How did fix the boot loop on android?

The same thing with a different face

So what actually happened

This is not how proof by contradiction works. And I’m not versed enough in the subject of proofs to explain how.

Im trying to prove its impossible. I assumed that u can reconcile free/hate speach. We are arguing about what is hate speach thus proving we cant reconcile the concepts therefore the assumption cannot be true therefore it must be impossible.

“A proof by contradiction is a method of proving a statement by assuming the opposite statement is true, and then showing that this assumption leads to a logical contradiction.” - dr gpt

It’s not the subjective experience of the offended what makes it hate speech, but the perceived intention of the offender.

hate speech noun [ U ]

public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.):

• Cambridge dictionary

So its about the expression of hate by the speach itself not the intention or perception of either party.

This raises the question what is hate?

hate

verb [ I or T ]

to dislike someone or something very much:

• Cambridge dictionary

Misgendering someone is not an “expression of dislike towards someone or something very much” as it is passing no judgement (well unless ur a sexist who sees sex/gender as a value judgement). Its not encouraging violence and its not doing any of this based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

You haven’t answered any of my questions friend.

None of ur questions are relevent to disproving my clear and concise logical argument. You have failed to address my argument the first time and i simply assumed i didnt explain it clearly enough hence why i ignored the questions that didnt relate to the argument itself and chose to explain my argument more clearly in what i though where simpler terms.

I would never engage in illegal or immoral activity especially something as disgusting as piracy. Do u know how much caviar the shairholders wont be able to afford if u download a car. They will starve. Think of the shairholders.

I love how everyones advice here is pretty much “just lie”. Really says somthing about our society hey.

I wonder what the tankies justification for this will be

Isnt this counter productive to Russians goals? Wouldnt this inspire the Ukrainians to fight to the death instead of surrendering?

U missing my point entirely. How can a subjective experience of offence be hatespeach?

The method for evaluation is irrelevant. My argument is that a subjective experience can be anything by anyone.

My argument is not that its impossible to determine but thats since we disagree its impossible to reconcile hate speach and free speach for everyone our definitions of the 2 are different. Thus this answers ops question with a firm no its impossible. This conversion itself is proof. We are the counter example thus the alternative cannot be true. Proof by contradiction.

I took “counter them” to imply countering their actions amd thus their indoctrination of new people (as to keep them as a minority).

Far-right rhetoric is a denial of reality and of any argument with a complete lack of shame or self-reflection

Name a single intolerant utterancr that does not fulfill this criterion. Ur welcome to critisize karl popers arguments if u wish. But if u do so u cannot use the same argument to support ur arguments and argue against the second half of that very argument. Classic case of cakeism.

The election in the us has very little to do with extremism or utterance of intoletant ideology. Trump got the same or very simmillar amount of votes as he did last time. Harris lost millions compared to biden. Most people dont read the news and thus are completly uneducated on politics. They hear a sound byte like “make america great again” go “fuck i cant afford bread id like to be great again when i could afford to eat” and vote based on that. The average person is an idiot and half of all people are dumber than that.

the point is if you don’t sign the contract you’re not protected by it and you get no benefit, that’s not duress.

Ur forgetting the most important law of all. Its not illegal if u dont get caught. As long as u dont get caught u can go around breaking the social contract as much ad u want and still get the benifits and protections of it. Eg every billionare or corporation ever.

If you sign it but break it, you pay. No one is forcing you to sign, but if you don’t, you can fuck off.

No. If u sign it and break it and get caught breaking it and cant pay ur way out then u pay. The social contract is a tool the government and elites use to derive legitimacy while also allowing them and their buddies to neglect holding up their end.

They do dedicated graphics cards (arc) but depending on ur workload u might not need sonthing that powerfull. Btw dont take my word for it do ur own research and consult with dr gpt.

Ive heard the intel gpus are very good at transcoding and are reletivly cheap compared to other manufacturers.

Didnt u rwad what i wrote?

U don’t have a right not to be offended that is simply the cost of free expression. Its only demeaning if u let it be demeaning i dont give a fuck if u misgender me therefore i have a different subjective experience of the same act therfore it is subjective (i am a counter example to any possible proof, as i said).

The subjective is what u decide it is therefore i can subjectively claim u opening ur mouth is demeaning and thus u should be silenced.

What is wrong with this logic other than u dont like it? U havnt corrected me cos u havnt addressed my argument or points all uve done is make the assertion that missgendering is demeaning for ur subjective opinion.

Nice. Would be neat it it supported virtualized windows but i wouldnt wish the pain of windows upon anyone.

Yeah id be worried about that as well lol

Misgendering on purpose, hate speech.

So ur definition of hate speach can include something that is purly a subjective experience of being offended? The subjective is by definition whatever one claims it to be. Thus i could claim that subjectively u speaking at all is hate speach? Ohh and dont try claiming its not subjective cos i dont give a fuck if u misgender me (my existance is a counter example of any possible proof).

And here we are disagreeing about what is free/hate speach thus both symultaniously is impossible.

Hmm if it supported xen then it might be a useful tool for dom0 of a qubes install.

Neat! So its a local program i can use to access all my server infrastructure?

No. “Hate speech” is an intentionally broad term designed to be abused and weaponized against unpopular speech.

Ur absolutly right.

A better approach would be more specific. No racist speech. No homophobic speech. No misogynistic speech. Etc. Leaving it open ended and subjective is setting up for failure.

Unfortunatly that can be abused just as easily and an overly broad term.

Thus i would personaly draw the line at preventing speach that calls for or incites actionable physical violence.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise." - Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)

Everyone seems to forget the second paragraph of the quote.

Also a contract by definition cannot be valid and signed under duress thus the social contract is an invalid assertion. At the end of the day only thing that actually matters is Darwinian evaluation.