Low FPS with frame gen sucks because the input latency.

Once you’re making 120FPS natively, the additional input latency is under 8ms and it gets even lower as you increase frame rate.

I haven’t looked into it yet, I’m in the same position of using Google to login.

I just noticed that the login page changed.

the only problem is needing a google acc for login

You can use e-mail now.

I really don’t like how sites don’t link to primary sources anymore.

Here’s the actual order: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/24-644/24-644-2026-04-29.html

My bad, social media reflexes are hard to break :)

I was referring to people calling it staged.

Yeah, I understand. I did think it was odd how they were wording their statements, it made me think it was friendly fire as well.

It doesn’t take much explosive to defeat infantry.

Sure, it isn’t flying across the country to hit an installation like a Shahed, but it could function as a longer-range, loitering mortar round.

Lots of small payloads would be useful if you can put a lot of them in the right place: blast fragmentation, HEDP, thermobaric, smoke, illumination, etc.

What about this point is nonsense?

When you put ‘could have’ in front of something you can describe any situation that isn’t explicitly ruled out.

Saying something ‘could have’ happened isn’t saying anything useful. It’s like using the phrase ‘some people say’ to state a position. You can find ANY kind of argument said by some people. It’s a weasel phrase. Anything which is possible, that isn’t explicitly ruled out by the evidence, ‘could have’ happened.

As far as your wiki link. reductio involves assuming the contrary of a claim and showing that it leads to absurdity or contradiction, thereby proving the original claim.

I didn’t assume the contrary of their claim nor was I trying to prove their original claim (I agreed that it ‘could have’ happened).

I was taking the same premise (“could have”) and showing that you can extend it to other fantastical scenarios. This is not formal reductio, it is a demonstration of how a weak modal standard (“could have”) licenses absurdities.

This guy has the right idea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ElonJet

Though his posts on Twitter have a 24h delay due to their change in community guidelines.

You can get live information from their website: https://grndcntrl.net/

I take your point, but I am not wildly speculating. Them witholding evidence in a very specific way is itself evidence as it implies a possibility (that the shotgun was not fired at the ss officer).

Yeah, I understand. I did think it was odd how they were wording their statements, it made me think it was friendly fire as well.

I just think the ‘staged’ conspiracies are just complete nonsense.

There are plenty of unknowns, but to take all of those unknowns and fill in the blanks with the same ‘it was staged’ conspiracy that has appeared after every assassination attempt doesn’t help anyone understand the situation, it only creates a cloud of misinformation so it’s harder to determine what is true or not.

It’s just an extension of the tactic of making a vague set of laws such that any person can be targeted/charged at the discretion of the officer.

It’s like if you’re driving a vehicle, there is absolutely nothing you can do to ensure that you can’t be pulled over. There are enough laws with vague enough elements that any police officer can manufacture a reason to stop you.

This was the same thing but for drone operators.

Companies just have way too much data about people.

It should be illegal to store/compile data that isn’t directly related to the good, services or products that you’re offering.

We’re getting to the point where everything about you, down to your real-time location, is available to anyone with enough money. That’s just not a power that we should allow to go unregulated.

My heart rate increased just reading this. I bet there were diamonds involved also, you monster!

e: oh no, there were! I think I’m having the vapors.

Yeah, that or either of the ends is compromised by one of the various commercial spyware which offers zero-click installation of their software or the person you’re talking to is intentionally recording the messages.

End-to-End encryption only protects you from someone eavesdropping on the communication on the line. It doesn’t secure the endpoints or make the participants trustworthy.

You’re right, it would depend on the business.

A small 3-4 person office is probably saving way more money using cloud-based SAAS than hiring an IT team. The larger the company gets the less of an impact they would feel hiring more personnel or buying hardware.

It isn’t that these services are always bad. It’s just that, like everything in the tech sector, they’ve collectively reached the point where they’re enshittifying and trying to squeeze their existing customers rather than find new ways to add value.

Eventually the increasing costs will make alternatives more attractive.

Sure, when they say WhatsApp can’t access the encrypted messages they could mean that Meta/another internal group has access to the encrypted messages and they decrypt them in order to provide them to WhatsApp/whoever.

(Obviously, as someone pointed out, this is all assuming that he’s telling the truth in some legalistic way and not just flat out lying.)

Yeah, I’m pretty sure that the individual agents who were on the scene probably has a pretty good idea of what happened just by observing the state of things the moment he was captured.

It’s just that their interpretation, like any crime scene evidence, isn’t made public so we can only speculate.

The less information we have, the wilder the speculations can be and still fit the evidence. When there is new evidence the wild speculations can be updated to take into account the new information because there will always be things that are not clear or that we don’t know and a motivated person could find explanations and ‘just so’ stories that fit those gaps.

This happens constantly with Evolution vs Religion arguments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps Every time we don’t know something, some theist will come along and insert god into that unknown. We didn’t know how eyes evolved so theists said that it must be god that did it, then we learned how eyes evolved.

The trick here is that given incomplete information, which is often the case, anybody can create a story that just so happens to fit. Here, we have a ton of incomplete information so there is fertile ground for people to just make things up.

Trump could have staged it.

Sure.

When you put ‘could have’ in front of something you can describe any situation that isn’t explicitly ruled out. Including absolutely crazy and wildly improbable scenarios that are impossible to disprove.

This guy ‘could have’ been a clone dropped off by aliens a few days before the attack. We haven’t seen anything that rules it out.

This incident ‘could have’ not happened at all. Maybe the devices and social media feeds of you and all of the people you socialize with are being modified as you read them creating the illusion that an event took place while the rest of the world goes on oblivious.

You ‘could have’ not existed until this very moment when you suddenly popped into existence with your brain built in such a way as to have memories of your life that never actually happened.

When you use ‘could have’ you open the door to fantasy scenarios. So yes, it could have been staged… by extradiminsional beings for which Trump is only their 3-diminsional form.

Sure, there was a conspiracy. A bunch of right-wing social media people coordinated the ballroom message: https://slate.com/technology/2026/04/trump-ballroom-ashley-st-clair-maga.html

I was referring to people calling it staged. As in the President knew this was going to happen, planned for it to happen and made it happen.

It’s nonsense, there is zero evidence for this being true.

I mean, as far as a conspiracy, there’s ample evidence that adversarial nations use their intelligence services, bots and hired trolls to push messaging on social media to create conflict and division.

What are these troll farms doing around this situation? They are not simply sitting out and not messaging around this topic… so what message are these kinds of groups pushing?

It does seem pretty suspicious that every single one of these security incidents was followed by a tsunami of ‘it was staged’ posts full of the same bad faith interpretations, misinformation, toxic trolling behavior and vote manipulation. After a few weeks all of the people rabidly pushing these ideas seem to disappear outside of the regular conspiracy places. Kind of like they’ve moved on to another topic en masse.

If you’re a member of this community you’ll recognize how different a tone exists in these kinds of threads than in all of the others related to Privacy. It is almost as if there are people from outside of the community who are going around to the various communities and pushing a specific message.

If you looked at the comment history of the people pushing these messages you’d find that they have few, if any, comments in this community before this topic.

On the other hand, there is ZERO evidence to support the shooter being part of a secret plan to (…what?) get a ballroom built.