That’s fine. There will always be some niche / industrial software that someone needs Windows for.

Yeah.

There’s waaay worse things you can catch.

Yeah.

I mean I didn’t buy $15 in bitcoin 15 years ago (have never bought any, never will), and I’m not obsessed about it.

Is it really any different for this guy?

I don’t “get you” because your argument is non-sensical.

You’re saying that you want a legal system where everyone receives the same treatment but then in the same breath arguing that an exception should be made for Luigi because Trump hasn’t been punished.

I dislike it.

Pretty sure my instance blocks it.

I believe it’s counter productive and stifles engagement.

I don’t necessarily dislike “AI” but I reserve the right to be derisive about inappropriate use, which seems to be pretty much every use.

Using AI to find pertoglyphs in Peru was cool. Reviewing medical scans is pretty great. Everything else is shit.

If it doesn’t work then quick cheap and easy I’d pointless.

I’ll make you dinner every night for free but one night a week it will make you ill. Maybe a little maybe a lot.

You raise a good point.

I’m much the same in that I just refuse to watch anything with ads. They really are dystopian and weird.

I also get that same feeling when I see someone just grinding through youtube ads, but people that do that just don’t seem to have any awareness of the interaction - it’s just part of the show.

The weirdest of all is when people (usually brave browser enthusiasts?) try to claim that “some” ads are actually a good thing because it makes them aware of some product they actually desire which they wouldn’t have been aware of otherwise. I’ll take blissful ignorance thanks.

So yes, I can imagine people doing this stuff without really thinking about it.

Yeah this is me. It’s been just perfect for many years now.

There’s just no way I’m ever going to do this.

Honestly, I’d rather go forage for twigs and berries than interact with ads.

Naming things is complicated.

It’s not really a case where some organisation has the authority to name something. Rather people just call something a name, and organisations adopt that name.

Nah. If it’s a choice between GrapheneOS on a pixel or an iPhone I’d take my chances with the pixel.

It would be pretty easy to detect if there was unexpected traffic with any google services.

You do you but IMO Graphene is your best chance in 2025.

What’s the alternative?

If only there were some way you could kind of refer viewers to the primary documentation for the project.

It’s not that it’s uncommon, but slightly different for each project.

I collated library would be kinda cool.

That said, I don’t know how much utility this project would have.

Settle down mate.

I didn’t say defaced websites are going to take down the government.

My implication was that it would be more effective than ranting on social media.

Yeah. I’ve only spent a few moments skimming through the linked article but if you were part of a legitimate hacktivism group planning a significant operation why would you publish this statement ?

It’s really just spooky hyperbole - as though written by an adolescent that want’s to sound scary and powerful.

I would absolutely love to see hacktivists cause some chaos, and maybe even some real financial harm.

I’m not going to write off hacktivism so quickly.

Even if it’s just a few defaced websites now and then, that’s a whole lot more effective than any other sort of activism I’ve seen to date.

you ‘equally’ refuse to allow the punishment of defendant by returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict

That’s not what equally means. The same law needs to be applied to everyone. Making exceptions creates inequality.

Luigi was acting in self defense

If that is Luigi’s legal defense then the jury needs to weigh the evidence of that claim and if supported of course they would return a not-guilty verdict. That’s not jury nullification.

‘not guilty’, regardless of the letter of the law.

This is, quite obviously, a corruption of the legal process. If jury nullification is an intended feature of the legal process then why aren’t jurors instructed to find the defendant guilty, not-guilty, or exempt? Why don’t defense attorneys tell jury’s that the application of the law in this case is unjust and therefore they should find the defendant not guilty?

Your fixation with DeSiGnInG RoBuSt sYsTeMs is absurd. It doesn’t support your position in any way. I could just as well say that you obviously don’t have a job that requires much thought or requires you to consider complex problems with unquantifiable ethical aspects.

You thinking about this for a long time also does not support your position in any way. People can believe in all sorts of nonsense their entire lives. The inflexibility and inability to support your position is a pretty good indicator that you haven’t really thought about this but merely like how the concept feels.