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.

I think you are right.

True, consoles are rapidly approaching being indistinguishable from Kiosk moded, locked down miniature PC’s.

What makes it arbitrary.

If it is considered harmful because people are referencing internet forum comments for treatments for disease then I do not consider myself responsible for the harm.

If people can’t understand what anecdotal information is and it kills them, then it’s Darwinism.

Yea fun fact, if you eat 3 kg of cheese per day it also prevents cancer. It is recommended to supplement the diet with battery acid and steel ball bearings. Whole batteries work too, just not as well.

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.

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.

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.

Any browser which only offers an AI inclusive release, I won’t use.

If any company that produces browsers really, truly, cared about their customer base, they would offer an AI release and a non-AI release.

Edit: It’s unfortunate to see that we have reached a stage as consumers that even daring to suggest an option be provided results in such responses. Good luck to all of you when you decide you want an option when a business does something you don’t like with a product because clearly you’ll have no one interested in listening to you.

That is a based decision, and something I expect you won’t regret if you stick to it.

Ehhh, I think its probably code for

"We want to try to convince you that this was unintentional and not a calculated business decision that was made with the objective of profit at your expense.

We want you to believe that our multi-billion dollar company did not foresee this even though we have hundreds, if not thousands, of business analysts who work for us globally who definitely suggested this was a possibility in the first 10 minutes of account linking on PC after 4 months being suggested internally.

Also our PR people probably suggested it as a possibility.

Also our legal team probably suggested it as a possibility.

But even though we analyze the industry and the market and the users, and the business, and the case studies, and the marketing, and the games constantly, not stop, day and night, globally; please believe us that we are still trying to learn whats best for PC teehee.

In the future, we will be sure to try to force you into account linking from the beginning with any future release.

Please ignore our transgressions and instead give us money. Goodbye"

+1 for air VPN, using it as well.

Check out revolt chat. It’s an attempt to make a Foss clone of discord.

Sure, i2p or the invisible internet project is a FOSS project which acts as an anonymous network anyone can potentially access, and host on.

It does this by creating end to end encrypted peer to peer tunnels between its users and then sending data through itself via a path between some of the 50,000+ volunteers that make up the project. The path data takes is random so a third party seeing any communication in full is highly unlikely, and even at that, its still encrypted.

The software that implements this is the i2p router, and when using the i2p router you become a node on the network like everyone else using it, allowing pieces of anyone’s data to move through your router, just as your data moves through theirs.

The UX/UI is very good for new users and makes it easy to access, or host. Particularly, to my understanding, i2p is also very popular for torrenting due to the nature of how it works (in comparison to similar projects such as tor, there is an entire built in solution for torrenting included with i2p).

Similar in some ways different in others, actually surprisingly fast for what it does though and I find the user experience a lot nicer than tor.

Calls other guy an anti social loser

Pulled out ad hominem in the same breath

Congratulations, you played yourself hahaha.