Rustls Multi-Threaded Performance Is Battering OpenSSL

[TheMightyBuzzard]

The problem is it makes conservative snowflakes extremely mad. That's the entire issue. Like you said, it isn't even necessarily a cis/trans thing, it can help with ambiguous names for example.

Erm... I think you overestimate how many people don't think the OMGWTFBBQ+ activists are insane. If it were just to clarify who's actually what, it'd still be stupid but at least stupid with a good reason. Demanding others not just tolerate but celebrate your delusions though? Nah, we all know you're nuts. It's just most of us didn't care and were content to just let you be nuts. Right up until you kept on and kept on ratcheting up the absurdity. And then started forcibly and secretly indoctrinating our kids at school.

[TheMightyBuzzard]

That's a very dull view on literary analysis

I can't argue that. Your take would definitely make things more interesting, in the Chinese curse sense of the word at least.

[TheMightyBuzzard]

It is always nice to see multi-page long off-topic geopolitical discussions drowning out the thread. May I kindly suggest you lovebirds get a room?

In the wise words of Agent J: Don't start no shit, won't be no shit.

I'm not particularly interested in talking politics here but I'm also not inclined to let ignorance or evil win a debate by default.

[bacteriamanicure]

Oh, about the same as any other bullshit propaganda goes. Governments using doublespeak or even outright lying to me is pretty much expected, even from my own. Maybe especially from my own. Depends on how cynical I'm feeling that particular day.

That's not what I was assuming though. You've heard explicit genocide called for as a matter of state policy from Iran and Palestine for pretty much my entire life and I've got quite a respectable amount of gray going on. Not so much from Israel. Best you can say there is they have some nutters in high positions. Getting there but not quite the same.

I could also reduce your argument to there just being a few nutters in the iranian and Palestinian governments
I could also bring up that ~100 year old NYT article on the elders of zion colonizing Palestine but that'll go about as well as quoting israeli government officials to someone who thinks only iranian government officials can be damned through quotation
And then at some point I'd note some of israel's laws that treat israelis and Palestinians differently
I think I could fit in reagan calling israel's actions a holocaust?

Regardless, you've been a fun sparring partner and I'll keep this experience in mind in future arguments over human rights, but it's clear to everyone that there's nothing worthwhile left to say here

Good day

PS. Samsung doesn't only operate in Vietnam

[ehansin]

we have a exact idea of what happeneded, and Andrew was perfectly right.
to those who missed it: http://tomazos.com/ub_question_incident.pdf

I just read the whole thing. I have zero context regarding the committee or Andrew, but sounds like he was wronged here big time. Not really sure how someone could have read that deep into the paper title, but I guess it is just is what it is as they say. Totally understand him standing his ground on this.

[TheMightyBuzzard]

I could also reduce your argument to there just being a few nutters in the iranian and Palestinian governments
I could also bring up that ~100 year old NYT article on the elders of zion colonizing Palestine but that'll go about as well as quoting israeli government officials to someone who thinks only iranian government officials can be damned through quotation
And then at some point I'd note some of israel's laws that treat israelis and Palestinians differently
I think I could fit in reagan calling israel's actions a holocaust?

Regardless, you've been a fun sparring partner and I'll keep this experience in mind in future arguments over human rights, but it's clear to everyone that there's nothing worthwhile left to say here

Good day

PS. Samsung doesn't only operate in Vietnam

Samsung does not source its phones from China. Check if you like.

You could if you were trying to lie. There is a difference between heads of state and senior diplomats stating official national policy and some low-to-mid-level people in good need of a firing shooting their mouth off. And you know there is.

I'll say it again, Israel are not good guys. But that does not mean the ones fighting them are good guys. It's quite possible for neither side to be good. Hell, it's the norm. But you simply aren't willing to entertain the idea that your team might be the worse of the two. There's no logic or reason behind it, despite your repeated attempts with lesser what-about-isms, but that's par for the course when you're dealing with someone who's been politically indoctrinated.

[oleid]

Silly question. I consider it quite bad. Which is why I take pride in the US having a shorter history of it than pretty much any nation that ever existed during the times it was the norm.

The US has a shorter history of most things compared to other countries.
There are outhouses where I live that are older than the US.😂

[DumbFsck]

I doubt any wokies would agree with it. It's not said in such a manner as I mean for them to agree with it but in the manner I see it. As for folks who hate all things woke? Almost all of them would say that's a pretty good if slightly incomplete definition. At least I think they would.

The only reason I point this out is that if we are to talk about something, people should know what we're talking about. If you said, at the beginning; "politically weaponized intersectional victimhood and the attempted normalization and indoctrination thereof is meant to divide and destroy western principles." or something like it - every response would be different, including mine. A lot of "wokies" would even agree with you, although they would probably be thinking of people who, according to them, "have white fragility" and "feel attacked" or "are told to feel attacked" by inclusive measures as the indoctrinated victimhood-addicts being politically weaponized.

Still, had you led with this private definition of yours, the whole discussion would be different. While I see your actual statement that "everything woke is harmful to society" (paraphrased) as completely and absurdly incorrect, I would see "everything that politically weaponize intersectional victimhood and indoctrinates it" as potentially harmful to society, I would agree. Drop the "potentially" and I'd disagree, but wouldn't say it is absurdly incorrect, slightly or at most a bit.



I would say that:

Yeah, give me a few after I get this posted and I'll edit it in. It's been a while since I looked at anything on it and I don't still have the browser tabs open.

[Edit]: Here you go: https://networkcontagion.us/wp-conte...y_11.13.24.pdf

Does not bear:

The entire intersectional movement is predicated on discrimination and serves nothing except to divide us. Scientifically proven, that.

I'll ignore (only for the sake of productive discussion) the fact that "some DEI pedagogy" != "the entire intersectional movement". The authors themselves also note this very explicitly in their paper...;



We can all agree that a non-peer reviewed paper dos not "scientifically proven" make.

But the paper does bring a few interesting questions! I personally enjoyed it.

It is completely unsurprising, and if you showed me the study and not the results (so showed me the methodology, the presented material, the questions to be asked, etc) I would only be wrong for guessing that there would be even more "animosity". We all know what "Identity-protective Cognition Thesis" is, and what "priming" is. So if you talk to someone about bias in the justice system (e.g.) and then say "now, completely unrelated, look at how the justice system sentenced this person", the interviewee is primed to associate both things. Would they also give the same answer about the Muslim being mistreated if it was presented a week after the "DEI instruction" they chose? That is an interesting question! What about if they were also "instructed about" and then "questioned on" many other matters, so as to make the association less clear, would they still answer the same way?

Also, the study would also be better if (in this same e.g.) they "correlated" with systematic justice system bias. They could, for example, have asked "what are the odds of this criminal sentence to have been influenced by bias" and then compare with the "real numbers" (in the study you linked they basically stated as a given fact - at least for the sake of the study - that there is bias in the system) - that would also be an interesting data point!


Then of course, there is much to argue about the material they chose to expose the participants to. A lot of other vastly cited sources on the matter don't ever make any association of capitalism and segregation, but this was included in what the participants read - I would personally argue that anti-capitalism statements may provoke stronger reactions on the American public - would you agree? And this is but one example, there are many more excerpts of the presented materials that people can object to - as the authors say, they don't have access and so can't evaluate what actually goes on behind the doors of companies' HR departments, this is a known limitation, and they had to make up their own "training material".

I'm sure if I trawled the web I'd find much smarter people than I levying criticisms to this study, maybe the same I raised, maybe different ones; and also many smarter people defending the study from such criticisms, mine and others'. This is after all not my area of expertise.

But I completely agree that it shows beyond reasonable doubt that if people are taught this material and then presented a "supposedly unrelated" question, people will draw a relationship between the question and the material presented - I do believe this is scientifically proven, but I of course would have to hit up google scholar as I can't show the proof off-hand, but I swear I have some vague memory of this being taught to me in uni in some methodology class.


Do you have issues with my statements? Do you have other "scientific proof" of "The entire intersectional movement is predicated on discrimination and serves nothing except to divide us" ?

[TheMightyBuzzard]

The US has a shorter history of most things compared to other countries.
There are outhouses where I live that are older than the US.😂

Truth. We're hitting a whopping 250 here in a couple years. Barely a long afternoon to most powerful nations.

But that don't take away from us not taking centuries like most places to get rid of the legacy of slavery the UK, France, and Spain left us with. Ninety years, give or take; that's all. The Great Britain had it for how many thousands of years? The Middle East even longer and still counting in some bits of it.

[TheMightyBuzzard]

The only reason I point this out is that if we are to talk about something, people should know what we're talking about. If you said, at the beginning; "politically weaponized intersectional victimhood and the attempted normalization and indoctrination thereof is meant to divide and destroy western principles." or something like it - every response would be different, including mine. A lot of "wokies" would even agree with you, although they would probably be thinking of people who, according to them, "have white fragility" and "feel attacked" or "are told to feel attacked" by inclusive measures as the indoctrinated victimhood-addicts being politically weaponized.

Still, had you led with this private definition of yours, the whole discussion would be different. While I see your actual statement that "everything woke is harmful to society" (paraphrased) as completely and absurdly incorrect, I would see "everything that politically weaponize intersectional victimhood and indoctrinates it" as potentially harmful to society, I would agree. Drop the "potentially" and I'd disagree, but wouldn't say it is absurdly incorrect, slightly or at most a bit.



I would say that:


Does not bear:

I'll ignore (only for the sake of productive discussion) the fact that "some DEI pedagogy" != "the entire intersectional movement". The authors themselves also note this very explicitly in their paper...;



We can all agree that a non-peer reviewed paper dos not "scientifically proven" make.

But the paper does bring a few interesting questions! I personally enjoyed it.

It is completely unsurprising, and if you showed me the study and not the results (so showed me the methodology, the presented material, the questions to be asked, etc) I would only be wrong for guessing that there would be even more "animosity". We all know what "Identity-protective Cognition Thesis" is, and what "priming" is. So if you talk to someone about bias in the justice system (e.g.) and then say "now, completely unrelated, look at how the justice system sentenced this person", the interviewee is primed to associate both things. Would they also give the same answer about the Muslim being mistreated if it was presented a week after the "DEI instruction" they chose? That is an interesting question! What about if they were also "instructed about" and then "questioned on" many other matters, so as to make the association less clear, would they still answer the same way?

Also, the study would also be better if (in this same e.g.) they "correlated" with systematic justice system bias. They could, for example, have asked "what are the odds of this criminal sentence to have been influenced by bias" and then compare with the "real numbers" (in the study you linked they basically stated as a given fact - at least for the sake of the study - that there is bias in the system) - that would also be an interesting data point!


Then of course, there is much to argue about the material they chose to expose the participants to. A lot of other vastly cited sources on the matter don't ever make any association of capitalism and segregation, but this was included in what the participants read - I would personally argue that anti-capitalism statements may provoke stronger reactions on the American public - would you agree? And this is but one example, there are many more excerpts of the presented materials that people can object to - as the authors say, they don't have access and so can't evaluate what actually goes on behind the doors of companies' HR departments, this is a known limitation, and they had to make up their own "training material".

I'm sure if I trawled the web I'd find much smarter people than I levying criticisms to this study, maybe the same I raised, maybe different ones; and also many smarter people defending the study from such criticisms, mine and others'. This is after all not my area of expertise.

But I completely agree that it shows beyond reasonable doubt that if people are taught this material and then presented a "supposedly unrelated" question, people will draw a relationship between the question and the material presented - I do believe this is scientifically proven, but I of course would have to hit up google scholar as I can't show the proof off-hand, but I swear I have some vague memory of this being taught to me in uni in some methodology class.


Do you have issues with my statements? Do you have other "scientific proof" of "The entire intersectional movement is predicated on discrimination and serves nothing except to divide us" ?

Yeah, I overstepped. I blame the tubs of morning caffeine. My bad.

Not about not being peer reviewed. Peer review is a pathetically bad joke. Most papers are functionally write-only and even completely fictional studies/experiments are published in top shelf journals and given glowing peer reviews, so long as they say something the peers want to agree with. As far as I'm concerned, peer review means nothing anymore. Reproducibility or GTFO.

Good man. There are absolutely aspects of that study that could and should have been done better. At least you're thinking critically about one side of the debate. Now if you could just spread that approach to more people.

Me? I couldn't have taken part in the study. Systematic justice system bias? Prove it exists. It's not something I'm willing to take on faith. I consider it far more likely that a culture that glorifies lawlessness and vilifies the nuclear family and personal responsibility is responsible for the vast majority of the statistics pointed out to say it exists. And I'd point to the fact that it did not exist to near this degree back when there absolutely was bias among law enforcement and the judicial branch.

No, anti-capitalist statements would be largely either ignored or agreed with. We pretty much expect anyone doing a study at a university to be a communist. The group "we" very much including our students; they object most stridently when they hear other viewpoints. Our universities almost exclusively preach communism/socialism just as hard as they possibly can, along with the woke ideology. Which is why some folks confuse the two and why they got lumped together here.