As I’m sure you already know the proprietary part comes from the implementation and built in hardware support for said implementation, which AMD is not compatible with (not in any usable way at least)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Roberts

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Johnson

nowhere in the history of language has “there should be such a thing” meant or even implied “making such a thing is easy”

I know its hyperbole but you can’t possible back that statement up.

if anything it implies the opposite.

It doesn’t, but i agree it didn’t really imply the difficulty was high either.

I wasn’t saying the reply was correct, i was stating the intended meaning (at least as i see it).

To answer to your original post, design platforms with version control exist.

Some use git under the hood, some don’t, most don’t require you to understand git to use them.

Hopefully that saves you some time as now you don’t have to build the platform from scratch.

Downsides for sure, but it does work.

So, benefit of the doubt time.

That’s some mental gymnastics in there but let’s see if we can get it.

So the reply isn’t actually suggesting you create the platform for designers, they are pointing out that there is a lot more to competent platform/software design than it seems, so try it yourself and find out.

If it turns out you do in fact have the answers, great, we now have the platform you described.

Chances are you’ll find out just how difficult it is to do what you are suggesting and realise that implying someone could “just” create a platform for designers isn’t particularly realistic.

In the same way you can’t apply narrow definition for a word to all situations, when other more contextually correct definitions exist ?

(I mean, you can, but you probably shouldn’t)

You can’t just expand the meaning of a well defined word just because you like the vibe of it applying to the victim group of the day.

Also that is literally how languages change over time, so…yes, you can.

Though having a narrow definition of what a language can and can’t be does track with your general vibe so far…

It doesn’t seem like reason is going to win out here.

Somebody who picks a single narrow definition for a word and then applies that narrow definition to every instance even remotely related ( when other, more contextually correct definitions exist and have been pointed out ) isn’t working with a full deck, intentionally or otherwise.

You can’t reason somebody out of a position they didn’t reason themselves in to.

and this is exactly my point, the definition of the word generally points directly to it being killing in a fashion that is unlawful which rests on the applicable law in the context.

Nation state soldiers killing enemy combatants doesn’t fit this description in most circumstances. (There are of course rules and exceptions etc etc)

I’m not arguing the morality, I’m arguing the factual definition and it’s the reason why i said the language causes it’s own issues.

i consider this specific example to also be an issue of language, which is in itself a construct.

Murder as a word has meaning based in law, which is another construct.

If you were to switch out “murder” for “killing” the outcome remains the same (cessation of life by another party) but the ethical and moral connotations are different.

Some people use murder when they mean killing and vice versa which adds a layer of complexity and confusion.

Though all of that could just be me venturing into pedant country.

If you put someone’s face in anything they didn’t consent to.

This isn’t porn specific and even if it was, almost everything is someone’s “thing”.

The examples fit irony i suppose but that’s a very broad assumption of nationality for it to apply to the comment you are replying to.

There could be people who are not American who also disagree with your approach.

Regardless, question answered, thank you.

So. Many. Spoons

Genuine question, what’s the irony here ?

Sure, when you reach a point that you don’t have better options to achieve the desired goal (for whatever metric you define as ‘better’) then killing is on the table by the sounds of it.

All we need now is an agreement on the threshold.

I’m assuming you’ll concede that individual killing comes before mass killing, in the hierarchy of options.

So, once this threshold is reached then, according to your logic, you are morally allowed to kill in defence ( and i assume pre-emptive defence, given the “They are won by stopping the enemy‘s ability to act.” statement ).

So going back to your original statement, it’s entirely possible to kill an individual and still believe in your definition of ‘believe in universal human rights.’ ?

Provided the correct conditions are met, ofc.

I saw the parts about the declaration of war, i was specifically looking for the part from which you pulled :

Once a war has started, killing is morally acceptable, not before.

Rights need to balanced against each other in practice of course.

So contradiction is possible as i have said and balance would require contextual interpretation, in practice.

Absolute statements such as :

Once a war has started, killing is morally acceptable, not before.

and

You don’t kill people for their ideological beliefs, but to stop their ability to act and remove them from power.

Can be contradictory, depending on context.

I wasn’t challenging your interpretation, though i do think it’s naive and idealistic to the point of impracticality, i was pointing out that your statements could be considered contradictory.

While I’m at it, i missed a false dichotomy as well :

Wars aren’t won by killing soldiers. They are won by stopping the enemy‘s ability to act.

Those things are not mutually exclusive.

You can find that in international humanitarian law.

That’s a large amount of text to sift through, if you could give me a hint to where it specifies moral authority before and after an official declaration of war i’d appreciate it.

Firstly, citation? because as i understand it “killing is morally acceptable in war” isn’t in the universal declaration of human rights.

Secondly, even if it was, there is no magic attribute of those declarations that makes them immune to contradiction.

That is a very strange and self-contradicting hill to die on.

I think you meant to reply to the poster above.

I have exactly the same issue though, a full rack switch and nas that i can’t easily downsize to 10 inche dimensions.

I could probably just buy/build something that would fit but i can’t justify it at all.

Do you mean in the sense that there’s not enough competition/variety in the existing types of available tech or that there are types of tech that you can’t find at all?

both ?