Now you made me go and check the muslim brotherhood situation too to see how much of the “most Muslim countries” statement is true:
according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood#Designation_as_a_terrorist_organization
9 muslim countries banned this group.
and according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country there are 53 muslim countries.
so even the first part is bullshit.
again, my question was is it true that Council on American Islamic Relations is banned in most Muslim countries.
putting them both together (CAIR and muslim brotherhood) was the disgusting original intention of Texas.
and it seemed to have worked on you.
Its turtles cats all the way down.
CAIR
are you sure about that? “Council on American Islamic Relations (Cair) - the largest civil liberties group for American Muslims”
is
“banned in most muslim countries for being terrorists”
example of most please?
again… you are thinking like a neolibral.
why would i want to mortgage my house (not an asset) to borrow against.
you are (unknowingly) doing the capitalist work. you say borrow against like it is a good thing. those who borrow against their home, most of the time they have to do it (or they are irresponsible and that way they lose their house).
please before saying anything about this idea, think if your way is “home for a person or a family to live in” or “house as an asset”. anything that is the second it not a point for ordinary people. but it is good for the rentier system and leeches of them.
I am not against taxes. I am against taxes having to do with your primary home (not house asset) price which you only get if you sell and then have to buy even more expensive house if you want a place to live.
if your answer is that they should sell so that others can buy, then you haven’t helped house issue. you just hate people that own a home.
I don’t know why people that are against house being an financial asset, are in favor of property taxes. it does nothing (literally nothing) to lower the price of homes. if someone’s home property taxes gets to high for him then he has to sell it at the current market price to another person that has to do the same. property taxes on your own home (places you live) does nothing for house supply.
now taxing empty houses or rent is a good idea. and not at 1 or 5 percent. at the current income tax rate and do it for corpos too.
unpopular opinion:
I agree with them… kinda.
if you live in your house, that’s your home and you should not pay another rent based on its price.
using price of home for taxes causes every government official from mayor up to at best not really care if houses prices go up or actually fight policies that lower it.
I see a lot of people here that advocate for property taxes as a progressive tax but I don’t see it that way at all.
my take is government should tax empty houses and rents for landlords.
it is a mistake to follow Neo-liberal thinking of “you are the landlord of you own home” which is prevalent in financial world to make homes investment assets and count rent as GDP which make government be happy that number go up.
I hear here that “boomers” like high price of houses so they “deserve” punishment of high property taxes.
but if you live you own home and don’t make money of it, you don’t get any positive from house prices going up. most “news” about someone selling their house for a lot of money and going into smaller house is just them needing that money for healthcare and living, not investment.
and this mentality makes a self-fulfilling situation that prevent from actual affordability of houses.
fight for high taxes on empty houses and rents. don’t make people living in their own homes renters of government.
my unpopular opinion was that this is very near sound money in islam (gold or silver) until I saw the interest part which is forbidden in islam.
Poor soul.
Reminds of the soft-drink brand corona.
“2025-08-11”
that is from 3 months ago.
I think that was another repo.
this repo I included had update until today.
I have the opposite opinion about this issue.
MIT-like licenses allow corpos to take over a project and make it private step by step (kinda like boiling a frog), first create a “open source” fork and fund it to the max. then step by step make it not open source. after a while (could be years) there is no open source influence and most of the project is under the command of the corpo.
the most recent one being android.
I have come to the conclusion that people that use MIT-like licenses don’t care at all about software freedom (which is kinda obvious if you read MIT license itself).
so I try to contribute to projects that are immune to that by using copy-left licenses ,so called viral licenses that “limit” the ability of corpos to take over a project with the intention of making private or even create a private fork of it.
you are corporation and want to contribute to a project to make it better? cool, so it would not matter to you if the license is MIT or GPL? right??? you don’t want to do a sneaky fork and make it private, right? so you would have no issue with GPL.
when free software devs recommend using MIT-like licenses I am reminded of the meme cartoon about sheep recommending befriending the wolf.
It is almost like they learned nothing from software development trends of rent seeking private sector.
the beauty of GPL-like is that I can be sure when I help it make better I am not helping a private entity later take it over and privatize it. I want to help humanity not help private sector make money with propriety software.
when you make your license MIT-like you are not saying I am maximizing software freedom. you are saying I don’t care what happens to this software.
export does not work
works for me in fish.
oh dont get me wrong. as I said I agree with most of your original (and now second post).
my gripe with grain was not about av1 per se. it was with movie makers that add it just because they think it is how movies should be
this is retarded to me: “Reasons to Keep Film Grain On: Artistic Effect: Film grain can add a nostalgic or artistic quality to video and photography, evoking a classic film look” because the reason is just “nostalgic” that the director has, as in if he was born after digital era, he would have an issue with it and not add it (usually).
about h264 and transparency, the issue is not that h264 can get that but at high bitrate, the issue is that av1 (as I read) can’t get it at any bitrate.
but overall I agree with you.
I even recently was shocked to see how much faster av1 encoding has gotten. I would have thought it was still orders of magnitude, but with some setting (like x265 slow setting) av1 is has the same encoding speed.
I want to agree with you and I do to a large extend. I like new codecs and having more opensourcy coded is better than using a codec that has many patents. long term patents(current situation) slows technological progress.
what I don’t agree with you is some details.
first, Netflix youtube and so on need low bitrate and they (specially google/youtube) don’t care that much about quality. google youtube video are really bit starved for their resolutions. netflix is a bit better.
second, many people when they discuss codecs they are referring to a different use case for them. they are talking about archiving. as in, the best quality codec at a same size. so they compare original (raw video, no lossy codec used) with encoded ones. their conclusion is that av1 is great for size reduction, but cant beat h264 for fidelity at any size. I think that h264 has a placebo or transparent profile but av1 doesn’t.
so when I download a fi…I mean a linux ISO from torrents, I usually go for newest codec. but recently I don’t go for the smallest size because it takes away from details in the picture.
but if I want to archive a movie (that I like a lot, which is rare) I get the bigger h264 (or if uhd blueray h265).
third: a lot of people’s idea of codec quality is formed based on downloading or streaming other people’s encoded videos and they themself don’t compare the quality (as they don’t have time or a good raw video to compare).
4th: I have heard av1 has issues with film grain, as in it removes them. film grain is an artifact of physical films (non-digital) that unfortunately many directors try (or used to) to duplicate because they grew up watching movies on films and think that movies should be like so they add them in in post production. even though it is literally a defect and even human eyes doesn’t duplicate it so it is not even natural. but this still is a bug of av1 (if I read correctly) because codec should go for high fidelity and not high smoothness.
you didn’t do the wrong thing.
what many people don’t notice is that support for a codec in gpu(in hardware) is two part. one is decoding and one is encoding.
for quality video nobody does hardware encoding (at least not on consumer systems linux this 3050 nvidia)
for most users the important this is hardware support for decoding so that they can watch their 4k movie with no issue.
so you are in the clear.
you can watch av1 right now and when av2 becomes popular enough to be used in at least 4 years from now.
“Train your replacement” USA edition.
maybe, maybe not.
when h264 was introduced (Aug 2004), even intel had HW encoding for it with sandybridge in 2011. nvidia had at 2012
so less than 7 years.
av1 was first introduced 7 years ago and for at least two years android TVs require HW decoding for it.
And AMD rdna2 had the same 4 years ago.
so from introduction to hardware decoding it took 3 years.
I have no idea why 10 years is thrown around.
and av1 had to compete with h264 and h265 both. ( they had to decide if it was worth implementing it)
per watt?
if you mean the most secure desktop? then linux is not. not by a long shot. use windows.
https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/security-privacy-advice.html#desktop-os
https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux.html
if you mean most most free, linux it is. personally I use linux.
there is so much of an stretch that even trump didnt claim this (though he will later).
they only country that did was UAE which is terrorist supporter regime dictatorship.
"CAIR called the move “shocking and bizarre”, and some international American terrorism analysts were also critical. The Washington Post wrote: “CAIR and the Muslim American Society are not alone in their shock. Diverse groups across Europe were also added to the list, leaving many observers perplexed at the scope and sheer scale of the list”
so you were incorrect for both count.
there are 14 muslim countries in west Asia (or as colonial English called middle east). from that 14 only 5 countries banned that group.
so you are wrong two out of two again.
I love how you say specially MB, as if CAIR is banned by anyone outside of UAE (and now ofc course the racist texas government.)