, like a flat earther faced with the results of their experiment refusing to accept it. Just because you say “no, I don’t like this scientific proof” it doesn’t mean that I’m somehow failing to back up my argument when I refuse to give you more proof. You have THE proof of the matter. Accept it and be right, or reject it and be wrong. It’s up to you.
As for your analogy, being in a union does not mean you lose your individual bargaining rights, you can continue to negotiate your salary individually if you wish to do so. You do not lose any power or rights from being in a union. You only gain power.
It was an analogy. The point is that a union gives you stronger negotiation power than you have alone. By not being in a union, you’re getting worse outcomes than you would have in a union. All of the statistics we have demonstrate that unionising results in a big increase in wages and benefits. You’re basically saying “no” because you think you know better than the science. This is just like anti-vax sentiment.
I read your whole comment, but at no point does it explain why you think you wouldn’t be able to negotiate improvements with a union. What you have written essentially amounts to:
“I was able to build a really beautiful cabinet with hand tools. I reject the notion that power tools make it easier to build cabinets. I know people who have power tools but they haven’t made cabinets as nice as mine.”
If you have multiple people as a group who have the power to completely sink a business negotiating together, they stand a much better chance of improving conditions than any of them do alone.
How are you reasoning against such a self-evidently true claim?
How is it hand wavy?!
Imagine you are an employer with 100 employees, presented with the following situations.
- One employee demands a pay raise of 50%, or he’ll leave.
- 80 employees, including the employee above, demand a pay raise of 50% or they’ll all leave.
In which of these two situations are you more likely to be willing to grant that 50% raise?
I definitely reject that my compensation, benefits, job stability, and WLB would be better if I had been unionized this whole time.
Why? What is your reasoning for rejecting this? Can you justify it? You’re just saying “no” without any thought or explanation. Do you just refuse to believe that things could be better?
It’s not that you don’t have individual bargaining power. It’s just that if you were unionised, you’d have much more.
The extent to which you are arguing against overwhelming evidence cannot be understated. You are arguing against something less controversial than evolution.
We know that unions promote economic equality and build worker power, helping workers to win increases in pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
But that’s not all unions do. Unions also have powerful effects on workers’ lives outside of work.
Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.
Unionized workers are more likely to receive paid leave, have health insurance and pension plans.
Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers.
Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave
Workers get significant economic benefits from labor unions
Unionized workers earn 10.2% more than their non-union peers
Supporting workers’ right to organize is a key way to help boost wages and support quality jobs.
Unions provide major economic benefits for workers and families
For workers, unions are 100% upside.
The extent to which you are arguing against overwhelming evidence cannot be understated. You are arguing against something less controversial than evolution.
We know that unions promote economic equality and build worker power, helping workers to win increases in pay, better benefits, and safer working conditions.
But that’s not all unions do. Unions also have powerful effects on workers’ lives outside of work.
Unions raise wages of unionized workers by roughly 20% and raise compensation, including both wages and benefits, by about 28%.
Unionized workers are more likely to receive paid leave, have health insurance and pension plans.
Unionized workers receive more generous health benefits than nonunionized workers.
Unionized workers receive 26% more vacation time and 14% more total paid leave
Workers get significant economic benefits from labor unions
Unionized workers earn 10.2% more than their non-union peers
Supporting workers’ right to organize is a key way to help boost wages and support quality jobs.
Unions provide major economic benefits for workers and families
This is the difference between a trade union and an industrial union. You can join an industrial union elsewhere in Europe or even in the US, such as the IWW.
It would being better pay, better benefits, even more stable careers and better work-life balance.
It doesn’t matter how much money you’re already making, or how good your benefits already are. If you have a Union, you can negotiate for improvements. There is always room for improvement, unless you’re working at a fully-mutual workers cooperative.
I know first hand that some trades even make more than their unionized counterparts
I’d be interested to learn more, do you have a source or anything?
I didn’t say it had to be open source. Copyright is irrelevant as far as this topic is concerned - compiling code into binary is transformative. The only thing that matters here is patent law, and it seems easy enough to just make a law that allows non-profit infringement of patents for this explicit purpose. I don’t think there’s any legal roadblocks to releasing server software.
1·9 months agoLmao okay, yes, defeating every single one of your arguments logically and soundly is absolutely “going straight for ad-hominem”. You’re projecting so hard it’s genuinely very funny.
We aren’t recycling solar panels enough
This is pro-nuclear scare mongering. Go ahead and compare the numbers for tons of solar panel E-waste produced compared to tons of nuclear waste produced per year.
Under EU law, producers are required to ensure their solar panels are recycled properly.
We haven’t had a lot of need for solar panel recycling yet because they last so fucking long and even when they reach “the end of their working life” they’re still generating a decent amount of power, so they can just be sold off or given away to someone with no solar panels.
It’s only if solar panels become damaged or really really old that they need recycled. It’s basically a non issue, especially when you compare it to nuclear waste.
Wind still is killing birds
Yet more pro-nuclear propaganda nonsense. Wind turbines kill an absolutely tiny fraction of birds compared to house cats, not to mention birds getting hit by cars, let alone commercial and private aircraft. It’s a non-issue.
uses massive amounts of land
As mentioned above: the entire United States could be 100% powered by renewable electricity if we converted just 5% of the land currently used FOR PARKING SPACES and turned it into renewables. It’s not a real issue.
that’s before we get into the cost of transporting
Which is all factored into TCOE, which, surprise surprise, is around the same or better than the TCOE of nuclear. So, nope, irrelevant. Go ahead and prove that utility-scale renewables have a greater TCOE than nuclear if you want to argue it though. Looking forward to you providing a source.
very real human rights problem
Ah yes, and the extraction of uranium ore, the handling of nuclear waste and the construction of nuclear power plants are all notoriously free from human rights issues!
I’m not using Chernobyl as an example of anything. I’m mentioning it because a number of people died as a result of the Chernobyl disaster, therefore it has a bearing on the number of deaths caused by that source of power.
nuclear is the cleanest, safest way to do it
That is not true, and I have posted evidence demonstrating that it isn’t true.
Also, IPCC says that all of our energy sources can be 100% renewable and that it’s totally viable. Sorry, but you’re not better informed on this topic than the experts. You’re no better than an anti-vaxxer with your science denial.
I didn’t say they should keep the servers up forever, I agree that’s unreasonable. But it isn’t unreasonable to require that they release the software necessary for hosting the servers so that the fans/community can host servers if they so choose.
Imagine if cars were really unsafe. Would you say, “we shouldn’t legislate car safety, we should all just wake up and start buying safer cars!”
What’s your experience here? I’m interested to hear about projects that you have done this for.
The source engine has code that’s over 20 years old. A monolithic project like a game engine, which is statically and dynamically linked with god knows how many libraries they don’t even have code for, let alone permission, to compile in a different architecture, is not gonna be an easy thing to do.