facile3232

It's more than suitable if you don't care where the debris lands.

It was more of a scarf before the 19th century. I don't consider the tie the sane thing. But formal dress is kind of arbitrary like that.

Even timeless styles go in and out of fashion.

I personally think IP hobbles our economy by reducing competition. What's the argument in favor? American companies certainly rely on it to avoid meeting market demand. As a result, our lives are shittier and we pay more for the insult. Why would chinese (or russian, or nigerian, or venezuelan) companies not treat us better? Why are we supposed to overlook the obvious incompetence of domestic corporations when they don't want to even fund my healthcare? I say these companies would be better off burnt down.

> do you really want to change your economy in such a way?

The dozen or so people it would make sense to ask this question to likely will not read this comment. There hasn't been democratic input to the economic policy of presidential candidates since reagan (bernie sanders aside, barely). We might be highly rated on the international index of democracies or whatever but I can't say I've ever been able to vote about economic topics that mean anything to me.

Hacker news is not relevant to politics. I don't know why I should put effort into validating other people's perception of what is factual.

Notably, "observed fact" is an oxymoron. You mean observation of something you then produce a statement to lossily refer to. Especially if the "fact" is bound to floating signifiers.

Most of the terms of the alleged "facts" are floating signifiers. Good luck.

You'll find a lot more success appealing directly to peoples' emotions surrounding materially clear situations. Eg it's obvious ripping contributing members of society out of their homes and expelling them from the country is bad for us. But it's the validation of peoples' immaterial fantasies of being raped by immigrants that sustains this material violence. Leaning into analysis of floating signifiers just enables this societal dysfunction.

Facts are useful, but only if they're actually factual. You haven't grounded any of your factual assertions in material analysis. Any factual analysis of "disappearing" is impossible as this inherently relies on your expectations of the potential behavior of the government when the government never attempted to provide a material basis for the justification of violence to begin with.

That is, whether or not you consider "disappearing" to be a valid concept very much relies on whether or not you thought the government attempted to treat people in good faith to begin with. I personally think you're a moron if you trust the state to do anything but look after itself.

It doesn't really matter if the perception is that the state is arresting arbitrary people for arbitrary things.

> However, when a philosopher adopts a rhetorical tone, I expect there to be some kind of catalyzing payload to justify it. Is that not reasonable?

I'm with you on this.

How this "impugns" apple at all?

Any statement can be a question with the right tone. I actually have the exact opposite stance: we expect formal questions when in most cases it makes more sense to simply state something with a lilting tone. But maybe it's just me?

> It is pretty baffling that Apple would create a PR vehicle that impugns its products like this.

I'm struggling to see any of this, frankly. Of course apple uses non-apple software. It'd be pretty weird if they didn't.

All this marketing bullshit reinforces the value of refusing to engage with marketing. What a massive waste of time and effort for all societies and cultures involved.

So like a keylogger. Thanks

Are you essentially discussing like a keylogger? I can't imagine windows intentionally keeps the plaintext password anywhere longer than it needs to be.

Easily-replaceable with the correctly shaped welfare-state, never fear!

You can just use simple, gut-level curiosity to justify this. It's directly satisfying to check out things that look interesting. No rationality or neuroticism about truth necessary. I don't know why you're making new problems to torture yourself with.

Oh that's surprising! Why do you consider VyOS to be less "hot garbage" than the others? That's a hell of a take!

Similarly, I'd like one from outside both american/european AND chinese influence. I think you'd be absolutely insane to trust either of them.

Honestly, if we're ever going to have a decent open hardware movement, I think it's going to come from a place like Nigeria or Peru, not a wealthy country.

> They are envious of the Google and Apple walled gardens/cashcows and are now determined to turn Windows into one.

Which is perplexing, because this is essentially the opposite strategy than what gave windows value to begin with.

shareholder value maximization, shareholder value maximization über alles

I just wanna know where we can find these shareholders and evict them from earth because they're destroying everything.

> including the Western traditions of constitutional human rights

I never really got why the west is so proud of not establishing basic rights of access to food, shelter, healthcare, and education. I don't quite understand the point of them otherwise.

> it is a bad place to be ambitious

Ambition doesn't imply exploitation. I think you mean "predatory".