And what way is that?

For example, Spain became a liberal democracy after the death of Fernando Franco. Alberto Fujimori of Peru was forced out due to public outcry over a corruption scandal during the runoff for his third term. Silvio Berlusconi of Italy resigned after a budget bill he pushed for was rejected. None of those involved a violent overthrow.

Sometimes that’s the only option (i.e. Nazi Germany and Italy under Mussolini), but not always.

Sure, and what will adding more violence accomplish? What has violent opposition ever accomplished? Unless we’re willing to wage a full on revolution (which would have different targets), all that’ll happen is more people will die and we’ll justify the rhetoric that these are “bad people” with “gang affiliations.” The more “success” you have opposing ICE, the more justified the admin will be in using the National Guard and maybe even the federal military.

None of that sounds like progress to me. Working through the system takes longer, but I do think it’s more likely to be successful.

No, recruitment will just focus on hiring people that are okay with those circumstances, which means people with less empathy and quicker to use force. I’m not implying we should ignore illegal actions by ICE agents (we should absolutely hold them legally accountable), I’m just saying that it’s not likely to solve the problem w/o changes to the law and/or the leadership, especially given how the courts tend to give law enforcement officers a pass.

As people target ICE agents more and more w/ violence, the more violence they’ll use in response. Violence begets violence, and that’s not going to solve the problem.

What we need are lawsuits challenging the legality of their actions, and ideally criminal charges against the leadership making illegal orders. We need to pressure our representatives to change the law. We need to protest peacefully and get positive media coverage so our voices cannot be ignored. Violence isn’t going to solve it.

Sure. I’m more talking about TVs though, where things like cinematography and HDR are much more important than resolution. 1080p is more than sufficient for that, and 4k content is sometimes hard to find.

I personally find having two monitors more useful than one higher-resolution monitor, though ultrawide monitors are also nice (have one at work). The vertical resolution isn’t a big deal for me, since I mostly care about tiling windows next to each other.

Yeah, I appreciated the joke.

I just wanted to make the point that the difference between 1080p and 4k isn’t massive, so the extra pixels w/ 8k likewise won’t be massive. Going from standard def (480i/p?) to HD was a huge jump, and even 720p to 1080p is a big improvement, but going from 1080p to 4k isn’t nearly as big of a leap. We’re well into diminishing returns.

True. Our TV is 10-15 ft/3-5m away on a ~60in screen, and at that distance, the difference is noticable, but not significant. We have a 40" screen with much closer viewing distance (usually 5-8 ft/~2m), and we definitely notice the difference there.

If I was watching movies at a desk w/ a computer monitor, I’d certainly notice 1080p vs 4k, provided the screen is large enough. In our living room with the couch much further from the screen, the difference is much less important.

think of the demos you see in stores showing off 4k TVs… that quality is noticeable.

Sure. But remember that much of the time, the content is tuned for what the display is good at, which won’t necessarily reflect what you want to watch on it (i.e. they’re often bright colors with frequent color changes, whereas many movies are dark with many slow parts). At least at the start, many 4k TVs had a worse picture than higher end 1080p TVs, and that’s before HDR was really a thing.

So yeah, it highly depends on the content. As you mentioned, in many cases, 1080p HDR will be better than 4k non-HDR. Obviously 4k HDR on a good display is better than 1080p HDR on a good display, but the difference is much less than many people claim it to be, especially at a typical TV viewing distance (in our case, 10-15 ft/3-5m).

computer monitor

I find the sweet spot to be 1440p. 4k is nicer, but the improvement over 1440p is much less than 1440p vs 1080p. My desktop monitor is a 27" 1440p monitor w/ approx 109 ppi, and my work laptop is a Macbook Pro w/ 3024x1964 resolution w/ approx 254 ppi, more than double. And honestly, they’re comparable. Text and whatnot is certainly sharper on the nicer display, but there are certainly diminishing returns.

That said, if I were to watch movies frequently on my computer, I’d prefer a larger 4k monitor so 1080p content upscales better. But for games and normal computer stuff, 1440p is plenty.

Given that I don’t find a ton of value in 4k over 1080p, 8k will be even more underwhelming.

No, the implication is that targeting ICE agents doesn’t solve the problem. I’m not saying that ICE agents should be immune from the law, I’m saying that the root of the problem is the orders. If some ICE agents refuse to follow orders, they’ll be replaced by those who will follow them, just like a murder will replace a gun if it doesn’t function properly.

The focus should be on the source of the problems, which is a mix of the law and the leadership. We should certainly hold ICE agents accountable for any laws they break, but targeting them w/ violence shouldn’t be the focus.

1080p is enough for anybody, 4k is fun sometimes though.

Even 1080p isn’t hugely different from 4k in many cases. Yeah, you can probably notice it, but both are fantastic resolutions. I’ve had a 4k TV for years, and I can count the number of times I’ve actually watched 4k content on it on two hands because it generally isn’t worth the storage space or extra cost.

I never said it was.

My point is that killing the soldier doesn’t change the orders, they’ll just find another soldier. If one soldier isn’t willing to follow orders, they’ll find another that is.

Utility companies hate him!

This is the original comment (not you):

Only good Ice agent is a dead one.

This is your reply:

They volunteered for this, they can sleep in the pit for it in the end.

That sounds to me like you’re happy if one of them gets killed. That’s not directly advocating for murder, but it’s pretty close IMO.

The proper process is through a trial and a change in the law, and probably a change in leadership.

My original point was that blaming the agents misses the point, if they’re unwilling to follow orders, people who are willing will be hired. The real problem is the orders and the people given them. Individual agents may have some culpability, but focusing on that won’t solve the problem.

As someone who lives in a desert climate where many people have humidifiers, this seems like a completely useless device. 🙂

My point is that killing ICE agents won’t make things better and will probably make things worse.

Make less people want to participate in their crimes makes it harder for them to do crimes.

No, it just means the reasonable people will leave and it’ll attract the types who actually agree with it. There will always be more people to take those jobs.

The real solution is changing the leadership and laws.

I’m not a fan of Bernie Sanders’ policies, but I would’ve voted for him had he won in 2016. I’m not a fan of many of Ron Paul’s policies, but again, I would’ve voted for him. Those two are polar opposites, but I believe both would do what they think is best for Americans and the world. But no, we got Clinton and Trump…

I just want someone who wants to serve the country, but instead they serve themselves and their party.

Sure, I get the “just following orders” criticism, my point is that killing ICE agents wouldn’t solve anything. I imagine many of them joined long before the crackdown started and are there to arrest actually bad people (i.e. cartel members) and don’t like the direction the current admin is going. There are also plenty of people who support this nonsense too.

Regardless, attacking the people following orders doesn’t change the orders, we should be attacking the top.

That’s a bit like blaming the gun instead of the shooter, no?

I, for one, unquestionably support whatever group gets me upvotes on social media. Gavin Newsom to the moon!

Seriously though, neither party seems interested in fielding a good candidate. My request isn’t ridiculous, I just want someone who loves democracy and wants to make things better for Americans and the world.