Custoslibera@lemmy.world to Memes@lemmy.ml · 1 year agoDon't recall ever having this explained to me...lemmy.worldimagemessage-square51fedilinkarrow-up1307arrow-down184
arrow-up1223arrow-down1imageDon't recall ever having this explained to me...lemmy.worldCustoslibera@lemmy.world to Memes@lemmy.ml · 1 year agomessage-square51fedilink
minus-squareGladaed@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoI would disagree on them calling them defective. This is unnecessarily confrontational. I would rather say the neglige their existence while using the simplest useful model. They should consider if a better model might be more appropriate.
minus-squareOurToothbrush@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down5·1 year ago I would disagree on them calling them defective. This is unnecessarily confrontational. That is only one or the reasons it is wrong to call them defective. They arent defective.
minus-squareGladaed@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoReading comprehension. I did not say so.
I would disagree on them calling them defective. This is unnecessarily confrontational.
I would rather say the neglige their existence while using the simplest useful model. They should consider if a better model might be more appropriate.
That is only one or the reasons it is wrong to call them defective. They arent defective.
Reading comprehension. I did not say so.