It is a shitshow. I mean, what the fuck with the totally inconsistent, incoherent and incongruent phonetics (and grammar, and syntax, and spelling…)? That meme (“it’s spelled ‘Liverpool’, it’s pronounced ‘Manchester’”) is more of an anecdote than a joke.

It’s not like what he said isn’t true or actually correct. That’s actually comprehending how languages work.

$230 > $80B ahhh maths

👍

If it were at least ChromiunOS…

That’s the part I don’t like, yeah, Israel, USA and Ukraine should get sanctioned too, along with lots of USA ballsuckers as the UK.

Because NK is a shitty country with a tankie Hitler.

Khosla was stupid though, he should’ve just use Linux plus COLLABORA Office and/or LibreOffice.

You forgot that and .

I, as a kid, once said in a cinema “woah, that’s a huge TV”.

My parents and uncles wanted to go underground lmao.

Jesus only freed slaves because he didn’t wanted any competition in the business /s

Although I’d say that the correct thing to do is only help the ones who really deserve it (and MAGA, incels, “High Value Maless” KKK and all that actually don’t deserve that, just as PETA [better known as animal killers], femcels, “High Value Womans”, and radical far-leftists shouldn’t).

I’m just doing this by going to ARRR my music and install Smolsonic.

Yes, I totally understand the logic. It’s just a transitivity problem, and can be modeled using a cost-benefit analysis:

1. A hidden camera is more dangerous for the victim because it is less risky for the creep/abuser.
2. You will not reasonably believe that a doctor will have a hidden camera inside his office.
3. A camera exposed to the naked eye is less dangerous for the victim because it is more risky for the creep/abuser.
   • The abuser is unlikely to take that risk because he could lose too much, much more than he would gain.
4. So it is reasonable not to believe that your doctor will record or photograph you with a camera exposed to the naked eye since it is inherently riskier for the creep, and it is not reasonable to believe otherwise.

Although, the problem here then shifts to the hardware itself. Like, since these lenses were probably closed source and proprietary hardware, and their software as well, then you don’t have a way to prove that if you turn off the camera on said lens (either via the software kill-switch or via the hardware kill-switch) it is actually turning off, or just appears to turn off when it is actually still on but disguised as being turned off. And taking into account that there are precedents of devices doing this (a particularly famous case was that of a smart TV that even when you turned it off, it was not really off, but in a false shutdown, a very low power state where the screen was off, but the core and some telemetry processes, and the microphone, were still running and, thus, recording and sending everything that was recorded to their servers). So the only rational position, at least from a Game Theory point of view, is to assume that every device that is both closed source and closed hardware, that is not Free, Libre and Open Source Software, and Libre and Open Source and Schematics Hardware (yeah, even releasing their schematics), does the same thing.

Oh, I’m so sorry, I just reread it and realized I misunderstood what you said.

I noticed that I isolated the first part of your comment and overlooked the subordinating conditional clause below it, which led me to commit a straw man fallacy driven by a selection bias.

That said, I have to point out that your initial statement still relied on a composition and a generalization fallacy —even though you didn’t explicitly claim that all pedophiles are offenders— by stating in a blanket way that all pedophiles should kill themselves due to the actions of a minority of them.

I think this mutual oversight was the root of the misunderstanding, and again, I apologize for my part in it.

I hope this helps both of us have better interactions in the future.

Also, he should be orange, not red lmao

No, I shouldn’t. Now that I’m proving my point you don’t want to read? Fucking coward.

Yeah, just as these mononeuronal dumbasses that replied me with their bullshit

Yeah, and I’m not saying or implying that he’s not in his right to think or say that, I’m just exercising my fucking right to respond to him and criticize his position with fundamentals. After all, by saying that something is intrinsically bad, you are at the same time making a normative statement about what you think it should be; and that normative statement something I disagree with because, if it is done and / or made law, it contravenes freedom of expression; and I can name examples of real life, such as my own country (Venezuela), or others like Argentina (both before Milei and with Milei), Russia, Ukraine, the United States, Canada, Australia, China, Spain, NorKorea, etc., where that, for having been included in the law, has caused very serious human rights problems. And I know it may seem like I’m doing a slippery slope fallacy, but no, because the problem is, who decides the cutting point? Who decides where the limits of what can and cannot be said? Any limit is arbitrary and as such any attempt to regulate it is also arbitrary and highly prone to totalitarianism, populism and chauvinism, just as in these countries (which, curiously, have also started with seemingly innocent things like this); think, it is the same as with the EU’s anti-privacy movements; the declared objective is, in principle, commendable, but once they already have the legal infrastructure, they just have to change the objective to something absolutely unacceptable (like quiet dissidents) and we can do nothing. Like this or more fucking clear?

Yeah, I think I should have been more specific.