- Mar 11, 2019
It's YES or NO, impossible or possible.
I understand that as a very clear: YES it is possible.nothing is impossible.
So he did not dodge the question.Then please answer, Yes or No, and stop dodging questions. There isn't any critical thinking involved here.
Are you John Cena?
You have apparently missed and not understood the point.No. It's objectively impossible.
EDIT, swapped order:And as radical as those claims are, I 've stressed multiple times that it's not a 100% certain thing.
EDI:I suggest you not to label people as you want, and attack that label.
EDITYou don't have to have a mirror, just look at what you've written.
maybe i escalated a bit.what the **** is even going on ITT
I understand that as a very clear: YES it is possible.
So he did not dodge the question.
And you are wrong, there is or at least, should always be critical thinking involved.
You have apparently missed and not understood the point.
EDIT, swapped order:
Making those accusations in the first place knowing that it's not 100% certain.
That is called SLANDER.
You stressed that only after making those extreme claims and accusations.
I agree 100% with that statement, which is actually funny and infuriating.
I agree and try to adhere to it but i find it funny and infuriating that you are saying that.
Let me make another more extreme scenario to emphasize what i mean:
Let me make another more extreme scenario to emphasize the issues i have with your accusations, proofs and reasoning.
Disclaimer, the following is not meant and just for demonstration purposes:
I am sure that in all of your life, you have or you could have committed a crime.It is strictly speaking possible that you have committed a crime.I, in all of our interaction have perceived you as suspicious.
With that i have proven that you are a criminal!With that i argue that you are a criminal! Now prove your innocence or i'll lock you up in jail!Since it is possible that you committed a crime, that proves you to be a criminal.
EDIT i think i went a bit overboard with this one
If i had to make it even more extreme and elaborate on the crime:
It is certain that you have looked at a women at a point in time. It is possible that that women felt uncomfortable from you looking at her. That proves that you have molested a women and are a molester. Molesting is a crime, so you are a criminal. Prove that you never molested a woman
Looking at what i wrote, the glaring issues are blindingly obvious.
Looking at the scenarios, the are some glaring issues.
Now that i think about it, you should probably not look into a mirror because you'd probably blind yourself.
To explain what i mean by that.
To make myself perfectly clear.
I think you are a huge hypocrite and i associate "looking into the mirror" to mean that one should reflect upon them self and stop being hypocritical.
Hence why you should go blind would you do that.
Maybe shades would protect you?
I never that they are 100% certain, just suspect. I just post what I find, or claim I found those. Is it not allowed to provide anything that isn't 100% proving a certain fact, in a forum?Making those accusations in the first place knowing that it's not 100% certain.
That is called SLANDER.
Think I didn't say it clearly. I mean I take his view as "possible". I'm only asking a question, and I'm not drawing a conclusion ONLY based on this question. And I'm not saying how big is the possibility. Actually, there is one other question I plan to ask, depending on the answer.I understand that as a very clear: YES it is possible.
As I said, it all starts with a simple sentence of a possibility and a logical inference. When I provided so many graphs and links, and defending myself from intentional misinterpretations, I don't think it's possible not to seem hypocritical. Most of my posts are spent answering questions.I think you are a huge hypocrite and i associate "looking into the mirror" to mean that one should reflect upon them self and stop being hypocritical.
You don't need to talk about all this again, as you've talked like this for 5 pages. I have the same feeling as you too, yet I was still trying to answer the questions whose answers was so obvious and seemed to me like some amateur's talk.I didn’t answer because it has become a wasted effort discussing this topic with you. You do not not have coherent argument, your arguments themselves are flawed and based on feelings as you admitted, and generally there is no logic. You mistake my and others patience with pointing out to you the errors in your reasoning as some flame war. The fact we continued to engage with you means we are open to actual proof. Yet you never showed it, and finally admitted it was based on feelings. You even discounted contributions from an actual expert, one who is one of the devs of the very tool you claimed to benchmark with.
There’s a reason why minority views can’t break consensus. It’s because they are usually full of shit and can’t convince anyone. You admitted you’re an amateur. I’m not an amateur. I don’t have time for this. If you feel like I and others are inflicting “internet violence” on you just because you cannot give definite proof to your wild claims, which is the dumbest term, even in the native mainland Chinese meaning of it, then go ahead believe that. This will be my last reply in this thread. If you want to feel like you “won,” by all means be my guest. Shout it to the cities and the heavens. No one cares.
Adolf Hitler would like this so muchThere’s a reason why minority views can’t break consensus. It’s because they are usually full of shit and can’t convince anyone.
Yeah the whole thing is pointless after like pg3.This isn't even on topic anymore. Not even in the same galaxy.
look at the definition. Read it. Understand it. “The available body of facts”Seems that you can't face any controversy about your reasoning at all. Here is the final piece of puzzle. View attachment 21390
If the definition of "evidence" in the dictionary isn't utterly wrong, it's saying that what was listed are not only evidence, but very GOOD evidence.
It's interesting to find that people who stress "reasoning" always step on their own foot.
What I listed are all Facts.look at the definition. Read it. Understand it. “The available body of facts”
you have not posted any FACTS that support the claim that AMD is responsible for any of the things you claim. You’ve posted your conspiracy theories and your own biased opinions. You’ve posted “facts” that have nothing directly to do with these claims. But no facts supporting AMD even “highly likely” of your claims. They are only highly likely in your opinion and it’s not strong enough to convince anyone else who doesn’t already hold the same biases as you.
Relevant or not, they are facts. No problem with that? One thing at a time. Mixing evidences and inferences always create disasters.It’s clear you don’t understand the difference between relevant facts and irrelevant facts.
No one but AMD knows, they are just speculating. AMD has stated that it was a long term platform, but did not define what that meant to them.So... Threadripper?! Do you speak it?!
Will there be a new Threadripper Pro on the swrx8 platform or not? Will there be a new Threadripper on the strx4 platform or not?