KairuByte

I’m with you, blindness has a prevalence rate of 0.2%, fuck them no more image descriptions on Lemmy.

/s if it wasn’t obvious enough

Poop

It’s unprofitable to pay for workers visits to the hospital. Even if you have insurance, which goes up with repeated “accidents”, you’re paying in lost productivity.

Ah, so you’d be the type to say “the majority of Nazis were only going along with Hitler because he was preferred over his competition. You shouldn’t be alienating Nazis who have common ground with you.”

Not normally the type to pull out a nazi/hitler comparison, but seems to fit too well here.

Not failing, but actively ignoring Metas own research that shows Facebook is directly harmful to children and teens.

I’d say actively continuing to harm children should outrank being a jackass and/or incompetence.

Depends on if we consider Zuccer a person.

I’m sorry, you’re claiming that evangelicals, the majority chunk of Trump supporters, are marginalized, unheard and unseen?

Because we refuse to listen to their bullshit?

When a school bully harasses other students, do you shush the victim and console the bully? “But the bully feels like we hate them” well gee, maybe they should stop being an asshole.

“I only reluctantly support the guy saying he will be a dictator, therefore don’t lump me in with the people who happily support him.” 🤦🏻‍♂️

These “ai says” articles are all fluff. You can get an LLM to say just about anything you want. This is akin to “my child says we should eat the neighbor.”

Seed boxes are inherently handling replaceable data, bar unpopular torrents. This is such a silly comparison.

In a perfect world, sure. But in reality, the majority of devices do not have optical zoom. Most recordings of police are done on cellphones, and usually older And/or lower end models that aren’t using optical zoom.

“This recording is inadmissible, it was zoomed in so much it’s impossible to tell with any certainty what is going on.”

Digital zoom is literally just cropping out the rest of the video. You’re not actually zooming in, you’re just losing context.

You can agree with something someone says, and disagree with something else they say or do.

We’ll still be hulks, it just won’t be that incredible.

Oddly I can see neither this reply, nor my original comment, but can reply from my inbox within Voyager.

Relevant: https://youtu.be/ozezG1zpxXQ

You can have the most secure and secret OS in existence, and you’re failing miserably the moment it has unfettered access to the internet.

On the flip side, literally any OS can be secure if it’s airgapped in a sealed room.

There’s a happy medium in there, and that’s where most governments want to be.

I’m sorry to interject, but is it a normal response to blurt out a list of people and groups when you don’t understand what is being said?

When you’re at a party, and someone says something you can’t hear, have you ever just blurted out the names of people at the party?

I don’t understand your thinking here. He either heard him and agreed, or didn’t understand him and decided the best course of action was to just list out names of the opposition. Only one of those makes any sense.

And I have to say, when I heard this without a primer, I fully understood what was being said. As did my wife.

Ah okay, just found it curious. Thanks for lettin me know!

You might want to re-read what my comment said. I explicitly stated “for example.” In fact, you yourself acknowledged that it was an example. If you can’t understand how that isn’t a strawman argument, I’m not really certain how this discussion can continue. Do you not know what an example is? Because at this point I’m wondering if you think it means “I bet you think this,” as it’s the only explanation that makes sense.

If you’re not willing to answer the question, I can only assume it’s because you’re understanding the parallel I’m drawing. Seeing as how you seemingly understand, I think we can safely end this… I suppose we can call it a discussion if you want.

Good day.