BREXIT [Poll] vote!

[amoulton]

?? Explain, I'm officially lost

The EU mandated that all mobile phone have micro-usb. It's madness- I mean if people don't want freedom, at least let them vote in the people who strip the freedoms.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

The EU mandated that all mobile phone have micro-usb. It's madness- I mean if people don't want freedom, at least let them vote in the people who strip the freedoms.

I mean it's always nice to have a universal standard. The only reason that could even be seen as a problem is that Type C just came out and will be popular in a bit

 

[amoulton]

I mean it's always nice to have a universal standard. The only reason that could even be seen as a problem is that Type C just came out and will be popular in a bit

Variety is the spice of life- democracy on the other hand- is priceless. I don't disagree that a universal standard is *handy* but they should at least have held a vote on what it would be- or amass a consortium of tech professionals to create a new standard rather than selecting a one standard that *some* companies already use, and placing an undue burden on any companies that don't already use an inexplicably flimsy connector. The fact that EU reps are unelected and give nations no choice but to adopt their standards seems heinous from an [one] American perspective.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Variety is the spice of life- democracy on the other hand- is priceless. I don't disagree that a universal standard is *handy* but they should at least have held a vote on what it would be- or amass a consortium of tech professionals to create a new standard rather than selecting a one standard that *some* companies already use, and placing an undue burden on any companies that don't already use an inexplicably flimsy connector. The fact that EU reps are unelected and give nations no choice but to adopt their standards seems heinous from an [one] American perspective.

I don't think you quite understand how widespread micro USB is. It's literally only inconveniencing Apple (someone out there probably gives a shit) and the companies that still use weird proprietary connectors that make it so you have to pay extra if you lose your charging cable (trust me, no one gives a shut about those)

Think of it this way: the Universal Serial Bus standard was never invented. Computers today use different connectors from each other to transfer data and every storage company has a proprietary connector on their devices. This means that you have to buy adapters of shady quality in some cases because there are unsupported connection combinations. This is an extreme example, but it's a good way of showing why universal standards are very necessary, especially in the tech world

 

[vayanui8]

I don't think you quite understand how widespread micro USB is. It's literally only inconveniencing Apple (someone out there probably gives a shit) and the companies that still use weird proprietary connectors that make it so you have to pay extra if you lose your charging cable (trust me, no one gives a shut about those)

Think of it this way: the Universal Serial Bus standard was never invented. Computers today use different connectors from each other to transfer data and every storage company has a proprietary connector on their devices. This means that you have to buy adapters of shady quality in some cases because there are unsupported connection combinations. This is an extreme example, but it's a good way of showing why universal standards are very necessary, especially in the tech world

Universal standards are convenient, but by enforcing them by law you create a number of issues. While this may seem convenient now, it creates a number of issues later. For example, let's say I invent a new type of connector that is more convenient that micro USB. Wireless charging for example. If this becomes the standard everywhere else, the EU is now lagging behind. They are then forced to change the law which can take time and create a greater inconvenience for consumers and companies alike. The problem with laws like this isn't that a universal standard is bad, it's that it's unnecessary. There's no real benefit to these laws other than reducing competition. Unless you have a really great product you aren't going to be able to sell it if it goes against the universal standard. It's an unneeded piece of legislation that isn't helping anyone now and can only inconvenience people in the future if a new, better alternative is created

 

[Jayro]

Welp, Great Britain just fucked themselves

They are no longer great, they have to earn that title back. This is the first time in history that "pulling out" wasn't a good idea.

 

[Pleng]

The EU mandated that all mobile phone have micro-usb. It's madness- I mean if people don't want freedom, at least let them vote in the people who strip the freedoms.

So how comes Apple are still selling products within the EU?
Can you provide a source for this so called EU mandate?

 

[amoulton]

So how comes Apple are still selling products within the EU?
Can you provide a source for this so called EU mandate?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=EU+micro+usb+law
They're allowed to contiune doing business in the EU by producing this piece of e-waste.
http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MD820AM/A/lightning-to-micro-usb-adapter

Universal standards are convenient, but by enforcing them by law you create a number of issues.

Exactly, USB existed and was deployed ubiquitously without any creepy galactic council oppressing you into it.

 

[emigre]

Variety is the spice of life- democracy on the other hand- is priceless. I don't disagree that a universal standard is *handy* but they should at least have held a vote on what it would be- or amass a consortium of tech professionals to create a new standard rather than selecting a one standard that *some* companies already use, and placing an undue burden on any companies that don't already use an inexplicably flimsy connector. The fact that EU reps are unelected and give nations no choice but to adopt their standards seems heinous from an [one] American perspective.

The push towards universal cables is godsend on the consumer level. When I had a OnePlus One, colleagues with Samsung phones and I would be able to share a cable back and forth. That's great for a consumer and I give them unelected Brussel people props for that.

In terms of what is truly heinous, I think going to war on sexed up charges is more akin to that to provide some perspective. I cannae blame them dirty Europeans for the biggest cock up in British foreign policy.

 

[amoulton]

The push towards universal cables is godsend on the consumer level. When I had a OnePlus One, colleagues with Samsung phones and I would be able to share a cable back and forth. That's great for a consumer and I give them unelected Brussel people props for that.

In terms of what is truly heinous, I think going to war on sexed up charges is more akin to that to provide some perspective. I cannae blame them dirty Europeans for the biggest cock up in British foreign policy.

You're right Iraq is completely stable and in no way in need of a military intervention.

 

[AkGBA]

You're right Iraq is completely stable and in no way in need of a military intervention.

Do you understand he was talking about the situation BEFORE going to war against Saddam ?

And if you do, follow-up question about the military intervention you seem to think was needed : Do you think for a fact there was WMDs ? (that's it, I want to watch In The Loop again...).

 

[Luanon]

I'm not from UK, but isn't the whole EU thing just a little too gullible to really be sustainable?

Its like asking USA and Canada to share the same border and currency as Bangladesh. The various countries in the EU are just too wildly different in their level of development. I like going to Europe and using the same money across the board, but even I can sense that the union is a naive notion.

Indeed, it would be naive to do such thing in america where nothing is settled but it is also extremely naive to watch Europe under the same prism.
An american country will never feel that they have Country neighbours or even that they completely belong there (since they don’t), Europe has been developing and settling for millenia inventing and creating stuff such as their borders or your language.
You obviously can’t feel one with bangladesh (or mexico) since theyre a different race that could do to you what you did to the real americans but it turns out that where a race does belong a race doesn’t need to live in a constant defensive state and can move on to mutual respect with others.

 

[notimp]

There is no such thing as a human race. (As a qualifier for attributes, morals or behavioral traits.)

The concept was first used to denote (common language and then) national affiliation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Nation is an invented concept.

So you are taking a term, thats was basically invented for PR and are attributing universal truths to it like it was physics, or a universal law. Then you use words like - 'obviously' to find excuses for why your personal brand of racism is socially accepted.

Categorize people by the cerial brands they buy next. Use obviously as well, just for good measure.

edit:

Especially in societies that have embraced niches as 'culturally unifying'. (That youtube channel about "nerf guns of a certain brand" with 1.5 mio followers, what race is the presenter there? Because you can obviously not 'feel one' with one of the other subscribers if you dont know what race he is... *sarc*)

Replace the word race with "tribe" - which also works in your example, and it becomes more obvious what you are doing. Your argument might still work, but there is no 'universal law' ('godgiven') quality to it, that makes it 'obviously' correct.

(The power and embedded meaning of words - advanced level )

Race is a social construct. As in 'someone made it up'. People later tried to give that concept a 'scientific underpinning' in the way you now try to use it (some forms of now rejected anthropology) and failed miserably.

It doesnt help that you mix it with 'blood and honor' terminology ("after centuries living on their 'motherland' a race can feel at home and become less stressed").

Were you reading grandgrandfathers book collection again?

 

[Taleweaver]

Indeed, it would be naive to do such thing in america where nothing is settled but it is also extremely naive to watch Europe under the same prism.
An american country will never feel that they have Country neighbours or even that they completely belong there (since they don’t), Europe has been developing and settling for millenia inventing and creating stuff such as their borders or your language.
You obviously can’t feel one with bangladesh (or mexico) since theyre a different race that could do to you what you did to the real americans but it turns out that where a race does belong a race doesn’t need to live in a constant defensive state and can move on to mutual respect with others.

Ahem...small bit of info: that post is from 2016 (from before brexit was a fact, even). I'm not sure what you thought you were doing, but...I don't think it merits much follow-up at this point.

 

[Xiphiidae]

~snip~

Question: are there genetic differences between different human populations that are related to ancestry?

 

[notimp]

Boy, the racists in here...

However, because all populations are genetically diverse, and because there is a complex relation between ancestry, genetic makeup and phenotype, and because racial categories are based on subjective evaluations of the traits, there is no specific gene that can be used to determine a person's race

src: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics
Logic is none of your forte is it?

If something is an invented cultural concept. And was based on language and later nationality, and throughout time was asserted using (mostly self) attribution. How on earth would now genetics help to qualify it?

You cant say, no - no, what my greatgrandfather meant, was obviously genetics, before it was invented. He just done it by smell (/looking at a person), back then. He had to. Because it wasnt invented yet.

So if you want to be racist, yes - genetics might offer you a probability based way, using generalized estimations of potential cultural makeup, based on genetic markers, that can be used to identify regionality - in a probability based way.

So now you went through "race is whoever speaks our language", no, no - "wo is part of our nation" to no, no "who has genetic markers that are correlated with a certain region", ..

For what? Still to magically attribute character attributes to a concept made up by people centuries ago.

Also, there is no genetic definition of race. When you do surveys, you dont ask people for blood samples. To which you reply - "but you should" - because it gives me more of this 'godgiven certainty' quality in race theory, to be racist about?

So while humanity did it by language for centuries, and then switched to nationality, when that was invented, you now want to go with regional mutations that are not necessarily related to phenotype, and never to character traits, values, or a predisposition to 'feel relaxed in a country'? Because it would help you to make the distinction more clear cut?

While the entire world decided, no - thats actually a bad idea... (Thats actual history, not your rewritten story how the term race came to be.)

When did you become a Super-Nazi? And have you genetically tested all of your family members yet?

You cant reverse history from the point genetics were invented (because it sounds more scientific) and then insist, no no - the marker (artificially picked and placed, they just indicate if a certain sequence is there or not, so which one to pick? Headcircumference? Tonguelegth? (to refer back to now rejected anthropological ideas)) (regional mutations), thats race, obviously. No it isnt.

Could you also please stop to sell everyone on your personal race theory in a gaming forum? How often do I have to insist that you are racist, before you stop?

Also, if you still havent gotten it, the more 'clear cut' and 'by birth' you try to make your definition, the more problematic it becomes. Because at some point you then really might ask your friends or favorite youtuber for a saliva sample to sequence, before you can know if you should socialize (or god forbid, fuck) with them. And how you get from there to 'some motherland theory of feeling relaxed by being genetically at home' (notice the world feeling?) is yet another category of insane attribution jumps. If you want to be racist, just say to yourself - I want to be a racist. Dont try to wrap in science for your goal.

 

[Xiphiidae]

~snip~

Your entire post is just one long, pathetic strawman. Please try to answer my original question, it's not a difficult one.
Here's another easy question: why do people with sub-Saharan African ancestry look different to people with European ancestry?

 

[notimp]

Because of chance mutatation (happens in all life forms) and natural selection. I don't want to also explain Darwin to you.

And no, natural selection also isnt a "divine process" that produces better and not so good people, or people that obviously feel better, when they are amongst themselves, or in the 'right' continent. All of that - is you giving attributes to people based on, as we now know, looks (skincolor).

Also a strawman is an argument you yourself create, to then denounce, so you look like you are winning an argument.

I never created my own argument to then denounce it. I stepped through both of your logic.

Also I'm still not likely to get convinced argumentatively by someone flipping crude race theories ("But why do they look like that?!").

Because all that argument ever comes down to, is you not liking people (in your vicinity), because they look different.

So following your logic, we should now define race, by the genetic markers for skin color?

Take a clue.


edit:

Here is what you are doing in principle. If you still want me to take time to argue with racists.

The 'obviously' is a pretty good clue.

You take a man made concept. Race. Say that it is pretty 'science' (not naming which science, btw), which in our days, sometimes can be a stand in for "divine" (== dont ask further ). Then say - because its obviously 'a thing' "I mean, look at dog races, right?" ((those large and non chance based mutations) where created through breeding focusing in on maximising certain mutations, so much higher variance in attributes), then forget that race even there is a substitute that was given to describe looks, not phenotype.

But you are making it an argument for why looks are the same as phenotype (here we are goin to the level you wanted, namely genetics). Which scientifically is wrong (looks /= phenotype).

And while phenotype never ever was equaling race in human history. And still isnt today.

Why you do that is, because you want an attribution for looks = 'behavior' so badly it hurts. But you cant say that openly, so you now need a helper construction, which is historically positively loaded (when you are talking about your own) which is tribe. Which later became race, btw mostly through the nation concept (as tribes grew bigger (learned how to sustain bigger tribe sizes)).

Darwin came after that, and just also used the word. So he is also not the origin of this 'divine authority figure' concept you are looking for to make it 'obviously' something.

That 'divine' concept for you mostly lies in culture (shared stories), btw. And it is also a clue how race as a concept was originally formed (language, and later PR).

Now lets say you successfully can make the argument that phenotype = race, which you cant - but colloquially - maybe.

Thats the best you ever can get to. All the other concepts. For why people of the same human race have the same phenotype (what about bloodtypes? In Japan there are cultural stories, that bloodtype is very important as an indicator for behavior - thats also just a shared story, you know?) and therefor likes/preferences, or behavior patterns, or cultural preferences are so obviously wrong it hurts. But thats also what you are mainly flogging ideologically. Thats already insanity and not wanted by mainstream culture today, for very obvious reasons. (How about air travel is a thing?) And if you then jump from that to 'well certain races obviously feel more relaxed in their motherland' thats so many steps removed from how reality, or even genetics/natural selection works (mutations over multiple decades), that the closest approximation to that argument is something like - "well obviously humans dont feel well, while driving in trains, because it is much faster, than they were supposed to move (genetically?)".

And if you want to do the same with skin pigment and sun intensity - let me just tell you that things like jackets and airconditioning do exist. And people dont have to wait for multiple generations and chance mutations to 'feel better' in Hawaii.

So if the main concept of that divine'/higher value concept, that you are looking for with that "well obviously this race...:" is cultural (comes from shared stories (first language, then PR)), then dont say it is looks - that translate into behavior - that translates into group preferences - and ultimately preferred region to live in for that race in the world.

Because every single jump there is voluntary and not proven by something like science at all. Someone just said it.

 

[FGFlann]

I've never quite grasped why this is such a contentious issue. There's absolutely nothing wrong with groups of people being different, and it seems wrong to deny reality and assert that racial groups don't have distinct characteristics. It's what you do with this information that matters and speaks to your character.

 

[notimp]

Wrong. It matters which characteristics you assert to different racial groups.

Say some ethnicity (lets even use race) has darker skin (on average, because they also have no skin color controller to assign race tags amongst themselves). Sure.

Say some ethnicity has crooked noses. Not at all sure.

Say a race is greedy by naturell. Alarm bells.

Its not just "what you do with it", because shared stories (lets call them rumors at first) have power.

You have to tell people where interpretations are wrong, not just 'just do the best with them', because that on its own forms group identities, and quickly spirals out of control.

Thats why you sometimes need taboos (RACIST!). But only in very, very seldom instances. We know how tribe mechanics work (tribalism), we know that people want it, the "nation character" (also a myth) has curbed it. Until nations started to want to extinguish other nations, based on characteristics people couldnt change.

Thats the no no.

Hey, if you dont like sexual partners with blond or black hair, be my guest, go for brunettes instead. But dont ralley your folks to make the world blond (recessive gene btw) only. Because that only leads to disaster.

Its faulty logic (looks = behavior) that feels so good, because you get ingroup affirmation. That leads to painting the people outside your group very badly (in the inverse you feel better, while you do it). That leads to much more problematic stuff.

How you define your group is up to you. Just understand that "race" has nothing to it thats very 'divine'. Thats all you need to understand. Because with that you can start questioning doctrine.

At the same time 'shared culture' also is important for feeling like you belong, or even 'understanding whats happening' (point of reference). So its not even that you could just say 'lets just have a free for all', no - everyone find their group. There is one group, society at large especially doesnt like so much. And thats racists, because of reasons (didn't go well in the past). Maybe dont make that one your cultural reference.
-

If you want to hear even more points of reference for why racism is a bad idea, if you are at the point where your ingroup is obviously better than the outgroup (and smarter, and more athletic, and...) what do you do with people that fall outside that norm? In the past - gays, people with genetic disorders, people that dont comply to your cultural ideal (the thing we are actually talking about mostly)... The answer there, in the past were horrifying. (I mean you have to, because your own kind if way as described in shared stories is perfect already. And you mostly have only one ideal image... So thats sadly internal logic. You almost demand it.) So we dont like racists.