You’re conflating commercial competency with personal likeability.
The difference between
Steam is provably the superior platform and that’s why they are successful.
Vs
Steam is better because I like gaben.
Defending commercial competency is logically consistent.
Defending a billionaire personally is not.
Now go back and look at what was being defended.
As was pointed out recently in a few places, data centers are full of expensive (and easily sellable) material.
i think someone said something about the SFP dongles specifically being super valuable for their size.
They aren’t yet fully protected by the robot killing machines.
So, purely hypothetically , now would be the easiest time to obtain some of those portable, easily sellable parts.
Do you remember when you had to have actual revenue planned when asking for business loan?
I do, but that’s a difference in type, that’s only ever been required for loans to the poors.
The “loans” involved here are just a way of avoiding tax on a systemic scale, something not available to the regular masses.
Also, in the case of the NVIDIA/GPU fuckery, to lock up the resources as a way of controlling the availability and therefore “value”.
Sure, but guardrails won’t solve the core issue, just kick the can down the road…maybe
Making it illegal to be homeless doesn’t solve homelessness it just moves the problem elsewhere.
I don’t disagree with the post you are responding to, almost all of that is reasonable.
Your overall argument would be more convincing if it wasn’t you doing the exact same thing you are complaining about.
As for specifics , the “Just a tool” argument is meh, not all tools are equal in potential benefit and harm.
Asbestos (while it is a material) was a “tool” used to insulate from heat.
Was it good at that, sure, it probably saved many lives, was it also harmful as fuck in the medium to long term, yes it was.
It can be a useful tool and also be a detriment, those things aren’t mutually exclusive.
The danger of a tool can also be mitigated with adequate safeguards that come from experience gained over time.
The argument then becomes risk vs reward, which is an entirely different conversation.
Wait, i thought that technically correct was the best kind of correct ? i have been LIED TO.
It isn’t and this is the one of many replies in which you haven’t provided even a single example.
This is because you can’t provide something that doesn’t exist.
Even if your reading comprehension was at such a level as to genuinely think there was an example of what you are saying in that text, you’d provide it.
I can’t see a scenario where you aren’t trolling for engagement.
I expect some personal attacks, continued feigned ignorance, perhaps some bargain basement deflection , all very standard and boring and that’s OK, if that’s your skill ceiling i won’t hold it against you.
But… i’m willing to be surprised if you have something novel, perhaps some obscure fallacy I’ll have to look up, something that sets you apart from the basement dweller trolls, something noteworthy, perhaps enough to get you elevated to troll management?
You got this, i believe in you.
Also, i’ll save you some time , a reply that doesn’t contain a quotable example of what you’ve claimed will just be ignored, no more engagement for you.
citation?
A single example is fine, i can’t find any, but perhaps i’m missing something important.
I see what you mean and for jobs where deceit isn’t an asset it’s probably not a great idea to get caught lying.
I will say though, having been employed, the ability to “gracefully massage” the truth is an invaluable skill in a lot of workplaces.
Cheating is absolutely a sellable skill.
The difference is in the potential for creep.
The proposed implementation would actually be less invasive than a national ID card (assuming the implementation information provided is complete and accurate), but also usable in less scenarios.
AFAICT there is no provision for actually verifying the person using the app is the person who’s identity is verified in the app.
What’s to stop one person having a verified identity and just sharing it with the people around them once it’s been issued ?
As an example, with an ID card in a bar you need to match the photo, this digital system would be like turning up to a bar with an ID that had no picture or details on , but just said “over 18”, you could then hand this to a friend and they could also use it.
I personally think that if a system is mandatory then an easily circumventable verification system is the best choice , but such an easily circumventable system is exactly the kind of thing governments have used as an excuse to push for further encroachment.
Take the UK for example, the online safety act they have is easily circumvented with a VPN (which many people noted before it was implemented) the government basically stuck their head in the sand and claimed vpn’s weren’t widespread enough to be a problem.
Skip to now and they’ve got representatives looking to force vpn compliance with the online safety act without having the slightest clue about why that wouldn’t and can’t work the way they want.
A more suspicious person might suspect the attack on vpn usage was an expected part of the overall plan.
Even a less suspicious person could still see the direct line from one to the other.
I’m not saying they will, but if i were a betting person, I’d certainly put some money on it.
Yes, i get that, copilot is like opencode or cursor, though perhaps with less general access to models.
There was a reply
Copilot? You mean the AI with terms of service that are in bold and explicit: “for entertainment purposes only”?
followed by
I suppose GitHub Copilot is meant, which is a different thing.
i was asking why github copilot is different in that context.
Ok, so there are 70-81 copilots, github is one of them.
Why is github copilot a different thing in the context of the reply that was being responded to ?
Different how, isn’t github owned by microsoft ?
That would be covered by the
and we sure as hell don’t appreciate pre-compliance to the demands of increasingly fascistic states.
part.
You did not, points for effort though.
I’ll try to make it simpler.
Ask for proof of claim they have made - YES 👍
Ask for proof to dispute/disprove claim you have made - NO 👎
if you suggest something is a fallacy , that’s a claim you have made.
edit : emojis for visual cues
edit : changed no description to be more accurate
Why do people so often invert the burden of proof?
I know, right ?
If someone says “Picking your nose will cause brain-cancer in 40 years.” Then they have the burden to proof that. Nobody has the burden to disprove that.
Absolutely, and if you’d asked for proof of their accusation you’d be correct in this instance.
They made the accusation that this is a step to make this age fields mandatory, and controlled by third-party age verification services, so they have the burden to proof that there is way to do that.
They did and you could ask them to make a case for that, you didn’t.
You provided your own accusation:
You do know that this is a slippery slope argument, right?
And proceeded to tell them that they are required to provide proof to dispute your new accusation.
You would have to demonstrate that there is an intention there to require third party services to validate the age of users using Linux… Or that there is an intention to do so by systemd and the broader open source developers.
Which is what i was addressing specifically when i said:
You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.
I find it highly unlikely, because most people using Linux systems at home have admin privileges. Which makes this whole point moot, since they can fake whatever they like to the software running on top.
It makes the field itself mostly a non issue in the single isolated context of “does this field, on it’s own, constitute age verification”.
The point most people are trying to make is that it’s a part of a larger context.
No, they don’t.
You , as the party making the accusation of fallacy would be required to prove that the expectation of escalation is unreasonable or that the intention was not there.
edit: asking for an explanation of their thoughts around the issue is fine, but a requirement it is not.
I see, that’s my bad, I thought this was a conversation, but it’s actually a rant.
No worries, I rescind my participation
You go off king/queen/<royal of unspecified gender>.