Not always, for example this laptop has external monitors wired to the dGPU. https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Lenovo_ThinkPad_X1_Extreme

They do gain value with age, it’s called interest, and it’s the only reason banks give loans in the first place.

They’re still not collecting the loans from Elon, they’re just passing the loans around. You can take the win if you want it here but I’m pretty sure that’s not what either of us meant before.

You’re on 🤝

That’s not how loans for billionaires work. The bank is very happy to only collect some interest on this huge loan for ever, and would be more than happy to give Elon more loans to buy other things. Because of the fractional reserve banking system the bank isn’t even running any real risk by doing this.

There are plugins for other editors that use neovim as a headless server, which is how I’d do what you want here. You just pass all input events straight through to neovim, read the buffer back and render it as you want. At least that’s how I imagine it would work, I’ve never done it myself.

Jokes aside, you create a custom Dockerfile and copy a statically compiled shell binary.

Can confirm. I have a Windows VM just because I have to test this. It is not a good feedback loop.

Synology supports docker containers. Just run jellyfin.

I mean, that still allows zendesk to reply with “oh yeah that’s also why we’re not paying the bounty”

I’m sorry if I misinterpreted the quote about places with legal gun owners having less illegal gun owners. How else should I have interpreted it?

You pulled a statistic, please provide a source for it.

Yes, a person entering an empty room with a gun on the table is absolutely statistically in danger of mishandling the gun and harming themselves. The actual meta study referenced here is behind a paywall but people do not behave well when put in a room alone with a dangerous thing. As far as I can tell no one has replicated the experiment with an actual gun, though I’d love to see that. Now I don’t want to strawman too much here but you might be tempted to say that the problem isn’t the gun but the combination of human stupidity and guns. That’s generally what makes dangerous things dangerous, and isn’t the gotcha people on the gun side often think it is. In a world with only guns and no humans there’s no gun violence, hooray.

I’ll let you have the final word here if you wish, I’m pretty done with this discussion. I’ll just reiterate one last time that this is all you trying to convince me that I should not be feeling more safe in a place that doesn’t allow guns and I think that’s pretty fucked.

Ok now I know you’re just full of shit and can be safely ignored, thanks.

Guns also mostly end up harming the owner, but with a side effect of death, unlike the stun gun. Immediate Google results shows stun guns to be about 90% effective, which I’ll take over your anecdote.

It’s a false equivalence in this context which you keep ignoring. The question is about a place that explicitly doesn’t allow guns. Again, to make the equivalence work you have to compare me walking on a road that doesn’t allow cars to me walking on one that does, and obviously I feel safer on the one that doesn’t, even if someone can break the rules and bring a car.

I’ve been punched before, complete blind violence. The difference is that being punched didn’t kill me. The fear of getting shot in America is not irrational. Again refer to the page full of statistics in my previous comment.

None of what you just said is true. Starting here

Just to be clear, walking into a room that has a gun in it doesn’t magically make you more likely to get shot.

That’s nonsense, obviously there’s an increased probability with strict causation between being around guns and getting shot.

If you’re in a place where legal gun owners are, and where illegal gun owners are unlikely to be (or at least unlikely to cause problems in)

You seem to be pretending that “good guys with guns deter bad guys with guns”. I invite you to provide any source that backs this up. This is an American myth, and from outside it’s obvious that the presence of “good guys” with guns just make the criminal elements more likely to arm themselves. It also is increasingly obvious that a very large portion of the self proclaimed good guys are in fact also bad people just itching for an excuse.

Ok, I don’t agree, it should be up to and including the amount of force necessary to incapacitate whoever is threatening your life. Stun gun and handcuffs yes, handgun no.

Btw the way you drew a false comparison between my argument and road safety is called false equivalence and is an informal fallacy, while we’re discussing each other’s debating techniques rather than addressing the points made.

You’ve done your division twice there, it seems. The ~45000 is the number after you take away the suicides.. So pretty much 1/2000, so I guess I was pretty close.

Of course the only correct number of gun deaths among civilians is 0, do you disagree with that? As for your comparison to vehicular deaths, let’s remember the context here. The question is whether or not I feel safer in a place that doesn’t allow guns or one that does. So you should really be asking if I think it’s better to walk on the sidewalk or in the road shared with cars. Of course I might still get hit by a car on the sidewalk, but where would you feel safer?

The question was whether or not a sign saying guns not allowed at a mall would make me feel more safe there. I would see them, I might bump into them, it’s a mall. The argument that most of them are sane and reasonable doesn’t reassure me much when we’re talking about people with a magic kill button.

Look are you really trying to argue that the amount of people with guns in my vicinity is irrelevant to my chances of getting shot?