Not who replied to you originally but,

You aren’t wrong (you even stated that more is probably better) , just not necessarily presenting the whole picture.

Ram compression isn’t a benefit only scenario, there is a cost in processing power to make that happen.

So it’s a trade off of memory utilisation vs processing requirements.

Whether or not it’s worth it is down to circumstance, though i agree that generally i think it’s worth the tradeoff.

Unified memory is useful in specific circumstances, most notably LLM/ML scenarios where high vram utilisation is part of the process.

It’s not an apples to apples comparison by any means.

They even had an ending in the movie that was closer to the original , but they cut it/changed it because it didn’t test well.

I’d guess that was because it was an ending that followed the original storyline and didn’t make sense without the rest of the movie also following the original storyline.

I’m not sure a strictly maths based ethics is the way to go, that’s where you get into sociopath greater-good style considerations like “If i take out the managing team of <Big Meat Corp> , eventually they’ll recover but i’ll have saved approximately X animals in the meantime”

Don’t get me wrong, i’m not against that kind of thinking, i’m just not sure it’s a viable long-term lifestyle.

In order to produce 1 steak, a cow has to die.

In order to produce n steaks 1 cow has to die.

Arguably it’s probably slightly more than 1, given the morbidity rate of cows before they reach the “food production” stage.

In order to produce 1 phone, many different people have to work to produce it, enslaved or not.

In order to produce n phones a non-zero number of people will (likely) be maimed/outright killed while working under slave labour conditions.

If you include the more realistic cost/benefits i suggested above does that change the calculations involved for you ?

The following is an aside to the main conversation:

It was been pointed out that some electronics are as good as necessities for most people, while i think there’s a subjective aspect to “necessity” I’ll concede some electronics use it’s not the same as meat consumption. Though i would further argue that under today’s food production and distribution systems, meat consumption could be argued to be a necessity in some situations.

But that’s almost certainly an entirely different conversation.

In reference to my other conversation regarding the comparison of products that use electronics vs meat consumption, I would ask if “convenience” was a valid justification.

Given the horrors of the electronics supply chain (slavery, horrific working conditions, cartels etc) im not sure why convenience electronics (phones, laptops, pc’s) use would be OK, but meat consumption would not.

Im not saying the horrors are equivalent and it’s not a dig at you, I’m genuinely trying to figure out why one kind of horror is OK, but another is not and how people make those calls.

Hope this helps <3

It does and your points are valid, but i’ll respond to a couple if you don’t mind.

Honestly, if someone is truly aware of the horrors of the animal agriculture industry and is totally fine with it, I would be very, very surprised.

As would i (outside of the sociopath possibility you also mention) , i was thinking more along the lines of people who fully understand and then accept it as something they can live with.

The comparisons of the meat industry to electronics i mostly agree with, except for this last part, not because it’s incorrect as such, i just didn’t provide enough context.

Melting metal, pouring it into moulds to make circuitry, etc. doesn’t hurt anyone directly, it’s capitalism and the drive for maximal profits which cause issues in electronics. I’m a huge proponent for the abolition of capitalism for this reason too.

I mentioned electronics because it’s easy for people to at least shallowly understand how much they use them, what’s not so obvious is the horrors of how they are produced, in a similar way to how people as a whole don’t really understand how the meat industry is run.

Long before the metal pouring and assembly you have the rare earth elements industry that uses horrific limb-removing slave work camps to extract these minerals. it’s not all of them, but it’s significantly more than zero.

There are also cartel like warlords involved in some of the extraction sites.

Think of it as a similar situation to conflict diamonds, but more entrenched and critical to nation state interests.

I mentioned cobalt because it’s the easiest to find credible documentaries, reports and discussions about, but it’s not just cobalt.

Honestly a lot of the big industries are supported by modern day slavery and inhumane conditions or experimentation, i would also assume that extends to the non-human animals as well but i can’t honestly speak to that.

Textiles (clothes, shoes, trainers), agriculture (avocado’s have cartels because of course they do, coffee), pharmaceuticals, non-meat food (chocolate for example).

I keep coming back to the phrase “There is no ethical consumerism under capitalism” which aligns with your stance on the abolition of capitalism, but i tend to think of it as there is no ethical consumerism in general (at least right now) because i can’t think of a way we could ethically overcome the sheer density of population using the level of logistical technology we have available and that’s not even taking into account the (subjective) apparent nature of how human’s deal with such large populations.

But me not being able to see how we make the jump from now to a post scarcity, fully equitable society is almost certainly just a failure of my imagination.

My main question is how do people seem to be able to decide they can live with limbless kid electronics but slave labour clothes are too far, cartel avocado’s are an unfortunate necessity but meat is monstrous.

I understand that not all of those things are equal and battles need to be picked but it doesn’t seem like the subjective severity is the deciding factor and how are the battles picked.

and then , once they acknowledge that ?

The reason i ask is that I’ve never heard an opinion from someone with the viewpoint it seems you hold talk about what they’d think in that situation.

and my follow up would be to ask why meat and not electronics (explained below) or textiles or megacorps ?

In general i struggle with why people place these ethical and moral rubicons in the places they do (i do mostly understand why the lines exist)

I mentioned in another comment about the horrific shit that goes in to basically all electronics (there are numerous documentaries and articles on the horrors of cobalt mining for instance) and it seems odd that people are ok with that but not the meat industry, or perhaps fine with both of those but draw the line at baby animals.

Again, i understand why the lines exist, it’s the seemingly arbitrary nature of where they are placed for different circumstances that eludes me.

I’m asking so i can gather opinions enough that hopefully i can understand, eventually

Real question, what if there is no cognitive dissonance.

Like someone who knows exactly what’s going on and says “fuck it, it’s delicious” ?