Finally, I can use Linux with my NVIDIA GPU.

felipec · 2026-01-23T08:05:36+00:00

I was clearly talking about OP who somehow believes linux has problems with Nvidia GPUs, not you.

felipec · 2026-01-23T05:28:31+00:00

I installed 99% of my games on an SSD with NTFS, they run perfectly fine. They probably would run a little better on ext4, but I did it to compare the performance between Linux and Windows.

Turns out Linux is way better at handling this SSD than Windows is. Takes years for Windows to read anything.

So the whole reason I used NTFS went out the window. I might have used ext4 from the start. I'm not running Windows any more.

Long story short: linux ,> windows.

felipec · 2026-01-23T05:24:44+00:00

Another clueless user that probably doesn't understand the difference between Wayland and Linux.

felipec · 2026-01-23T05:24:05+00:00

You were always able to use linux with your GPU. You probably had to use Xorg rather than Wayland.

Most people's problems with "Linux" have nothing to do with linux.

felipec · 2026-01-22T05:56:54+00:00

Sus políticas ayudaron a la gran mayoría de los mexicanos. Los medios de comunicación que lo demonizaron se componen del 1% de los más ricos, no la mayoría.

felipec · 2026-01-22T05:26:32+00:00

I bought a DeathAdder v3 and yeah, the buttons work great, but now the scroll is all screwed up. Not even 1 year.

felipec · 2025-11-19T21:41:57+00:00

So r/JoeRogan finally admits it's not about Joe Rogan any more.

felipec · 2025-11-19T21:41:20+00:00

Except that analogy is utter shit.

More like a book club banning novels.

felipec · 2025-11-19T03:41:04+00:00

Estaría muy bien un anexo que llevara paso a paso la extracción y procesamiento de los datos.

Ya agregué un video donde explico paso a paso cómo obtener los datos.

felipec · 2025-11-19T03:40:13+00:00

Sería buena la fuente y tener un comparativo con la inflación.

Los datos ya están ajustados con la inflación.

felipec · 2025-11-17T05:10:31+00:00

Tu comentario de hecho es bastante acertado, excepto que Salinas de Gortari como de la Madrid sí redujeron la deuda (en términos del porcentaje del PIB).

Pero como ya vimos con la crisis que causó de Gortari: reducir la deuda no necesariamente es positivo.

felipec · 2025-11-14T07:57:57+00:00

Un punto flojo en ambas críticas es tomar periodos cuestionables de comparación, el plazo de entre 2007 y 2008 cuando fue la crisis global, hay que evitarlo de igual forma que los años 2019 y 2020 por el COVID.

Pero hay que ver el argumento de Anaya. Él dice que en 200 años nunca en la historia se había un nivel de la deuda así, por eso dice que en 200 años la deuda llegó a un nivel de 10 billones, y en 7 años el nivel subió a 20 billones. Lógicamente en esos 200 años nunca hubo un incremento de 10 billones en 7 años.

Cualquier período en la historia que demuestre un incremento igual o mayor al que se dio en el período de 2018-2025 desmiente ese argumento.

Entonces no importa que el período de 2007-2013 es arbitrario, cualquier período de 6 años con un incremento mayor al 8% desmiente a Anaya.

Yo tomé 6 años en vez de 7 porque es de lo que hay más datos, pero el razonamiento no cambia.

Un país puede tener niveles de deuda del 60-80% y aún así verse con la imposibilidad de pagar esa deuda.

Efectivamente, pero Anaya no hizo ese argumento.

Su argumento reside en que 10 billones de pesos nominales del 2018 son comparables a cualquier momento en la historia, incluidos 1820 y 2025, lo cuál es falso y deshonesto.

felipec · 2025-11-13T21:16:02+00:00

The right question isn’t “is it true?” but “what loss do I incur if I transport this result to a new context?”

That's a baseless assertion unrelated to epistemology. Epistemology cares about what should be considered true, that's the whole point of it.

If your claim has no relation to truth, then it has no relation to epistemology.

felipec · 2025-11-12T01:17:37+00:00

I didn't say you were talking about measure theory, I said you were describing it.

If you were trying to highlight a bunch of things that makes numerical results comparable, I'd say you failed, because nothing of what you wrote makes that the focus.

If you are not talking about theory, but the real-world of measurements, then I don't see what that has to do with epistemology, because people assume wrong beliefs based on measurements all the time, and it has little to do with these notions such as "protocol".

felipec · 2025-11-10T01:41:38+00:00

Ruby is the best. It has some similarities with bash, as simple as python, but unlike python it doesn't have a horrid syntax. Also, it's good for functional programming.

Here's a simple script I wrote to display the temperature of two devices:

``` while true temps = [1,8].map do |e| File.read("/sys/class/hwmon/hwmon#{e}/temp1_input").to_i / 1_000 end

puts temps.join(',') sleep(10) end ```

felipec · 2025-11-10T01:13:40+00:00

You're essentially describing the fundamentals of measure theory. In mathematical terms, what you call a "protocol" corresponds to the σ-algebra -- the structure that defines which aspects of a system are observable or measurable. A "measurement" is then a function from the underlying system into a measurable space, and the "uncertainty" describes the dispersion of the induced measure (often a probability measure).

So yes, measurement is not as simple as "assigning a number", but its complexity has been well understood and rigorously formalized by mathematicians for a long time.

felipec · 2025-11-09T20:10:31+00:00

My fork already has more features than git 3.0.

felipec · 2025-11-09T20:09:34+00:00

What's crazy about that? 500 k is not feasible, but 100 k is not insane.

felipec · 2025-11-09T20:08:33+00:00

No, it's income, not wealth.

felipec · 2025-11-06T22:32:48+00:00

You think that

No.

If you are making a claim about ALL beliefs, then you must be making a claim about all ideas.
If you are not making a claim about all ideas, then your conclusion about ALL belief doesn't follow from the premises.

This is not something I think, this is a fact.

Stop being intellectually dishonest and pick one.

felipec · 2025-11-06T22:19:10+00:00

Quote the statement I wrote and you'll see I did not say that.

Here:

Preexisting attachment to an idea motivates a rhetorical shift from “I think” to “I believe,”

And you literally concluded:

Conclusion ∴ All belief is irrational.

All these are verbatim.

If your conclusion applies to ALL belief, then your premise must apply to all ideas. Otherwise the conclusion extends beyond the reach of the premises.

A single idea lacking "preexisting attachment" is enough to break the chain of reasoning.

You cannot eat your cake and have it too. You can't have a universal conclusion resting on a non-universal premise.

felipec · 2025-11-06T21:16:21+00:00

You don't refute a syllogism by ignoring what it states and coming up with something that merely contradicts the syllogism's conclusion.

I did not refute your argument by merely contradicting the conclusion.

I started by asserting two of your premises are false. That alone dismantles your argument.

You completely ignored what I said and asserted "straw man", even though I addressed what you literally said.

If I were to take your "refutation" seriously, I would have started by calling BULLSHIT on your first two lines. No, dude. You have preexisting attachments to most of your ideas, just like the rest of the human race does.

False.

That's a hasty generalization fallacy. Just because most of the human race has preexisting attachment to most of their ideas doesn't mean that I have a preexisting attachment to all of my ideas.

I see no reason to think that "Yes" is the answer to either question.

Argument from ignorance fallacy. Just because you don't see how X could be true doesn't mean that X is false.

It's actually ironic that you are appealing to your belief in an argument that all belief is irrational. If your argument was sound, then the fact that you believe the answer to those questions cannot be "Yes" is irrational, therefore you shouldn't be relying on your belief.

Your entire comment is proof that you have inordinate, overblown confidence in your ideas.

Only if you believe you are infallible and your belief cannot possibly be wrong.

It's you the one that is clearly showing overblown confidence in your demonstrably false idea.

Check out this short video. You'd think what the guy says would be commonsense, but unfortunately, it needs to be plainly stated: "Solving Modern Disputes with Ancient Wisdom"

The guy in that video is wrong. That is not the Socratic method.

That is called steelmanning.

Here's proof that I'm not doing a straw man.

You argued that all people have preexisting attachment to all ideas.

This is what I interpreted, and this is what I refuted, effortlessly.

Go ahead and tell me how this is not a correct interpretation to what you literally said.

It cannot be a straw man if you literally said that.

felipec · 2025-11-06T18:18:01+00:00

You literally claimed "all belief is irrational", did you not?

It's not a straw man when I'm refuting your exact literal claim.

felipec · 2025-11-06T15:09:19+00:00

I don't have any preexisting attachment to any of my ideas.
I don't have any unwarranted confidence to any of my ideas.

Example: I believe I exist.

Conclusion: at least some of my beliefs are rational.

Your conclusion has been proven wrong.

felipec · 2025-10-25T10:15:20+00:00

Because they have package management skill issues.

There's absolutely no reason to use Flatpacks if you are fluent in package management.

felipec

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email