I mean surely its a negative? You might like Xbox/switch in spite of the closed ecosystem, but wouldn’t they be better if they had an open ecosystem?
I mean surely its a negative? You might like Xbox/switch in spite of the closed ecosystem, but wouldn’t they be better if they had an open ecosystem?
But then why spend so much money on a phone? I also don’t care about the specs of my phone, but this means I usually buy some $100 phone that gets the job done for a couple years.
I genuinely don’t see a reason why someone would buy an iPhone besides as a fashion accessory/ status symbol
Often the best opportunities in life are the scariest
total overkill
One might consider it the nuuklear option
MQTT is great! There are clients available in Python, JS, etc
I’m sorry but how is a couple million “not rich”
This doesn’t answer the question at all though?
Is the entity an immortal snail?
I like this, but I think that the goal to be tested must be a set of tests which are agreed upon by a large majority, not just the current party in power. That way there can be tests as to how effective the law is, but also tests whether it is having other unwanted side effects.
You are stating strawmen: facts with no relevance to the argument presented, which you then point to and refuse to address the actual argument.
I never claimed to know what any individual needs, but you have started it as a fact as if that is at all relevant. It’s not, because I never claimed it. I claimed that I know that the vast majority of people need, based on basic science and statistics. If you have fact which actually argued against that, then please go ahead. But unrelated facts posing as arguments are strawman arguments, and are bad faith.
I of course don’t know what any specific person needs, but knowing what the vast majority of people need is trivial, it’s basic science.
Please stop arguing is such bad faith in every response you make.
It might be a fact, but it’s being used as an argument to make a specific point. These things are not exclusive.
And my question stands, why is it being used as an argument when it has no relevance?
I really don’t see how they are strawmen. The vast majority of people do not need meat, the reason they eat meat is because it tastes good. Taste is merely one of our senses, why is it ok to kill to enjoy the taste, but not ok to enjoy the sound or sight? That’s what the meme is getting at.
Nature playing out
Why is this an argument, when it isn’t an acceptable reason for anything else? Rape, murder, thievery are all things that most people see as wrong, despite them happening in nature plenty.
One of the things that makes humans unique is our ability to consider logic and mortality beyond what happens in nature, because nature certainly isn’t perfect.
Mosquitos have been causing humans harm since forever. If the vegan idea is too reduce harm then maybe vegans should be obligated to kill the sadistic little fuckers
I was trying to rank up in Codewars, and there was a 1kyu (hardest and worth the most points) kata only available in OCaml, so I learned it in order to solve.
If we had to have a video game dictator, he wouldn’t be the worst