Buffalox

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 hours ago

Often they are fake, and just filled with cardboard. Corrupt Russia at its best.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Russians keep pushing hard! But allegedly the war is losing support in Russia, and the people have only just begun to feel the economic pain of it. Because Putin has pumped money from their war chest into the economy and to people the first 2 years.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

interest rates just hit 20%

Russian central bank interest rate is 21%, If you need to borrow to buy a house, the rate is allegedly around 35%, and even higher for businesses.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

if they can save money by cutting on safety testing or safety features, and they think they can get away with it, of course they’re going to.

This is an actual demand by Musk. Cut everything that isn't necessary. This is the reason turn signals are on the steering wheel, which actually makes it illegal to take drivers lessons in a Tesla in Norway.
It has also been demonstrated how this is very impractical in for instance roundabouts and impractical basic functions equals potential hazards.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Maybe the Tesla is not so strong on actual safety features, and it's more convenience features, that make people lazy so they don't pay attention when they drive.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

the results are almost always going to be out of whack.

True, but Tesla cars are relatively new compared to the average, and new cars should be safer. Right?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I don't get the relevance of that link, it talks about logical falacies like:

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."

I don't see how that's relevant, there is no way that can be seen as an ad hominem. The entire piece seems to be like that. And obviously ad hominem is not a logical fallacy as in flawed use of actual logic like boolean logic. And obviously explaining how and argument is wrong, is not an ad hominem. That's normal discourse to progress on the issue.

But this part:

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.

I believe I have CLEARLY shown that the comment "you are hurt and angry" is exactly that. If it's not an argument based on his (wrong) interpretation of my person, then what is it?

From wikipedia which is way more concise, and actually talks about what an ad hominem is instead of what it is not:

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

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument.

In this case me being emotional.
If he writes, you are wrong because you have a big nose. That's an obvious ad hominem. You are wrong because you are being emotional is an equally obvious ad hominem. They are the exact same fallacy as writing you are wrong because you are an idiot.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Those losses are massive. The air attack must have been huge.
It's like the Russians are panicking?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

your fallacious claim that the person committed an ad hominem

I'm surprised you still consider it fallacious?

THIS PART IS THE PERSON’S ARGUMENT,

Yes I know, it's the way the argument is put with "You have to understand", as if I wasn't aware of a very obvious fact.
Put together with the bubble comment, he argues like a camouflaged MAGA, using "you too" arguments.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Absolutely, the narrative seems wrong. Yes Tesla cars are fast, but many people driving them are environmentalists and grown ups. Not generally people out to burn rubber in my experience.
I think maybe people are surprised by the speed, because you don't really notice exactly how fast you are driving and accelerating in a Tesla.
There may even be problems with some of the safety features, making people rely to much on them, so they think it's alright to not pay full attention to their driving, expecting to get notices or even to be helped by safety features. Obviously FSD/autopilot is a driving hazard if you rely on that.

I will argue that the controls of the car being on a screen instead of physical buttons is a problem too. That should simply not be allowed for functions that are needed for driving IMO.

People don't become inherently better or worse drivers on average based on the car they buy, so such a significantly bad statistic, twice as bad as average, more likely shows there are actual inherent safety problems with the car IMO.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said.

I took the part that was essential. Your claim about the below is essentially the same argument.

Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot

That's the same as your argument is wrong, because you are angry and hurt, (and therefore not rational). Both are attacks on the person and not the argument. Although one is more polite than the other.

And oh he also claimed i was living in a bubble, so he actually made 3 comments that were ill camouflaged personal attacks, first on my emotional state, 2nd on my rationality, and finally claiming I'm uninformed from living in a bubble.

Yet I'm the one downvoted for calling his ad hominem out.
The fact that X is used outside USA is obvious, thinking he needs to "explain" that is ridiculous, and I live in EU, so I think I'm aware of that. And Xitter definitely also has a fascist agenda outside USA, but maybe he isn't aware of that?

None of the 3 attacks (non arguments) were ever qualified any further, probably because he can't.

But I understand why you are hurt and angry, but you must understand you are wrong, because "obvious fact", and you live in a Bubble.

So do you think that's an OK comment to our discussion? Because that's EXACTLY what the comment by NoiseColor to me boils down to. It's an even bigger ad hominem when put together.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (7 children)

A statement is only an ad hominem if 1) it’s attempting to refute an argument 2) by attacking the character/motive of the person

Which is EXACTLY what he did. And I even explained that in my previous post.

 

The total combat losses of the enemy from 24.02.22 to 07.10.24 approximately amounted to:

personnel – about 660470 (+1160) people
Tanks – 8933 (+14) units
armored combat vehicles – 17710 (+31) units
Artillery systems – 19156 (+64) units
MLRS – 1223 (+7) units
air defense – 972 (+2) units
aircraft – 368 (+0) units
helicopters – 328 (+0) units
Operative-Tactical level UAV – 16643 (+65)
Cruise missiles – 2615 (+2)
Ships /boats – 28 (+0) units
submarines – 1 (+0) units
motor vehicles and tankers – 26102 (+96) units
special equipment – 3364 (+1)

The data is being clarified.

Fight the occupier! Together we will win!

SOURCE: https://www.mil.gov.ua/news/2024/10/07/zagalni-bojovi-vtrati-rosiyan-za-dobu-1160-osib-7-rszv-ta-14-tankiv/

Translated with Firefox.

 

AOC speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention

 

https://noshingwiththenolands.com/what-is-the-scoville-scale/
Scroll lidt ned, så er der en fremragende oversigt.

 

Russia has launched an offensive into the Kharkiv region, and it has created a lot of alarmist news reports. In reality it is difficult to see what Russia's plan is, and it is not self-evident that it is a smart use of resources. In this video I discuss whether we might be seeing a return to the fragmented command structures that Russia had in the beginning of the war.

75
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

My old $200 Motorola G9 Power phone lasted almost 4 years with only very minor scratches. Obviously in that period I have dropped it a few times getting out of the car, where the phone sometimes work itself out of my pant pocket while I drive, and then it slips out when I get out of the car. But no problem on my previous phones, despite the Moto had cheap Panda glass front.

Then I bought my $800 glass back Xiaomi 13T Pro in January, and I loved the phone for the camera and good specs. But alas after only 4 months, and single drop of just 30 cm while sitting on the porch, the glass back immediately cracked! The back now looks like an ugly mess, and the high water resistance is very likely gone too.

For sure the last time I buy a phone with a glass back!!!

I wonder why glass back is so popular, and I curse the media for reviewing the Samsung Galaxy S2 as "feeling a bit cheap", because the back was synthetic, and drop tests showed it was 10 times as durable as the iPhone with its glass back.

Samsung did it right in the beginning, glass backs are a curse.

PS: I don't use condoms for my phones, if they need that for daily use, it's an obvious design flaw!!!

The glass back is supposedly there to give a premium feel to the phone. But because it's fragile, people have to use a cover, but with the cover, the premium feel of a glass back is gone anyways?
How is glass back not a design flaw?

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION:

I am not clumsy, that's why I believe the phone should be able to last without cover. This was the first time the phone slid out of my packet, and I've NEVER dropped it out of my hands. One 30 cm slip and it's broken. Where for instance my Moto had maybe 4-6 in all over the years, and remained unscathed, apart from some tiny scratches.
The sliding out of pocket does occur maybe a couple of times per year, but it's a low drop, and the phone should absolutely be able to handle that tiny drop, as it's an item for everyday use.
I've also never had problems with scratches on my screen on any phone, which is the reason people use screen protectors I guess, which I don't either, because they are ugly, for instance they create a tiny ring around the camera, and they feel awful IMO, my phone came with it, and it took exactly 10 seconds for me to decide to remove it, because I could feel the edge of the screen protector when using the phone.
But please stop with the dropping my phone regularly comments! Just because I dropped my Moto a few times (slid out of pocket) over almost 4 years! Always from low height, which it should be able to handle a few times.

view more: next ›