Also, every single name that gets released is a name that Trump was ok with releasing. From my pov, it just turns it into a more effective blackmail tool. He’s not afraid of what’s in the files. If it was going to ruin him, it would have already done so.

Instead it just shows others who know they are in the files that a) he’s one of them (if they didn’t already know), b) that he can protect them, c) he isn’t protecting everyone in the files just because of point a.

Hate to be realizing this, but I think everyone who thought the release of the Epstein files would help anything got played. Just like everyone who thought the Mueller investigation would threaten his first term or result in making a second term impossible.

So yeah, they built a new product and tried to force everyone to use it, when it had no improvements for the users whatsoever. And surprise, no one is excited to use it.

Yeah, for a while I was looking for any benefits to moving from win 10 to 11. 7 to 10 had kernel and scheduler improvements, for example.

Only ones I could find were the virtual desktop support (though I had an alternative desktop back in the XP or Vista days that supported that, so not really groundbreaking), and WSL, which I didn’t have any use cases for.

Other than that, it was just shit I didn’t want. Copilot, recall, more UI changes that don’t really add anything (on my work laptop where I didn’t have a choice, first thing I did was go into the UI options and undo as much as I could). One of the things I used to like about windows was that it wasn’t a mac, but the UI changes look like that’s their inspiration. The inspired folks porbably all left already.

I like that Linux isn’t designed for the lowest common denominator. Windows frustrated me as much with the stuff that was designed for the stupid as the stuff that was designed to make them money, just the second one ended up dominating in the end. But I remember the earlier frustrations often having the thought “I bet they just changed this to reduce support calls from people who don’t know wtf they are doing”.

I had an upgrade plan for my PC that involved a step up to a 4k monitor, but when the time came, it was hard enough just finding a 4k monitor with decent specs that I stopped to really think about whether I would really benefit from it. I already knew I didn’t need it, but I realized that I wouldn’t even really gain anything from it. I already used the UI scaling with the one 4k monitor I had at work, so that was a wash. And for games, I didn’t really have any times when I wished the resolution was higher than the 1440p I was already using, but I did have times when I wished it would generate the frames faster or more consistently.

Part of the change was a new GPU to handle 4k better (they were supposed to justify each other), but I ended up just getting an ultrawide 1440p monitor instead.

I don’t think I’ll ever bother with higher than 4k for TV or 1440p for PC.

That’s the closest I’ve been able to think about for why people turn to puritanical values in the first place: jealousy that others can do fun things they think they can’t, plus maybe a second layer of being upset that some aren’t also upset about it.

Oh wait, I almost forgot about the control angle, where if you can convince enough people that some normal and ok aspect about humanity is actually wrong, then you can catch people “slipping” and manipulate them via guilt or blackmail.

Puritanical bs has nothing to do with morals, as much as some like to pretend it does. What harm are you trying to call out or prevent?

I think the tech industry got used to people not giving a fuck as they shoveled more and more anti-features with weak “feature” reasoning to back it up (like convenience of having all your files in one place to justify continual data transfer between the device and their servers, processing audio remotely to justify sending an audio feed, “you can access your history” to justify saving the history, etc) that they are surprised that there’s pushback as it enters this new level.

This feels like similar energy to getting outraged about a tan suit.

Were all involved parties consenting? That’s the only thing that matters.

Plus on the optics side, we’ve yet to see if being in the Epstein files is bad enough optics for CEOs, so I think “signed something on an adult woman’s boobs when she most likely specifically requested/offered it” is entirely a non-issue.

Though there is nothing stopping anyone from pausing a movie partway through and returning to it later.

Even though I said that, I am more reluctant to start watching a movie because of that time commitment, but I have done that when I did start some movies but wasn’t really feeling like I could stay interested in the moment.

Yeah, that use of them makes sense, as a method to churn out hypotheses. But their wording suggests to me that they might not have been created for that purpose (Hanlon’s uses the word “never”) and I think the vast majority of the time I see people invoking them in discussions is to try to discredit another comment, not to explain why they are presenting a hypothesis (in fact, once you have the hypothesis, the brainstorming method used to get there isn’t really relevant anymore, next step should be determining ways to support or oppose that hypothesis).

It’s just frustrating seeing people quoting razors as if they are supporting evidence, and that is the pseudologic part.

I’ll also point out that “pseudoscience” or “pseudologic” doesn’t mean it’s useless, just that it isn’t as profound as many seem to believe it is.

Everything AI boom is likely a lie, and Nvidia bribing Trump to sell H200s to China, at 25% export tariff, is proof of incapacity or unwillingness of US industry to deploy them.

I’d love for you to be right (I’d like to see nvidia compete as an underdog since they are fairly anticompetitive in their dominant position) but think this reasoning is flawed.

Wanting to sell to China just means that demand isn’t exceeding supply, or maybe even that they have access to more supply that they’d use if they could sell to China, which is a massive market. Or even if they don’t have any excess supply, higher demand means they can set higher prices and still expect to sell all inventory.

Like the US car companies wanting to sell cars in China doesn’t imply that they are unable to sell cars in the US, it just means they want to sell cars to China and the US.

I agree with the rest of your comment and think it was well said, sorry about this nitpick.

The thing that makes it more suspect IMO is that shareholders voted for it, not just the board. Courts specifically said they didn’t need to but shareholders (dominated by large account holders) still voted for it.

Eh, I find driving auto a bit boring compared to MT.

I also like being able to specifically control my gear by default and not needing to rely on torque vs how much gas I’m giving it, though understand that there are semi-auto paddle shift cars out there that can do the same. I acknowledge that the better performance argument has been false for a long time (at least when looking at auto transmissions in cars where performance is a focus).

It’s mostly about it being more fun/enjoyable (even stop and go). Though, I drive a Nissan, and their MT is more reliable than their CVT, so there is at least one practical advantage in addition to the “potential thief can’t drive stick, might not even get car started let alone moving” scenario.

Anyone else feel like Tesla is actually how Elon is being paid for being the one to make twitter fascist and the DOGE bs? Like the majority of shareholders don’t actually gaf how the company does and the billion dollar compensation package had nothing to do with Tesla other than it being the vehicle through which the payment was made?

I consider the whole set of razors to be pseudologic. Just because something helps pick a conclusion regardless of context doesn’t mean it helps pick the correct conclusion.

I also don’t get why they seem to be popular with people who like to act scientific, because they seem very unscientific to me.

But yeah, hanlon’s is specifically stupid and I suspect it was popularized precisely because it advocates a default level of reasonable doubt for malicious people to hide in.

Their “cause” is obviously just continuing to grift the dumbasses that think beliefs need accessories. They aren’t really maga and might have even sold rainbow flags and the like from a different website, and probably regularly sell overpriced trinkets with local and regional attraction themes to tourists who feel like they need to complete their vacation with souvenirs.

I’d argue that SEO was one of the biggests causes of search result degradation and consider any complaints coming from them as highly suspect due to conflicting interests. Eg, a change that makes it harder to game the search engine algorithms is good for searchers but bad for SEOs.

I hope the whole industry dies (or already is? I don’t hear much about it these days lol). They are just marketers whose whole job is to get you to look at their shit instead of the most relevant results.

Why do you think the encryption capabilities on your PC are there for your sake? They might have sold them to you on that, but they are really there to protect copyright data because TPM allows encryption/decryption that is completely hidden from the rest of your system. Like an encrypted handshake that then transfers an encrypted key to decrypt the video stream. But it doesn’t save the decrypted data, it immediately re-encrypts it using your display’s private key (or whatever device is next in the chain, maybe your GPU). They can make it so that the unencrypted stream never touches your RAM or travels on any wire, which means you can’t pirate shows as you watch them unless you point a camera at your screen.

Obviously if they just said that was one of the main points, no one would want it and media companies couldn’t benefit from it because they’d have to compromise to sell content.

The other point was so that they could build a system where they hold the encryption keys and get to choose whose data is actually private. Obviously that’s an even harder sell.

So they did what marketers always do and lied by omission about what it was for and just outright lied if they ever said they’d never give the keys to law enforcement (did they ever even say that?).

Let go of the idea that someone selling something to you implies any kind of loyalty, especially when either party is a large corporation.

For some soups, a great way to serve them is to toast a thick slice of one of the uncut loaves (so you can cut it thick), then place it in the middle of a wide bowl and serve the soup on top of that. Sometimes, you put another sauce that harmonizes well with the souo on the bread, first.

Then you eat it as the soup absorbs into the bread, experiencing a combination of soggy and dry bread textures along with the flavour of the broth (and sauce, if present).

It wouldn’t work with a standard loaf of bread, as both the slices and the bread itself aren’t thick enough to keep it from quickly going fully soggy. Breaking crackers or dipping toast into soup are pale imitations (ok, dipping toast isn’t that far off, but I still prefer a good thick piece of toast).

Also, if you take a baguette and cut it into thinner slices then toast/bake those slices, you end up with a much cheaper version of those artisan crackers that are just dried pieces of baguette.

Also, look up beef wellington for one of the more extreme uses of non-standard bread.