In this one instance they are actually losing their money, maybe, nearly a decade after the fact. Up until now he’s been living it relatively large.
I’d also put money on him still having a significantly higher amount of money to throw around, even assuming he loses the string of appeals and other legal bullshit he’s undoubtedly going to pull for probably the next decade.
Also money
For me specifically, the setup and config oftentimes is what I’m doing with the computer, the learning and knowledge gained from the practice is what I’m after, which is good because it’s significantly less fun than it used to be.
Admittedly mine is probably a non-standard case and it ties in with other things in my life.
Condolences on your loss.
Depends on how you define ‘cost’ I suppose, but seems like the trade off isn’t worth it for you, which is fair.
Some might value the perceived benefits much higher than you do.
What if the life I’m imagining I’m protecting is one where I have the option of choosing a platform/application that isn’t scraping the absolute dregs of the barrel to squeeze out that last bit of profit margin.
That’s a win win right?
I mean, yes? That’s a good summation.
The part where you get to call something “open source” by OSI standards (which I’m pretty sure is the accepted standard set) but only if you adhere to those standards.
Don’t want to adhere, no problem, but nobody who does accept that standard will agree with you if you try and assign that label to something that doesn’t adhere, because that’s how commonly accepted standards work, socially.
Want to make an “open source 2 : electric boogaloo” licence , still no problem.
Want to try and get the existing open source standards changed, still good, difficult, but doable.
Relevant to this discussion, trying to convince people that someone claiming something doesn’t adhere to the current, socially accepted open source standards, when anybody can go look those standards up and check, is the longest of shots.
To address the bible example, plenty of variations exist, with smaller or larger deviations from each other, and they each have their own set of believers, some are even compatible with each other.
Much like the “true” 1 open source licences and the other, “closely related, but not quite legit” 2 variations.
1 As defined by the existing, community accepted standards set forth by the OSI
2 Any other set of standards that isn’t compatible with 1
edit: clarified that last sentence, it was borderline unparseable
“It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s wrong”.
I think it’s more “It’s not libre / free as in freedom so it’s not open source, don’t pretend it is”.
The “wrong” part would be derived from claiming its something that it isn’t to gain some advantage. I’m this case community contributions.
There’s not a handwaving distinction between open source and not, there are pretty clear guidelines.
Damn, all but 2.
Nearly had me a bingo, oh well.
TL;DR;
Probably a troll, possibly just confused, either way uninteresting
See the end of the post for a reply bingo card.
Nope. The onus is not on me to prove that God exists as I’m not the one using God to substantiate claims. I hope this is not difficult to understand.
The difficult to understand part is where you are referencing things that didn’t happen.
Perhaps i’m misunderstanding though, so if you point out where i was using god as justification that should clear it up nicely.
No, you claimed that religion is, as social constructs go, somehow less real than all the other social constructs that are equally observable around us - do you need me to remind you?
Again, point at where this happened, if you keep referencing things without related references it’s going to seem like you are making things up.
At least here you provided a quote, though unrelated. it’s a step in the right direction.
Just in case you meant to use that quote, nothing in the “Just to pre-empt…” quote mentions relative "real"ness.
Atheists are always the first to purport themselves as (pardon the pun) God’s gift to “rational thinking”… yet their (supposed) “rational thinking” falls apart rather quickly under investigation.
No claim to more rationality than you, no claim to atheism either, citation please.
Not big on history, are you?
Vague and fallacious. especially given i was responding to this passage of yours :
Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.
You really are obsessed with God’s existence (or lack thereoff), aren’t you? I guess I had a hard time following because it’s not something I care about in any way whatsoever. It seems that this differentiates me from atheists, doesn’t it?
Again, no assertion of atheism on my part, feel free to quote the part where i did.
The only reference to the existence/non existence of a god is in relation to the original post i responded to , it’s not a point i added to the conversation.
But i suspect you know this.
This is my reply bingo card ( if you so choose to make one )
They could just be deeply confused about how a conversation generally works?
Nope. I’d declare said statement propandistic shite unless they can prove they are privy to what God does or does not allow.
Most communication is propaganda to some degree, you’ll need to be more specific in the particular viewpoint you have here if you want a useful response.
Prove that god exists and i’ll immediately get on to finding out what they do or do not allow.
Just so we’re clear, faith isn’t proof, in fact its definition is almost universally “belief, in the absence of proof”
Lots of people believing also doesn’t equal more factually correct, it just means more people believe.
What do you think churches, mosques and temples are? “Non-physical”? Howzabout the Inquisition? Or Saudi Arabia’s “religious police?” Or the vast riches the Catholic Church has stolen over the centuries? I’d say no - they are pretty darn “physical.”
Correct, you have accurately described physical objects, not a single one of which i have denied the existence of.
If you could point out which one of those is the physical manifestation of a being that “would or would not allow” something then we can get on to the conversation part.
Just in case there’s any confusion, i’m all aboard the " organised religion is mostly bullshit people doing horrific things on a large scale over even longer time frames" train.
Note the “organised”, it’s important.
Also the “religions are just socially acceptable cults” train.
It might seem like I’m on two trains but in reality it’s a venn diagram in the shape of a train and it’s basically a complete overlap.
See the above.
The above wasn’t addressing any of the points so I’m not sure how it relates to this one either, but feel free to let me know.
I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. I don’t see how ascribing magical powers to religious people changes the fundamental idiocy of the quote you used.
I genuinely think you are misunderstanding what was being said here, intentionally or otherwise.
Just in case it’s unintentional, I’ll try again, but with more describing.
The vs statement was used as an illustration of the difference between the description of a tangible manifestation of a being vs the description of actions of a groups of people with “belief” in a being.
One of those things is a “being”/manifestation performing an action, the other is a group performing actions due to a shared belief or “construct”.
Also the first “quote i used” was from the original post, the second was a comparative example, neither of which i was stating as fact, purely as a demonstrative example.
So you’d be good with phrases such as “God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time” to be considered factually incorrect, as god(s) is/are a social construct?
Just to pre-empt, yes, money and borders are also social constructs but they also have physical manifestations, national identities are similar but not quite the same and all, including classification systems, have agency/effects through people’s shared belief in them.
Shared belief in god can have effects, but those effects wouldn’t make statements about a singular manifestation having independent agency to do something a correct statement.
“God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”
vs
“Peoples belief in God would never allow any species to ever disappear or arise over time”
So, not a good faith take then, oh well.
“Logical” is not a binary position. It’s a spectrum.
Agreed, not sure how it’s relevant but it seems we agree on something after all.
OK, so let’s assume that’s a good faith literal interpretation.
Let’s try it this way.
Yes, it possibly would be considered more logical, but people who threaten kids over videogames aren’t generally considered to be working with an abundance of logical thought.
I could however be wrong in this generalisation given I only have my experience to go on, if your experience leads you to believe people who threaten kids over videogames are not running with a logic deficit then your statement makes sense I suppose.
I wouldn’t expect logical thinking to be a strong characteristic in someone who’d threaten kids over a videogame.
I don’t think there’s any data Microsoft can get through you using edge that they can’t also get just by controlling your OS
I’d put mid-level money on that not being true. There are a lot of things going on in a browser, a lot of which aren’t particularly easy to access from the outside.
Not to say it isn’t possible.
There are valid reasons to use windows and if you’ve gotta use it anyway they’ve already got your data from the start
To a degree yes, but assuming they aren’t pulling nefarious shit in the background, there are in theory many things you can turn off or somewhat neutralise using the options in the OS to reduce the level of data collection.
They are slowly removing those options but they still exist for now.
Again, i fully understand people not wanting to go to the trouble to achieve a goal they don’t care about, but that isn’t the same as there being nothing you can do if you wish to.
There shouldn’t be any of the Googled parts of Chrome in Edge, just as there aren’t any Googled parts of Chrome in stock Chromium.
There are at the very least googled parts of chromium in it though : https://github.com/ungoogled-software/ungoogled-chromium
Unless google have significantly changed the way they package and build chromium recently there are still google web service dependencies and i believe binary blobs (though they may have changed the closed source blob policy iirc)
Of course, you are now giving your data to Microsoft instead of Google, which isn’t really a win or a lose. If you’re not paying for the software, you’re either using FOSS, or the software is paid for by selling access to you and your computer.
Indeed
If you’re using windows you’re already giving Microsoft data so may as well
While technically correct, to me this sounds like “You haven’t managed to stop some of the tracking, why not just give them everything?” which is personally not my approach.
Not to say that my approach isn’t effort and is even effective, but I’d much rather limit the damage in the ways i can rather than give up entirely. I can see why someone wouldn’t want to put in that kind of effort though and i don’t fault them for it.
Edge uses chromium not chrome, I would hazard a guess there’s much less data harvesting going on in base chromium given it’s open source and people can see exactly what they collect
Open source yes, but not necessarily free from data-harvesting.
The fact that un-googled chromium (and others like it) exist implies that straight up chromium being open source isn’t a guarantee they aren’t doing consumer-hostile shit anyway.
Though, yes, it’s almost certainly less than full-fat chrome.
I’m having trouble parsing this so i might be commenting on something that isn’t there.
Current edge is a chrome re-skin with some addons, I’d put good money on it not being google free.
If you care about data going to nefarious places you probably shouldn’t be using either.
It seems like you don’t quite understand how federated services work.
Here’s a quick primer on how you can improve your federated internet experience.
You could also continue to complain about things you can easily fix, that is also an option.
“Their upvote ratio is too damn high”, is an instant classic btw.
Given your replies so far you seem to be looking for something a bit less echo-chambery (or as i suspect a chamber where the echoes are more to your liking)
Luckily this is entirely possible and relatively easily achievable, have fun.