Downloaded because of this post, it is very good!
Downloaded because of this post, it is very good!
Lol. Seriously though, for something like this these days, it will be interesting to see what happens given we will have to face the year 2038 problem. This kind of thing was still doable for the 2000 switch because of the relatively small number of devices/softwares, but because of the number of devices and softwares now, let alone in 2038, I really have no idea how it’s going to be managed.
Holy shit that’s an informative reply. Wow, thanks.
Neat but holy good fucking god the amount of programming it would take if it was ever decided to change this going forward, not to mention how historical times would be referenced. Datetime programming is already such a nightmare.
The day being divided into 24 hours is just as arbitrary as 10 though is it not?
People like Arch because to many it feels more truly like your system than other distributions.
It isn’t that Arch is in some way more customizable than other distros, rather it’s that if there is a package on your Arch system, its probably there because it was your choice to put it there in the first place, and so the system can feel more representative of you given it only contains the things you want or need and nothing more from the get go.
I’m not so sure about that. Windows despite its ads is still generally usable or at least readable, but adblockers affect almost every website, and in a much more extreme way, without which renders some websites virtually unusable. As someone else said, installing another browser is also far easier than taking backups, installing an entirely new OS, implementing your backups, and learning an entire new OS which may not readily support the software you have licensed from windows for most users.
Users care a lot about convenience. I expect that they weigh installing and learning linux etc as less convenient than the ads in windows which is why they would not switch, but I expect when it comes to this case, they would weigh installing a different browser with adblock as much more convenient than using the internet with ads on every single website.
What evidence is there that they don’t? If it’s because you don’t see people talking about shooting guns and wrastlin’ cattle in the Linux forums you visit, perhaps you have formed some stereotypes of people that you shouldn’t have.
I didn’t know this about Joplin, that’s pretty neat.
Then invent the technology that makes what you want to do reasonable, otherwise don’t blame a drill for being incapable of hammering nails fast enough for you.
Perhaps consider investing in a small UPS device as well, it might help out in any future events like this.
So the debate is about what words mean, but when asked to examine what any dictionary defines those words as to understand and agree upon their meanings, you fold immediately?
If the debate was about this, and I offered this to you, then if we follow your anecdote, it was actually me who lead you to the pacific ocean but then you decided to sit on the beach instead of swimming.
I guess you don’t believe your argument is predicated on facts in that case since you dropped it the moment you were faced with scrutinizing it against a reputable source.
Goodbye.
Go through a dictionary of your choosing and post the cited definitions of:
Ad hominem
Character
Attribute
Idea
Attack
Stupid
Intelligence
And I’ll prove to you by your own cited definitions why you’re wrong without going outside of the definitions.
I trust Merriam Webster if you do.
You know what? That is actually some sound reasoning and I think that is an acceptable response.
I intended my original comment to be more a a shot at google than yourself, but I can see why you came back with what you said as a result, and then I got salty about it so I apologize.
Please go ahead and explain what the difference is between calling a person stupid and calling a persons ideas stupid, given stupidity refers to a persons intelligence by definition.
If you call someone’s idea stupid, then by definition, you are calling them stupid by extension because that’s what that word means.
If used in a colloquial manner I can understand how referring to someone’s socks, or a device, or some inanimate object can allow one to call those things “stupid”, but the fact of the matter is that referring to ones ideas as stupid is redundant to calling the person stupid directly because they both refer to the intelligence and original thoughts of a person and therefore literally mean the same thing by definition.
Furthermore, the notion that saying for example “Your shirt is stupid” or “Your idea is stupid” or “your feelings are stupid” instead of “You are stupid” is not ad hominem due to the colloquial usage is laughable as a fallacious argument only needs to attack the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person rather than attacking the substance of the argument to be considered ad hominem, and if a persons ideas are not considered an attribute of them, I don’t know what is.
I think I’m pretty brushed up on how this works, but perhaps you should take your own advice, thanks.
Astounding, apparently you can counter the findings of this paper which proves beyond reasonable doubt that google is progressively getting worse when it comes to returning reliable and accurate search engine results.
https://downloads.webis.de/publications/papers/bevendorff_2024a.pdf?ref=404media.co
I’m sure the scientific community would be really glad to see the evidence you have to the contrary, I’ll even peer review your paper for you, let me know when you have a draft ready.
If it provably disabled all functionality and features of the AI, then I would find that acceptable.
I’ll usually debate people as well, but not those who resort to a logic fallacy as boring as ad hominem for lack of an argument. Seeya.
No, actually if you read my comment my idea is that they can use an AI release of the browser, while people who don’t want AI in their browser can use a different release without it.
In response to “So your idea is that visually impaired people should just cry about not having alt text on a lot of images?”.
This is a loaded question. You shaped the question to be this way so that it would contain presumption of my being guilty of not caring for the differently abled when I have never done such a thing.
My comment just suggests that options are good for consumers, in this case the option of being able to choose if you want AI in your software.
If you have a real argument against that idea that is not predicated on presumptive guilt regarding a topic different to what I was talking about like in your first response, feel free to let me know what it is.
To clarify for you, my saying “Users should have a choice of whether AI is in their browser” being met with your “Then you must hate blind people and want them to cry” does not follow and does not constitute an argument to the contrary.
Linux is as good as Linux is, just as Windows is as good as Windows is and MacOS is as good as it is.
All operating systems have their place, purpose, and use cases, so the question is subjective. Different OS’s are good or bad for different people, and different scenario’s which is why they all have a part of the market share.
MacOS has ease of use and excellent intercompatibility with other Apple products, and Windows has boatloads of compatible software and compatibility with Microsoft’s Active Directory domains in businesses.
What Linux has is cost effectiveness and true ownership and control.
At the moment most people prefer ease of use for home computing, but on a long enough timeline Linux will obtain this as well, just look at what Valve did with SteamOS and the steam deck when it comes to that. Making it easy to use there is, I suspect, one of the major reasons the steam deck as a device is so well reviewed, and partly why we have seen such an increase in market share recently I suspect.
So right now, most people probably prefer another OS because of ease of use, but at some point in the future, Linux will probably be holding all the cards. It just seems that those who develop the distributions are often tied up with other goals apart from ease of use for the common user in the contemporary, but eventually they will begin to tackle this goal as well.