```"There exist, indeed, certain general principles founded in the very nature of language, by which the use of symbols, which are but the elements of scientific language, is determined. To a certain extent these elements are arbitrary. Their interpretation is purely conventional: we are permitted to employ them in whatever sense we please. But this permission is limited by two indispensable conditions, first, that from the sense once conventionally established we never, in the same process of reasoning, depart; secondly, that the laws by which the process is conducted be founded exclusively upon the above fixed sense or meaning of the symbols employed."
-John Locke.```

But, A != A, so fuck it.

Or more accurately, !A apparently equals A. We just haven't regulated things enough. Bring in more rules so we can get rid of that pesky free trade we don't have

✊

I can't find any answer to I'll ask here. What makes legally banning something a good idea? What metrics should we use to decide?

For example banning the use of non see through back packs

Or certain fire arms.

Or banning certain foods? Kender egs

You mean Kinder Eggs. Kender are halflings from Dragonlance or some such nonsense and Kinder Eggs are no longer banned
And I think it should be on the basis of principle and that almost nothing should be necessarily banned across the board

Kinder Eggs were never specifically banned. Selling food with inedible parts completely inside them was banned since the 1930s. The Kinder Egg company always had the option to change their packaging to sell in the US. That is why the US eggs are half candy and half toy. Vs candy outside and toy inside like EU.

banning something is generally done when it is believed that the item/action would cause large scale harm to the public

```I can't find any answer to I'll ask here. What makes legally banning something a good idea? What metrics should we use to decide?```
If it leads to violence or death. And that is inevitable with this thing/belief, then we should ban it.

And of course if the company making it abused its position and market dominance, then we should also ban their products for a time.

an example of that would be the Geforce Partner Programme...

Geforce?

I'm going to assume you're not talking about the graphics card company

#BlackMarketsMatter

*>If it leads to violence or death. And that is inevitable with this thing/belief, then we should ban it.*
So, ban statism?

That would pretty much cover everything.

@Pendell yes that geforce

What did they do?

They basically try to cut deals to get optimization priority. I think a couple of the segments of the agreement came off a bit shady but I can't remember off the top of my head. @Stefan Payne would likely do a better job of explaining Nvidia's fuckery

```I'm going to assume you're not talking about the graphics card company```
Yes, I am talking about nVidia. They are one of the most evil companys, right at the same level as Intel is or was.
They basically forced their partners to not sell competing Products with the Gaming Label.

THAT let for example ASUS to change the name of their AMD Cards to MARS (IIRC) and other "funny" stuff. But they were not allowed to sell them under the same label as their nVidia Product.

It wasn't done because Kyle Benett from HardOCP blew the Whistle on this shit and called nVidia out for that crap - no other person had the balls to do that and some even defended nVidia for this shit or even after that attacked Kyle for what he did.

Jesus

The worst thing I knew of nVidia doing was the RTX cards XD

I never knew they were that shitty in their business practices

Oh yeah and their laptop graphics cards sucked ass until like very very recently.
They always were known for having issues

Intel and nVidia have had their heads up their asses for too long and AMD is on track to steal huge sections of their respective markets if they don't wise up.

lol

Good

Ban stupidity.

hey now, liberals deserve to be able to express their opinions too

```I never knew they were that shitty in their business practices```
Yeah, they are worst. Just look at the Crysis 2 shit that happned. Not visible highly tesselated water.

Or all the shit they did with the tesselated hair from their Hairworks bullshit in Witcher 3 (and in the German PCGH, there was an interview where the lead programmer shat on nVidia as best as he could and called it a "business decision")...

Or their closed source Gameworks Libary that normally don't allow the developers to change the code or even look at it.

and if you think that the Gameworks Libery does one thing and the nVidia Graphics card something different, you might be right.
And if you think well, that smells like anti-competitive behaviour and damaging your competition, you'r etotally right.

seafoam is the ocean ejaculating. change my mind

The seafoam is that ginger mermaid tho

that's not what I meant

and you feckin' know it

Anyone know if this is true?
```We would see near-UV as magenta if we could see those wavelengths with our cones. We can't because our lenses filter out most of the light in that range and so it falls below the threshold of photopic (cone based) vision. People who have had their lenses surgically replaced with artificial lenses that are more UV transparent do in fact see near UV light as a magenta or magenta haze.```

Horseshoe theory of colour is commie propaganda.

I want to share a thought I have in regards of "what is the Truth?".
Is it matter of perspective or not?
Let me express a hypothetical situation I 've been thinking:
```There are two persons, one with a condition that doesn't allow him to feel pain (Congenital insensitivity to pain and anhydrosis(CIPA)), and another that is normal. Both of them are hit with a stone in the head. So, the person with CIPA would not feel any pain, while the regular person would be squirming on the floor. ```
So, pain would be a matter of perspective, right? One feels it the other doesn't.
But, both of them got hurt, so the truth is that both persons were hurt. Hurt is the truth.

Thoughts?