oldmanjay

The removal of optical drives was accompanied by all this same hand-wringing and prognostication of doom, but if there's one thing I've learned over the last 20+ years, it's that nerds on nerd forums have no idea what people want and no ability to stop themselves from asserting they do.

It doesn't really rebut me to twist up a bunch of semantics to make it seem like something is being taken away from you by the fact that Apple is making a product you don't like.

It's sort of like the very serious risk that public officials will try to influence public affairs by directly misleading, or classifying information that should be freely available because it is embarrassing or illegal, and then using their monopoly on violent coercion to keep things as they like.

I have a hard time getting riled up about the lesser actions companies may potentially take confronted with the reality of the actions governments do take.

I imagine they'll happily sell you a USB-C->lightning cable at an inconvenient price.

You seem to have conflated sophistication with fear of change. The history of technology shows this fear is misplaced. If the interface provided is compelling, most people will adapt. Some will long for the old ways to be the only ways, but that's never been a segment of desire that gets much attention for what I assume are obvious reasons.

I can't help but want to be on the opposite side of whatever this guy is talking about. His belief in the objective correctness of his own opinions rivals Stallman's.

It's sort of like asking if you can't raise an objection without invoking fallacious logic, how are you going to make interesting contributions to this community?

I've done them all, so I can state with confidence you are objectively wrong about the subjectivity of the situation.

It also doesn't mean that saying it makes a compelling argument.

"Think of my backyard" is slightly less compelling than "think of the children"

Usually a "think of the children" argument made in favor of restricting adult rights puts the hair on the back of my neck right up. Luckily, my haircut yesterday removed those hairs.

Do you feel like you needed a little bit more emotional support from people you probably won't see again?

Then I suppose your sentiment was expressed as a plural because you don't like to bother being precise with your thoughts?

Edit: now I see you were just dropping a reference. That makes your post even less tasteful in my eyes.

I understand how that's an emotionally appealing sentiment, but I'd be disappointed to learn you actually believe it, since it's so wrong as to be useless in deal with the real world.

You used a tremendous number of words to clarify your meaning but haven't changed my understanding of the word 'universally' at all.

Sure, but they do things like misapply the label "freedom to read" on an article that seems to mainly be about not getting the entertainment one might desire on the terms one might desire. I was hoping for something more rigorous than preaching to the choir.

Since you haven't demonstrated your premise beyond talking about what you personally prefer, that particular ball is still in your court. The world isn't obliged to accept your unsupported opinions as truth until you're convinced otherwise.

These arguments are now decades old and unresolvable since everyone is trying to extract a meaningful comparison from a single dimension of a complicated metric. I'm pretty over them. Can we call a halt?

It's important to note, especially in forums like this, that no amount of intelligence will save you from someone considering you an idiot. Doesn't matter how right you think your opinions are.

Are you seriously asserting that modern Intel cpus have that few registers? Maybe you're talking about something I don't understand but I can't imagine what.

No one is universally despised. I can prove it, because I despise no one.

Everyone believes they work their asses off, but like every other expression of human ability, the actual amount of ass-working is normally distributed.

You may be conflating the resulting tiredness of menial physical labor with actual productivity, which is certainly understandable from an emotional perspective, but not really logical.

Transparency is the only known way to enforce equal access to government services. Bureaucracy is used to thwart that, via complication that can only be unraveled by (often very highly paid) specialists.

I'm not even sure how you can state that paperwork enforces equal access to justice. It certainly isn't working in the United States, unless you know of magical paperwork that will stop cops from choking black people to death.

Care to list them?

A perennial favorite. I never get enough of a person stating their opinions in such assertive terms.

The codes are used to make the reimbursement system complicated enough that it can be gamed. That's the general purpose of impenetrable bureaucracy.

I suppose that it's emotionally satisfying to denigrate people for having something you want, but does it truly make a useful contribution?

The companies that publish policies and give you control over the "invasion" of privacy, up to and including not interacting with them. The saintly three-letter agencies simply consider all the information their right to take. I have a hard time seeing your point of view in light of that reality.

I feel like the burden falls on the accuser

Since that isn't even close to what the OP said it's pretty clear you're dedicated to the narrative of the evil rich. Keep plugging! It'll stick soon