They do exist and some of them swear Mac has better workflows (than windows because most of the time your options are Windows or Mac). I would call them loonies but I’ve seen some smart people use Macs.

You didn’t explain shit. You linked an image and then essentially said “figure it out yourself”. Nothing you “said” contradicted what I said.

Honestly I wasn’t expecting you to explain anything. I could tell from the first comment that you’re one of those chirping tankies who just shouts talking points and couldn’t defend them even if your life depended on it. So crawl back into whatever hole you came from because you were out of your depth from the very beginning.

Stop with the low effort shit, either explain your point or stfu. I’m not going to decipher your comments.

About as relevant and informative as I imagined it would be.

Go ahead, enlighten me with your infinite wisdom.

I know that reading comprehension isn’t your strong suite but please do try and come back when you understand what I said before.

This war would’ve never even started if NATO didn’t keep expanding eastwards as Stoltenberg openly admitted

Except NATO isn’t expanding east because NATO wants to expand east. NATO expands east because the countries next to Russia want assurances against Russia. Poland and the Baltics know since MRP that you can’t trust Moscow. Finland and Sweden didn’t join NATO until Russia threatened them. In Ukraine the polling data correlates with Russia’s annexation of Crimea because the month before annexation Ukrainians had no desire to join NATO and the month after annexation majority Ukrainians wanted to join NATO. NATO expansions happen in response to the bullying by Russia. The whole “NATO shouldn’t expand east” is Russian talking point so Russia could continue bullying it’s neighbors. Your link says that exact same thing.

Being easily brainwashed by propaganda is not a sign of having a functioning brain.

You don’t need propaganda to see what shit demands Russia has. Let’s give them a third of Ukraine for a botched invasion and leave the door open for another invasion by not allowing them to join NATO. What sensible demands where Ukraine gains nothing from it.

This war would’ve never even started if Russia hadn’t done a full invasion. And everyone with a brain knows the peace demand from Russia are bullshit. You talk about millions dying but then are willing to subjugate millions under Russian occupation. But I guess when you and your lemmygrad pals believe “Russia did nothing wrong” it’s also pretty easy to believe Russia has every right to fuck over Ukraine.

Online casinos are also tech. The devops in the article literally says they set up proxies to continue operating in countries where their main domain is blocked. I know the core domain of casinos are very regulated, but I doubt the entire tech aspect of online casinos are regulated. I imagine there’s plenty of fuckery to do there.

Also casinos will throw out people who benefit too much at the expense of the casino. The casino benefitted too much at the expense of Cloudflare and refused to share the profits, so Cloudflare did what any casino would do and kicked them out.

Source?

The rest of the tweets definitely don’t make him appear as less of a self-righteous ass.

This actually made me cringe:

Your weekly reminder that FFmpeg powers all online video - Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, Disney+, Netflix etc etc, all run FFmpeg underneath

I think it depends. I’ve had a non-technical PM and he was great. He knew he knew nothing about development and as such did what great managers do, create an environment where we could work as efficiently as we could. If we said it takes X amount of time he wouldn’t try to squeeze out a faster deadline, he’d report “it will take X amount of time”. If we said it’s unreasonably to take feature Y in he’d say we’re not going to take feature Y in.

IMO it’s much harder with PMs who did some development 20 years ago and “know how things are done”. The ones with some technical knowledge almost always butt in.

Fair enough, for me the discussion was concluded with my second comment anyway. The rest was just to see how far you’re going to go to not admit being wrong. I would’ve been really surprised if you had actually admitted the original comment wasn’t about the tweet, but it was obvious from the moment you doubled down that being wrong is a concept you don’t understand. If you can’t admit to even a small mistake there’s no hope to discussing anything with you.

Alright. Let’s go over it again.

Per edits on my last comment, if you cant find a link between mass murder and philosophy, then you should really do some reading.

It’s not about a link it’s about:

that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes

Which in the contexts of the shooting tweet implies that the shootings were done for an artistic of philosophical purpose, which would mean philosophical or artistic intent behind the shooting. Link between the two can be whatever but I’m not asking for any link between the two. I’m asking specifically for the intent of the shootings that was missed in the tweet.

Regarding suspension of disbelief, I never stated that every instance of NDG saying anything needed to contain both that and discrediting things that are artistic/philosophical. … Your implication that the above excerpt at all means that any example I give must contain both of these in a single comment from NDG leads me to believe you have a tenuous grasp of the English language.

Are you going to twist your own words? You literally said “that’s exactly what I had in mind when I made my original comment”. If it doesn’t contain both why explicitly state that the very tweet was in your mind during the original comment? How did you even come to the “suspension of disbelief” part if it’s not even related to the exact thing you had in mind?

Your argument of trying to lock me into specific use of language instead of discussing the ideas at hand is not only lazy, but does not provide counter to the criticisms I have made about NDG and is arguably an amphiboly at this point.

I’m not trying to lock you into specific use of language. I’m pointing out that I defended a specific part of your argument that you originally brought up and then you brought up something not related to the original point to make a counter-argument. Now instead of agreeing that your counter wasn’t part of the original argument you’re trying to argue that your counter-argument IS the original argument.

If you want an example of him correcting something while ignoring suspension of disbelief, perhaps you should read the article linked in the post above.

I did and I thought that was what you originally referred to, because it covers both “suspension of disbelief” and “made for artistic or philosophical purposes” parts.

Furthermore I’m not going to admit I had something else in mind because its not true in the slightest, even if it would make the strawman fallacy you are also trying to use work out better for you.

Okay. Keep explaining how the first comment and second comment match together. Where’s the suspension of disbelief in the tweet? Where’s the artistic or philosophical purpose of the shootings that was missed in the tweet? You solve the inherent contradictions of your statements and I’ll believe you.

The fuck? Do you not understand what you yourself have wrote?

makes stupid comments “correcting” anything that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes

Says the act ITSELF was done for artistic or philosophical purposes and he makes stupid comments about that act. What you’ve done is apply the ignored philosophy to his comment not to the act itself. So I’m going to ask again, this time explicitly to make it crystal clear. Which part of the ACTUAL shootings, not the aftermath of the shootings, are purposefully philosophical or artistic? And if there are any, how did he ignore those parts.

And how about you don’t ignore the suspension of disbelief part. You said that tweet was EXACTLY what you had in mind. Where’s the suspension of disbelief?

EDIT: Alternatively you can just admit that this was not what you had in mind with the original comment.

because he’s never heard of suspension of disbelief and makes stupid comments “correcting” anything that was obviously made for artistic or philosophical purposes.

So. Which part of his tweet needs suspension of disbelief and which artistic or philosophical purpose he ignored about the shootings?

At least he’s consistent. He says things in the context of science. Statistically he’s not wrong, it’s simply lacking humanity which makes it wrong. If you want to go off on him for that I’m not going to defend that tweet.

But really that’s not what you had in mind when you made your original comment which means that wasn’t also what I defended.

So like hitchhikers guide?

I don’t get the hate. People turn to him for more “sciency” answers and in most cases the answer is “it’s scientifically bogus”. What kind of answer are you expecting? One where he throws out all credibility of his answer by forgoing science? At that point you might as well ask me and not him.