stu

I think you got hit hard by Poe's Law here. Except it's more like people couldn't tell if you were jokingly or genuinely getting your math wrong... Even after you explained you were joking lol

I would encourage people to code switch rather than adhere to one style of language over another in every case. Imho, it's kind of problematic that language itself has become racialized in America to the point where people can actually be criticized or made fun of for speaking in the "wrong" style associated with their perceived ethnic background.

I think they're great for giving OEMs extra incentive to ensure that Linux runs well on the hardware and providing consumers a slightly cheaper option. If I knew I wasn't going to need Windows at all, I'd definitely go the Ubuntu route, but there's software I use that doesn't run on WINE, so I'd personally be more inclined to get a laptop with a Windows license bundled in.

By that logic, there's nothing guaranteeing iMessage on iPhones is secure or private either because it's closed source. If you don't want to trust Beeper mini, you'll be free to run their iMessage bridge on your own Matrix stack when they open source it at some point, which they're promising to do (and you still won't know that Apple isn't scraping your messages on the iOS side). When I decide to trust a company, it's because I look at what they're transparently communicating to their end users. Every indication is that they are trying to get out of the middle of handling encrypted messages. Their first move to make this happen was allowing people to self host their own Beeper bridges (which you can still do with Beeper Cloud if you prefer and you will know that your messages are always encrypted within the Beeper infrastructure). They aren't going to release the source for their client ever because that's the only way they make any money.

It all starts with defining what morality means. The way I would define morality is behaviors that maximize flourishing for sentient creatures and minimize suffering. While it is clearly difficult to quantify flourishing and suffering, there are behaviors that clearly cause suffering in this world and impede the opportunity for flourishing and, by the above definition of morality, are plainly immoral. The way I see it, rejecting the possibility that flourishing and suffering can be quantified at all is the only argument that can be made against moral absolutism. Everything else is just quibbling over relevant variables across the spectrum of available behaviors to determine what makes them more or less moral. There is always a behavior that is objectively the more moral choice, but it might be difficult in practice to determine which is the more moral choice due to a lack of available relevant data. The absence of said data shouldn't be assumed to be because it doesn't/can't exist, but rather that it hasn't been collected. Rejecting the idea that there is always a more moral behavior amongst several choices is the dangerous assumption, imo.

I've never heard a rational defense of moral relativism that made any sense. If there are no moral truths, then serial killers have done nothing wrong for example. If a moral relativist admits that there are some moral truths, then moral relativism is completely indefensible. At that point, you're just arguing over what is and what is not a moral truth.

Yeah, I'm holding on to the lifetime grandfathered premium and don't foresee myself using anything else until they end it.

I stopped paying for YouTube the moment Google killed Google Play Music and forced YouTube Music on me. Now Google gets no money from me and Apple does because they still offer a true music library service.

He probably doesn't deserve a devil's advocate, but that said, I'm pretty sure Louis didn't masturbate in public, but rather during phone calls and in private in front of unconsenting or at least not explicitly consenting company, from the accounts I've read. I'm not defending it because it's abusive and wrong, but it's also not quite the same thing as masturbating in public.

Ah, I'll be honest, I don't actually read these emails closely often, but you're right. Looking now through my inbox archive, I see that Amazon added an "I don't know the answer" link in their email sometime between April and May of 2019. It looks like initially they had the text somewhat smaller for the "I don't know the answer" link, but they seem to have increased the text size to match the "Answer/Respond to this question" link sometime between February and March 2020. At any rate, those emails were going out for many years before 2019 without an "I don't know..." link and I think they could still probably make it clearer to people what they're actually doing by posting "I don't know" as an answer.

Yeah, I would really like to see them either stop doing that or make it very clear in their email that you should only respond if you know the answer to the question.

If the Boston marathon bombing had happened within a year prior to this I might understand, but come on...