AMD EPYC 9755 / 9575F / 9965 Benchmarks Show Dominating Performance

[mSparks]

You never examined the laptop. All you know about it is what you've been told

Rudi Guliani was the source, he saw it.
He said it contained evidence of guns and drug use, tax fraud and corruption in Ukraine. All of which were proven to be true

He also said a lot more that was almost certainly true, but lacking the physical evidence to back up his claims, rather than investigate them they gave him a $146m fine and a prison term for speaking out against them. Pretty much proving everything he said was true, some of which has since been proven to be true iirc. (voter fraud stuff).

Which is pretty much their MO. see assange, snowden, swartz, and plenty of others who have defected from the US, especially anyone near Maxwell and Epstein.

[coder]

What does this mean? The censorship has happened and no one from the government or agencies had to face any consequences and I bet it goes on as always.

If you watch the Congressional testimony, they failed to turn up anything censored for political reasons.

Well isn't that convenient? No one knows, everything is secret and we sadly can't punish anyone for it.

I'm not making excuses. I never supported it or Bush. I'm just telling you what's come out about it. The problem we face is that there must be evidence of a crime, in order for there to be a prosecution. Otherwise, the natural order is to let democracy take its course and vote the bums out.

And it is totally different from Russia invading Ukraine because they are the bad ones and we are the good. For sure!

Again, I never said the 2003 Iraq invasion was justified. Therefore, I don't see how it legitimizes Russia invading Ukraine or anyone else.

Partisan hack means he is biased by his political views? Well as is any other news writer/publisher, that's why reading more different sources is better than less.

He's not a news presenter. He's a political commentator. Even at Fox, his job was to editorialize, not as a reporter or an anchor.

His entire thing is political attacks and he does so with little regard to a fair reading of the facts.

I only know him from the Putin "interview" (well he recorded a speach from him) and how everyone got mad at him. Meanwhile no other journalists even tried to do its job of listening to all sides.

It's not like nobody else had ever asked to interview Putin. There have been loads of requests by western journalists, but Carlson is the only one he granted, recently. That should tell you something.

No he didn't "get stuck" he actually fled from US because of the political repressions

LOL, he fled the US, because he knew that he'd be prosecuted for leaking classified information, which is a crime. No two ways about it. He wanted to make what's called a "public interest" defense, where he would argue that what he did was justified, but they wanted to try him in a way that precluded that, which is why he hasn't returned to stand trial.

As for getting "stuck", no he didn't want to end up in Russia. That's just as far as he could get, before he lost the ability to safely travel anywhere else.

got denied protection under refugee rights in all western countries.

Criminals don't get to claim "refugee" status. He could apply for asylum, but that can be denied. I think he was headed for Iceland, or somewhere like that, but ended up with no safe way to reach it.

Meanwhile we point with our fingers to the east and tell everyone how bad it is there with all the political repressions and how proud we should be of our democracy and we should bring democracy to every village of the world, with deadly force of course.

This is the definition of "whataboutism".

Bro, I respect you technically. We're not going to agree on the political matters, so I suggest we just give it a rest.

[coder]

Rudi Guliani was the source, he saw it.
He said it contained evidence of guns and drug use, tax fraud and corruption in Ukraine. All of which were proven to be true

The "corruption in Ukraine" is the part that's nonsense. I linked testimony by Lev Parnass, where he revealed the plot by Giuliani and Trump to try and frame the Bidens by ginning up fake evidence. He said there never was any such evidence. This was during sworn Congressional testimony to a Republican Congress, who definitely did not want to hear that.

He also said a lot more that was almost certainly true, but lacking the physical evidence to back up his claims, rather than investigate them they gave him a $146m fine and a prison term for speaking out against them. Pretty much proving everything he said was true, some of which has since been proven to be true iirc. (voter fraud stuff)

Who? Giuliani? He has not been sentenced to prison and the fines were for his slander and libel about the election workers.

[mSparks]

The "corruption in Ukraine" is the part that's nonsense.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/04/09/russia-says-investigating-senior-us-nato-officials-for-financing-terrorism-a84787

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/08/13/politics/hunter-biden-state-department-help-burisma-project

Do you have an official narrative for what the project was.

Because that part is still very much an evolving story. With significantly more evidence now than Guliani's word about the contents of a Laptop.

All I needed to conclude it was true was Joe Bidens body language as he bragged about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating it fired 6 months into the prosecutors job, under the auspice of not working fast enough.

[coder]

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/...rrorism-a84787

Citing Russian state-backed media is almost as bad as citing QAnon.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn...urisma-project

Doesn't mean he got it, though. That's the bitch. If he did, the Republicans would've been all over it.

[mSparks]

Citing Russian state-backed media is almost as bad as citing QAnon.

Not even close.
Like, if Russian media reported on the Laptop, they would publish the contents of the Laptop (now on telegram).
(EDIT: I think RT did exactly that prior to getting banned from the US and Youtube)

My favourite for example, is when they reported on US/UK motivations for the US/UK invasion of Afghanisitan, they referenced the UN poppy survey 2001, and the UN poppy survey 2004. which you can then check yourself.

Oh actually, my favourite was when they reported on CNN faking the Syria gas attack, by using the CNN video of the reporter sniffing a back pack that was supposedly drenched in lethal gas and saying "oh yes, I can smell it".

I really liked the Russian approach at the UN SC meeting, where he held up a QR code that linked to all the documentation they were discussing of US war crimes, corruption etc.

Evidence is not proof of course, there is always a degree of interpretation required, but if you look to CIA run QAnon or any media with the editors on the CIA payroll, it will never be accompanied with any actual evidence you can verify yourself, and they now have going on several decades of consistently being proven to be liars and criminals.

Then for extra comedy they collectively wonder and complain no one trusts them anymore.

But seriously, concluding and repeating that Taiwan and China are enemies, with zero evidence, in the face of an overwhelming plethora of evidence that they are close allies and business partners in all if not most aspects of economic and cultural collaboration (with the odd inevitable fight over stealing each others IP) is not something you should be proud of.

Meanwhile, actual facts behind the situation, like
https://www.mac.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=69EE7CEA8C7550BB&sms=D6D0A9E65 8098CA2&s=FD1ADAC687DF1AC0

and BRI, get censored....

[coder]

Like, if Russian media reported on the Laptop, they would publish the contents of the Laptop (now on telegram).
(EDIT: I think RT did exactly that prior to getting banned from the US and Youtube)

Doesn't even matter if they do, because it's about as reliable as QAnon. A lot of anti-West conspiracy theories start in Russian state-backed media.

My favourite for example, is when they reported on US/UK motivations for the US/UK invasion of Afghanisitan, they referenced the UN poppy survey 2001, and the UN poppy survey 2004. which you can then check yourself.

Exactly what I'm talking about. They try to gin up false narratives, at every opportunity. It's a propaganda organization, not news.

... or any media with the editors on the CIA payroll ...

So, again, the two most damning arguments against this lie are 1: how the US media routinely publish things counter to the interests of US government, politicians, and foreign policy. And 2: how like tens of thousands of journalists are supposedly getting censored for decades and haven't complaining about it quite loudly, by now.

It's really quite a bad lie, but I get that it doesn't have to be very good to work as an excuse for people who have their own reasons for disliking the media and dismissing what it reports.

Then for extra comedy they collectively wonder and complain no one trusts them anymore.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the propaganda you're pushing.

But seriously, concluding and repeating that Taiwan and China are enemies, with zero evidence,

Evidence abounds, but I get that it's pointless even to discuss, because you will simply refuse to acknowledge what you don't wish to see.

in the face of an overwhelming plethora of evidence that they are close ... business partners

There are lots of business relationships between the US and China. Until a few years ago, there were even lots between US and Russian companies and individuals. Business relationships can happen both because and in spite of politics. This point really proves nothing.

[Anux]

If you watch the Congressional testimony, they failed to turn up anything censored for political reasons.

Is this some play with wordings on "political reasons"? Because the censorship was there. I may watch it again ...

I'm not making excuses. I never supported it or Bush. I'm just telling you what's come out about it. The problem we face is that there must be evidence of a crime, in order for there to be a prosecution. Otherwise, the natural order is to let democracy take its course and vote the bums out.

I know how it should work, everyone should be informed about everything and make wise choices on election day. But like most other government systems democracy is made with good intentions but used with bad ones.

It's not like nobody else had ever asked to interview Putin. There have been loads of requests by western journalists

From were do you know that? Google showed only one: Evan Gershkovich and he has a history with Russia that makes it understandable. The overwhelming majority of news just called him names and told everyone to not take a look at the interview. That's the exact opposite of what good journalism is.

LOL, he fled the US, because he knew that he'd be prosecuted for leaking classified information, which is a crime.

Isn't there a whistleblower protection law in the US? How else would crimes get uncovered that are committed by secret agencies?

Criminals don't get to claim "refugee" status.

Most refugees are criminals in the country they flee from. If you deny "criminals" the refugee status then there is no point in having it anyway. Leaking classified US information is only a crime in the US.

We're not going to agree on the political matters, so I suggest we just give it a rest.

Of course, we absolutely do not need to agree, that's common sense. It would be rather strange to change your worldview radically just from reading a random forum post.

[mSparks]

Doesn't even matter if they do,

So by your logic it doesnt matter ive seen the contents of the laptop, because it does matter if I've contents of the laptop.

Yep, pretty much the logic I was expecting when I said there was no need for you to answer that rhetorical question.

Btw, since you still havent grasped what your source was, it boils down to you being told the lie so often you believed it.

Evidence abounds, but I get that it's pointless even to discuss, because you will simply refuse to acknowledge what you don't wish to see.

If its old evidence already considered, then its not going to change my current assessment if thats what you mean. why would it?

US and Russian companies and individuals.

Russian trade with the US has seen explosive growth over the last few years. Mostly from the similar volume at double or triple the prices, contributing reasonably to some 9% increase in the US trade deficit.

Completely the opposite to what is happening with ASML right now.

[coder]

From were do you know that?

Reporters covering Carlson's Putin interview mentioned they and others had requested interviews with him, but were denied. You can find interviews he's given to Western journalists, in the past. No reason they wouldn't talk to him now, except that he stopped granting their requests.

The overwhelming majority of news just called him names and told everyone to not take a look at the interview. That's the exact opposite of what good journalism is.

Really? The coverage I heard basically summarized what was said and then criticized Carlson for the questions he didn't ask. From what I've seen/heard of it, Putin himself didn't seem very impressed with Carlson.

Isn't there a whistleblower protection law in the US? How else would crimes get uncovered that are committed by secret agencies?

I'm not a lawyer, but there are different laws for whistleblowers in the private sector vs. the government. The fact that it's classified information could make yet another difference. There certainly are channels that you're meant to use, when raising concerns within the government or the military. Snowden cited instances where those had been tried and gone nowhere. He could try to cite that in a legal defense, but that probably hinges upon his ability to mount a "public interest" defense.

If you think about it, revelations like his will always be suppressed, downplayed, and the messenger vilified. That's because it makes the people in charge look either complicit in wrongdoing, or negligent in their oversight duties. So, none of the higher-ups, nor even the Congressional committees changed with oversight were going to look kindly upon his leaks. I think he wasn't totally naive, since he made sure he was outside of the USA when the information went public. He also made sure to use multiple reputable journalists, from established media outlets, so the reporting couldn't simply be dismissed as false.

Most refugees are criminals in the country they flee from. If you deny "criminals" the refugee status then there is no point in having it anyway. Leaking classified US information is only a crime in the US.

There's some slight conflation of terminology. A refugee would be someone fleeing from a war, a natural disaster, etc. An asylum-seeker is someone who's being actively persecuted or at high risk of persecution.

You have to apply for asylum - no country is obligated to accept you. A murderer cannot simply cross borders and expect to be granted asylum. It's often a somewhat political calculation to whom a country grants the status.

Of course, we absolutely do not need to agree, that's common sense.

I didn't say that. I said I expect we won't. The two statements have different meanings. I doubt any good will come of continuing. It'll just burn time & energy and risk fueling more of mSparks' rants.