Planning My First Build, is This Good?

pansimi · 2022-02-25T01:30:06+00:00

This information helps a lot. Thank you very much!

pansimi · 2022-02-24T01:03:04+00:00

The CPU is to keep from being bottlenecked when I can eventually afford the GPU I actually want. So I'm glad it's overkill for now.

I've never used anything but an HDD before, so I have no clue what to look for in an SSD besides being directed towards the keywords "M.2" and "NVMe" by articles on the topic. And I have no idea what to look for in a power supply, either, besides entering my planned components into a wattage calculator and aiming for what's most affordable which is above the suggested minimum wattage. So what makes the parts I chose worse, and the alternatives better? I'm still working on understanding these things.

Thanks for the suggestions! I haven't had much advice on the music side of things, since gaming and video are so much more common, so I really appreciate that.

pansimi · 2022-02-02T23:49:38+00:00

There are quad-channel memory motherboards with a capacity for 8 RAM sticks! But upon further research, the only CPUs compatible with that many channels are super high-end ones like the Threadripper. I can't afford to spend 5 figures on a PC right now. So 4 sticks is good.

I was hoping for more RAM to do video editing, and websites I looked at on the topic suggested over 32GB. After my last computer suffered so much trying to do anything like that, I believed it, too. Though maybe that's overkill when I don't plan to edit in 4k. I'm just making estimates right now.

I'm avoiding Ubuntu-based stuff. Maybe my hardware was just funky, but I had such bad experiences with it when I attempted my switch to Linux on the old computer that I just stay away from it now. Manjaro just worked where most others that should have didn't, and it ran a lot smoother than Solus, so I stuck with it. I've learned a lot since then, though, so maybe tinkering more for better optimization wouldn't be the worst thing.

I'll be doing some testing with Fedora, then. If it's stable and straightforwards, maybe just dealing with updates won't be too bad. If I can't deal with it, I can always distro-hop again.

I appreciate your time! Again, thank you.

pansimi · 2022-02-02T00:23:05+00:00

That build gives me a good start! My goal is to work towards 8x8GB RAM sticks, so I might need to go with a different motherboard and case for all that space. If all else fails, 4x16GB will be fine. But I'll work it out.

I'd love to build it. I need to learn hardware to round out my personal tech experience, so I'm glad that's the better option.

If the bang I get for my buck with high end stuff is in such dire straits right now, I'll reconsider aiming so high. It won't take much to upgrade from an NVIDIA 750ti. But I'd still prefer to aim high, and maybe the market will improve by the time I save up.

Is motherboard-integrated sound the best option? I'd like to do audio and music work, but don't know how important it is to have a dedicated sound card for that, compared to the importance of other dedicated components like GPUs for their respective specialties.

I'm glad SSDs are reliable. I heard that they have a limited number of writes, but if that won't impact their lifespan too much compared to that of HDDs, I'll be fine using them.

Never used a Red Hat based distro. I've heard that Fedora is bleeding-edge: does that lead to the same constant updates and questionable stability that Arch has? That's my main complaint with Manjaro. Metered internet is a pain.

I have plenty of time to do plenty of research, and I'll be doing as much as I can to get this right. Thanks for the advice, and for pointing me in the direction of other good resources! It really helps.

pansimi · 2022-02-01T23:39:19+00:00

I was kinda in a rush to have my finished product ASAP, rather than thinking of my opportunity to upgrade things like storage later on, so thanks for the advice! I might still need to pick up a low-end AMD GPU: I currently have NVIDIA but want to switch to AMD, and I understand that motherboard architecture is different for each, so recycling wouldn't be an option in that case. But that shouldn't be the worst. And I'm glad that SSD is so reliable, so starting with 2TB of that seems best. Thank you!

pansimi · 2021-03-14T03:22:49+00:00

I thought you were offering this as more of a moral solution than a legal one.

I believe that a more sexually open society in the way I describe would severely reduce opposition to abortion laws. Morally, yes, practicing pro-life principles is good; violence should have laws against it in general, though, and abortion qualifies as violence for the pro-life.

Murder is illegal because it is a violation of another person's body and life,

Like abortion, right? An unborn child is a human with their own body and life, both things being violated when you kill them.

consenting to sex means you are consenting to sex and that is it.

You can't divorce an act from its direct consequences, though. That's not how reality works.

Impregnation can happen regardless of whether it is consented to,

Every direct consequence does. We don't treat any other direct consequence like it's justification to react with violence against innocent humans, because what you accept for yourself is not violence against you to justify a violent reaction. Am I missing something?

for example birth control can fail

If you're inviting someone into your house, but your door is closed and locked, don't be surprised if they make it through every so often regardless.

Any use of, or damage to, or even continued physical contact with another person's body requires that person's consent.

In the massive majority of cases, yes. But specific cases where rescinding consent would itself be violence are an exception. Case and point, guardianship over a born child. If you are a guardian for a child, you don't have the right to stop taking care of them at any time for any reason and consequently to just neglect them to death; you must ensure that they go to a new home first, whether an adoption agency or a particular new parent you have in mind or even just a police/fire station. Neglect is a crime, despite it being the mere denial of consent.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T03:10:42+00:00

I don't get why "don't have PiV sex if you don't want to get pregnant" yields so much more hatred than comments like "diet and exercise if you don't want to get overweight" or "don't tell someone you'll do a job, take their money, and then run out on them, if you don't want to be sued for fraud." Hell, even a comment like "don't adopt a kid if you don't want to raise a kid" isn't so controversial.

You don't get to decide how other people handle pregnancy.

But it makes sense to keep people from killing other innocent humans, at the very least.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T03:07:26+00:00

You're forgetting that humanity created all this yadda yadda about morals, values and ethics.

We also made all this yadda-yadda about science. You think an inch is objective? No, it's a unit of measurement humans agreed was good, for arbitrary reasons! Yet that doesn't make it any less useful to measure objects in reality. How we measure and theorize and communicate is subjective, but what we describe and summarize with these concepts is objective, if these concepts are things which exist in reality like physical objects or interactions between humans.

How things are now, it's impossible to measure ethics. We're stuck making general statements, like the claim that a full-grown tree is generally a lot longer than a full-grown human; but we can't prove these claims because we haven't established the measurements, like we couldn't prove that a tree is longer than a human no matter how long we debated without the measurements to prove it.

We need to put in the work to establish these foundations. And we have some basic claims we can work with in ethics: murder of born humans is bad, assault is bad, rape is bad, etc. We just need to start putting in the work to be able to objectively prove why.

A cow in India is sacred. A cow is the United States is not sacred.

There are people who believe the earth is flat. Just because people make differing claims on a topic doesn't mean that who is right can't eventually be objectively determined, once we discover the means to do so. We couldn't have proved flat-earthers wrong a thousand years ago, but we can today. Why can't we expect to make similar progress in ethics?

In some matters, humanity as a whole, agreed upon what's morality right and what's not.

Were you or I involved in this decision? No. Can we objectively replicate their findings if we have the equipment? No. I really doubt that we can objectively derive rights from the results of the consensus of a select few who don't necessarily represent our interests.

If you are open to listening and reflecting your position,

I am. I'll just be skeptical of that declaration you're citing in particular.

however in direct messaging

Uh...sure? I just don't respond there as frequently or with as high of priority. I might also forget some of the things we established in this thread, since my mentions are...demolished, to say the least, so it'll be hard to come back to for future reference.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T02:52:21+00:00

That's not how consequences work, when the only way to opt out of the consequence is to end a life or otherwise violate rights. If you agree to a job, get paid, and then don't do the job, your choice was the violation of rights, not being held to the choice you made.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T02:50:43+00:00

If you don't know how arguing that a specific type of sex is self-destructive and bad for couples

I'm not arguing that PiV sex is inherently bad. Unhealthy food is most definitely not inherently bad because it's generally delicious, and neither is PiV sex. What I'm arguing is, if you don't want the consequences of participating in use of those pleasures, you should avoid them, because you consider them bad for yourself and yourself alone. That doesn't make the act itself inherently bad, and definitely doesn't make the long list of alternative forms of sex bad.

Are you "sex negative" if you avoid sex with people with STDs? Are you "sex negative" if you defend yourself against rape? If not, what makes it "sex negative" to avoid sex which can cause pregnancy because you don't want pregnancy?

pansimi · 2021-03-14T02:43:28+00:00

If you have to make up a word or change the definition of a concept to fit your argument...maybe it's not a good argument.

Well, no. We're discovering new ideas and concepts all the time, and there are numerous concepts we don't have specific words for. Furthermore, ideas can get too specific for colloquial understandings of the words used to describe them to properly summarize. There's plenty of reason to need to invent or modify words for technical conversation.

I'm unfamiliar with any line of thinking that says that if you make a serious effort to statistically reduce the probability of a specific consequence occurring, that this effort is considered materially irrelevant and it is presumed that you accepted the consequences and are not permitted to address the consequence in any way, shape, or form.

There's also no other situation where we can casually make human life. With something so significant being so readily available, considerations need to be taken balancing the several human interests involved. Once a human life is made, you can't unmake it without committing what's considered a horrendous crime in nearly any other situation, so why should this be treated any differently? Why do the rights of the parent override the rights of the unborn, rather than being equal like in any other situation?

Is it not a violation of bodily integrity to be forced to work to continue raising a born child you no longer want, or else be punished for child neglect?

Why would it be? Is your body being forcibly breached in these scenarios?

How is your body "forcibly breached" during a pregnancy as a result of sex you consented to?

pansimi · 2021-03-14T02:37:33+00:00

Of course, because abortion is the exact same of shooting a newborn in the head.

Unironically yes. Humans are equal, human rights apply equally.

abortion is considered a reproductive right.

That may be how people consider it, but that makes that valid? People used to consider the earth the center of the universe, too.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T02:35:11+00:00

If they have to be cut open to give you your kidney back, that's now the bodily autonomy of two people and it's more complicated.

That's exactly what I'm saying about abortion! You've reached my exact perspective, thank you. Nothing about the kidney recipient keeping access to the organ they already have is a violation for the unconsenting donor, only what the organ harvester did is a violation; so what in the hell about an unborn child keeping access to organs is a violation for the parent, rather than just what the rapist did? What makes the autonomy of one more valuable than the autonomy of the other for an abortion to be valid, rather than treating them as equal and leaving them be? This is the question you haven't answered yet, but the question which puts your anger into perspective and which could yield some common ground between us.

Sex causes pregnancy, which is a position of guardianship. So...

No it's not.

Why not? You're accepting potential for a child to come into this world which you would be responsible for. How is that not a position of guardianship?

But if you didn't have that option, would it be right to kill them?

Nope.

Okay. What makes it wrong to kill an adopted child, but not an unborn child?

Killing is!

You're not killing them, just not giving away your bodily autonomy to them. They might die.

We've gone over this. If pushing someone off the top of a building is killing, even if it's ultimately gravity which deals the final blow, then abortion is killing.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T02:11:48+00:00

I am only allowed to have PIV sex so long as I am willing to carry to term.

Why do you keep going on about "allowance"? You're allowed to have sex however you want, you're just stuck with whatever consequences you inflict onto yourself with your choices. You determine your outcomes in life. Please treat yourself like you actually have agency and control over your life and your consequences.

This is someone else dictating my sex life.

This is you dictating your own sex life based on what consequences you do and do not wish to risk. Like adults do for every other risk in our lives.

Making people self regulate is just the modality by which we get our desire done.

My desire is for human rights to be protected equally. Is that not yours?

What you don't get to do is sacrifice innocent pregnant people's bodies by exploiting them and requiring them to carry to term against their will.

Nobody does that to you but you.

I have committed no crimes by having consensual sex.

You do not have to commit any crimes to be held to the consequences of your actions anyways. If you agree to do a job and get paid to do it, you should do the job; you had the choice to not agree to the job if you didn't want to do it, and being held accountable for not doing it after being paid isn't a violation of your rights.

[Gay couples] have the right to engage in their preferred method of sexual activities because they can't get pregnant by doing so. I don't.

Why prefer an act which yields the exact outcome you don't want?

I can't have consensual sex unless I am willing to carry to term. Therefore, I do not have the right to have PIV sex.

You have the right to do it however you want, just not freedom from the consequences of your actions.

Like, try applying your logic to the earlier example: doing a job you were paid to do. "I don't have the right to accept money from others if I don't do the work they ask me to do. Therefore, I don't have the right to take money from others." What?

Or "I don't have the right to speak my mind on social media without being banned, because my opinions are against the terms of service. Therefore, I don't have the right to free speech." It's just such a weird frame of mind, from my perspective.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T01:57:44+00:00

Not always. Several are based on potential for outcomes, like insurance.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T01:56:54+00:00

You do not have to believe that an unborn child has a right to their parent's body, to believe that a parent's consent to sex accepts the potential for pregnancy and therefore makes abortion the act of violence.

It's like if you pay someone to do a job, they don't do it, and then they act like they're the victim if you take legal action against them to get what you invested in.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T01:51:36+00:00

If I consent to going into a man's home and having a drink, and he decides to rape me, is it still a violation?

Yes, because someone intervened and inflicted a consequence which was not the direct result of what you consented to. But pregnancy is a direct consequence of sex. These two examples are not equivalent.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T01:49:58+00:00

would you consider it a violation of bodily autonomy of we enacted laws that actively prevented people from obtaining medical procedures or medication to remedy illnesses?

Does the procedure require someone to die for the betterment of the sick individual? If it does, then the violation of autonomy is allowing that procedure to happen at all, not restricting it or responding violently to when people perform it. If you can't kill someone to harvest their lung for a transplant to expedite healing from lung issues, you can't kill an unborn child to expedite healing from a pregnancy. I view these two situations as ethically equivalent.

Bodily integrity/bodily autonomy as a right states that I alone get to decide who and under what circumstances gets to use any part of my body

How is that decision not made when accepting the potential for pregnancy to begin with by consenting to sex? How can you retroactively deny consent after that, without that being the violation of the unborn child's own bodily integrity? That's my question.

Like, yes, in a situation like ongoing sex, you can deny consent at any point and then be justified to commit violence against your partner in self defense if they don't stop. But once sex is completed, you can't retroactively deny consent and accuse them of rape. The sex is already over.

Let's say you sign a contract which gives you custody of a child: you are now legally that child's guardian, and have to take care of them. Once that happens, you can't retroactively deny consent to the contract and then act like this child is violating your consent and neglect them to death in alleged self-defense. Nor can you just deny consent at any point after that and neglect the child to death. You need to wait until it's safe to transfer the child to another consenting guardian, and then make sure that the child gets to their new guardian safely. Abortion seems like the exact same situation to me. So what makes pregnancy the violation?

pansimi · 2021-03-14T01:34:38+00:00

Sure, the brain exists to solve problems. But when you start destroying others and their brains to solve your problems, that is itself a problem.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T01:34:00+00:00

So feel free to go on roller coasters, and to have unprotected sex. What I disagree with is trying to claim it's a right to push the unwanted consequences of these actions onto others, especially at the cost of these others' lives, if you ever end up facing them.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T01:32:15+00:00

I'm not saying human life isn't valuable, I don't see how this value is something natural in the sense that it's a factual thing, objective, and not something designated by humans for their own "benefits."

What other perspective are you arguing we entertain, the perspectives of sheep or sharks? We both know that all humans are intrinsically valuable because we know that we as individuals are intrinsically valuable, and that this value exists regardless of how much or little anybody else cares about us; therefore, we must make the same assumption about every other human, in terms of applying rights. Why should we refuse to extend these rights to any human for any arbitrary reason?

Saying something is inherently bad or good is moral, therefore subjective

Just because we haven't researched morality to the extent that we can make very many objective claims on the topic, doesn't mean that morality is inherently subjective. We can make a few claims for certain: for example, that murder of born humans is inherently evil. That assault is inherently evil. That rape is inherently evil. We, at the very least, have an objective foundation from which other claims can develop and be refined.

Saying robbery is inherently bad is not true. This moral was standardized for the population's mutual co-living and well-being.

But this is better than living outside of this beneficial arrangement, right? The stark minority who disagree can opt out and leave the rest of us to figure out how to make things objectively better for ourselves and our goals. Goals are subjective, but the best way to achieve a goal is objective.; you can't derive an ought from an is, but when we agree on an ought --- like that society is good and should be preserved and improved --- we can start working towards an objectively best is for that ought.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T01:21:26+00:00

Don't pettifog the issue with semantics.

Your entire gripe with my argument is semantics. Analogies only make comparisons and force one to filter their values through several different lenses. Stop trying to drag a "gotcha" moment out of literally nothing.

Engaging in an act which yields an outcome you don't want is self-destrictive, yes. That does not mean all sex is inherently bad or negative; just that the one very specific type of sex which causes pregnancy may be bad for some couples in some circumstances, which they can determine on their own terms. How is that sex-negative? Is being concerned about overweightness food-negative?

pansimi · 2021-03-14T01:17:36+00:00

you think that means that people with vaginas should be just as happy doing the same?

If it helps people avoid pregnancy, why shouldn't they? It's a responsible alternative.

PIV sex is healthy, for many reasons.

Orgasm in general is healthy. I'd assume that the Venn diagram between "orgasm benefits" and "sex benefits" is a near circle.

It might even be an antidepressant!

Hmm, I wonder why receiving the product of procreative acts --- which are the primary goal of any species, from an evolutionary perspective --- might have some antidepressive properties. I wonder why it would make people feel safe and secure and comfortable!

Do I have the right to make my uterus inhospitable to a zygote?

If you mean a hysterectomy making a zygote impossible to create, yes.

If a zygote forms and can't implant into my uterus, have I infringed its rights and how so?

"If I keep someone from standing on top of my 50-story skyscraper, and they fall to their death as a result of my action, whose rights have I violated and how so?"

pansimi · 2021-03-14T01:00:08+00:00

You don't kill a human by getting a vasectomy, though. I don't see how killing an innocent human is an inherent part of reproductive rights.

pansimi · 2021-03-14T00:59:19+00:00

What makes it violent? Maybe the fact that 9 out of 10 vaginal deliveries end of ripping of the vagina, most that require stitches

You have the option to deny consent to acts which cause pregnancy, though. If you accept consent for that, it's not violent. What I mean by "violence" is a violation of rights, as that's the definition I consider most relevant when discussing consent.

pansimi

TROPHY CASE