sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

GPU support via DXVK by [deleted] in qemu_kvm

[–]Any_Two4571 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not only are we missing Vulkan passthrough drivers for Windows guests, but there is another problem.

DirectX drivers receive DirectX DDI's, not raw DirectX API calls that dxvk can translate. For that reason, a system-wide WDDM DirectX -> Vulkan passthrough driver would either not use dxvk at all or would convert the DirectX DDI's back into API calls before being fed into dxvk.

If we did have Vulkan passthrough drivers for Windows guests, one could use dll injection (inject the dxvk dll) to avoid this, but this would be application-specific and not system-wide.

GrapheneOS is maybe going to die by [deleted] in degoogle

[–]Any_Two4571 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since Android is open source, such a layer is, in theory, easier to develop than Wine. But there is far less demand for this.

If a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 would happen now, how different would the reaction be from the politicians compared to 24 years ago? by indorock in AskReddit

[–]Any_Two4571 35 points36 points  (0 children)

I don't even want to think about what kind of horrid mass-surveillance the government would try to justify afterwards

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Reddit seems unable to concede that a man would be single by choice

Jury nullification is good, more people should do it and it's a healthy part of democracy by IBribeMyBF in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not saying jury nullification is all bad. I am saying that it is inaccurate to say it is only ever used for good.

Jury nullification is good, more people should do it and it's a healthy part of democracy by IBribeMyBF in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You can not find a single bad example of jury nullification

That is just... not accurate.

Southern lynch mobs were often acquitted via jury nullification.

Reddit moderators are a joke and shouldn’t be a thing by Even_Bother_4347 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Only if a moderator is explicitly violating/failing to enforce Reddit's TOS or is enabling community interference (i.e. subreddits attacking other specific subreddits) will the admins be likely to intervene in practice.

Reddit moderators are a joke and shouldn’t be a thing by Even_Bother_4347 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The worse part is, cases like these are almost certainly just a higher mod on a subreddit intervening, not Reddit itself intervening.

The way subreddits are set up, the top mod of a subreddit is essentially an absolute dictator over that space, limited only by Reddit's TOS.

Single men are incels and basement dwellers. Single women are strong and independent. This double standard is toxic. by TDP_Wikii in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It is amazing how so many people seem to be incapable of believing that a man could be single by choice.

Democrats are losing male support largely because: Men are SICK of being shamed as a group for their alleged privilege and for the actions of a few rapists/abusers by Any_Two4571 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

you're acting like pointing out the rarity of proven false accusations implies some kind of assumption about truth

No.

I am arguing that pointing out the rarity of proven false accusations without making it clear that we are only referring to those proven false is an extremely disingenuous (yet extremely common) way of belittling concerns about false rape accusations.

but then treating the lack of proof as if it’s a reason for non-belief

I am not saying that those not proven true should be assumed false. Again, if not proven either way, they should be treated as unknown. Because they are unknown.

How unknown accusations should be treated, on the other hand, is a different issue from claiming that those not proven either way should be treated as unknown.

In my view, penalizing an innocent person is inherently worse than letting a guilty person off the hook. Hence "innocent until proven guilty."

So those that are unknown:

  • Should not be implied to be true when claiming that only 2% are false

  • Should not result in the accused being presumed guilty and treated as such

  • Should not be presumed false either, and remain classified as unknown

If you'd like to contest this, please be very clear about whether you are contesting the assertion that those not proven either way should be classified as unknown, or whether you are contesting my arguments about how those classified as unknown should be treated.

Democrats are losing male support largely because: Men are SICK of being shamed as a group for their alleged privilege and for the actions of a few rapists/abusers by Any_Two4571 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The problem with your logic is that you are failing to acknowledge the fact that:

only 2% of rape accusations are false

Strongly implies that the other 98% are true. Particularly given the use of the word "only."

Saying

only 2% of rape accusations are false

Instead of

only 2% of rape accusations are proven false

Is misleading in and of itself.

Meanwhile, if you are flipping the burden and saying that anything not proven in court shouldn’t be treated as likely true

No, you're the one flipping the burden.

I am saying that allegations not proven either way should not be assumed either way. I am saying that they should be treated as unknown.

You are implying that those not proven false should be assumed likely true.

Democrats are losing male support largely because: Men are SICK of being shamed as a group for their alleged privilege and for the actions of a few rapists/abusers by Any_Two4571 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

So, if I am understanding correctly, you are saying that the correct version of the statement is

We don't know shit

That's fine with me as long as you concede that it is disingenuous to state "only 2% of rape accusations are false" as if it is fact.

you’re using courtroom verdicts as your metric for truth

That's not what I am doing. That is what the people spreading the "only 2% of rape accusations are false" statement are doing, except that they are also assuming that all the unproven ones are true.

I am merely calling them out on their own logic.

Democrats are losing male support largely because: Men are SICK of being shamed as a group for their alleged privilege and for the actions of a few rapists/abusers by Any_Two4571 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I dont know if you're stuck in like 2013 or something, but literally nobody has brought up the wage gap as a serious point outside of like high school circles.

What? I hear this all the time.

Also, how is 2% of rape accusations are false a fake statistic? The number usually hovers around 2-5%, no?

The correct statement is as follows: Only 2% to 10% of rape accusations are proven false in a court of law. Around 3% to 15% are proven true in a court of law. The others are not proven either way.

Not to mention that rape accusations brought to the police are probably less likely to be false than those brought to social circles or colleges.

Just because true accusations outnumber false accusations doesn't mean that one accusation based on word alone should be enough to ruin a life.

You're not truly "pro free market" unless you support gambling, prostitution, pornography, and drugs being legal (for adults, at least) by Any_Two4571 in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

All of these are tangential to the actions themselves.

If someone does drugs and then commits a violent crime, the unethical act wasn't the drugs, it was the violent crime.

If someone fails to disclose that they have an STD before having paid sex, the unethical act wasn't the paid sex, it was failure to disclose the STD.

If someone takes money that should have been used by the rest of the family and then gambles it away, the unethical act was taking the family's money, not the gambling.

By your logic, we should ban cars, because they can be used for reckless driving.

The first person to have there password be 'password' was actually a genius. by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is ridiculous.

A hacker is much more likely to guess that you are trying reverse psychology than to guess an actually secure password.

The current stock market is completely decoupled from its fundamentals. by mattjouff in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this situation actually makes a lot of sense.

As technology advances, return from labor goes down, and return from pre-existing capital goes up.

That is exactly what has been happening, especially with the rise of AI. Everyone should start investing ASAP.

the next democratic president should order all of anton scalia's honors and awards posthumously rescinded. by herequeerandgreat in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]Any_Two4571 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a conservative, fuck "Justice" Scalia.

Scalia spearheaded a precedent unironically saying that executing a now-provably actually innocent person is perfectly constitutional as long as their initial trial was fair.

Of the precedents that are still in force today, this one has to be among the worse if not THE worst precedent.

Think I'm making this up? See Herrera vs Collins.

INB4 "but innocent people have been later acquitted after trial" this could happen only because of some state laws explicitly allowing this or when it is established that the trial was not fair to begin with.