This comment feels like playing stupid to such an absurd degree that the argument loses any semblance of thought and you sound like you're yelling at clouds.

Obviously being a slave is not the same as being a millionaire. If you make your argument this reductionist then you don't even sound human anymore, let alone well reasoned.

99% of the crap and fraud comes from ads, aka Google. Thanks, Google. Just run an ad blocker, there goes most of the scams you'll see.

Also putting QR codes before every webpage doesn't make the web less shitty. It obviously makes it more shitty. And this will 100% be used for fraud. Phishing websites can get away with QR codes now, great.

> the internet experience for a majority of the population

> Just run an ad blocker,

This reads as "I am fine, so you should be fine". The median internet user has a phone so chock full of cancerous malware.

And if a tool gets good enough to interfere with tech firms ad revenue, they find ways to stop it. See whats happening to ad blockers.

I don't understand this position at all. In the console space, Nintendo makes the cheapest console and it's not even that close. The switch originally launched at 300 dollars. Keep in mind their competitors are well into 700+ dollar land.

The steam deck is more expensive as well, and the switch 2 is much more powerful than the steam deck.

Both the gnome project and KDE have HI guidelines.

Also, I don't understand how this is magically better on mac os. Mac os doesn't have electron apps? Get real, it's the same bullshit on every desktop OS. At least we can all agree it's more consistent than windows.

There's no QT vs GTK situation on Mac. Windows has more of a mix of UI, but at least compatibility tends to be preserved.

Besides that, macOS and Windows each only have one DE and one window system. So in tutorials or IT help, it's enough info to specify that you're using "Mac" or maybe "Mac Tahoe," not "Linux, Debian Trixie, KDE Plasma, on Wayland." Not to mention hardware-specific issues, though those aren't Linux's fault.

But how? You can install Linux and android apps on chrome os. I understand this perspective might intuitively make sense, but we need to analyze if it's actually true.

In the case of air travel where you're, presumably, going to travel either way, I think it can work out. But it only works out if you travel A LOT. Even a moderate amount of travel means you don't win out with the cost of membership.

There are no-fee 2% cards out there

Kind of, but one benefit of TUIs is text buffering. Part of the reason you were able to go lightning fast in those old TUIs is your inputs would be buffered and then replayed when the application become responsive. Inputs weren't dropped, so even if you were moving faster than the application could keep up (or the network) it would still function predictably.

This was mostly lost in web applications and most desktop applications. Inputs are dropped and lost during processes, page refresh or navigation. It means that while these applications can sometimes be used with a keyboard, they can't be used reliably or predictably. The same inputs would have different effects based on the time of day or network load.

It could be the Pepsi sip test problem. Pepsi does well in sip testing, better than coke, but most people report liking coke better. Why? Pepsi is slightly sweeter, which means it tastes better for the first sip or two. But, in the long run, coke wins out because it's a bit less sweet and therefore more tolerable for a whole drink.

It's possible they tested touch screens with people using prototypes and whatnot but did not do their due diligence to test it long-term. On first impression, touch screens seem cool, futuristic, and flashy. It's really only when you try to daily drive the car that you realize they're annoying and a regression from physical buttons.

But, they present very well on sales room floors and car shows.

My guess is simpler. They didn't do much user study before going all screen. Tesla led the way.

Then, a few people inside Mercedes hated the idea and forced a study group to prove their point.

I had a longer response, but deleted it, because ultimately it comes down to: I view all people to have inherantly equal value. The article implies something else.

Everyone does have inherently equal value, but our systems are structured in such a way to advantage particular people more. That's just the reality of it.

Yes ideally we would want to live in a world where the patriarchy doesn't exist, or where whiteness as a concept doesn't exist. But we are not in that world. So when we have movements such as these, we have to understand they're not coming from a place of unfairness or inequality. They're coming from a place of the establishment, the status-quo, the power, wishing to maintain their power.

You don't get any moral highground here, sorry. It's not as simple as those who believe in equal value versus those who don't. The world is complicated, such as naive and simple world view as the equalivent of "I don't see color" doesn't hold up to any amount of scrutiny or analysis. You may not wish to see it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It’s pretty easy to value everyone equally. Just sort by distance

Christians are not being victimized by other people calling them stupid or whatever. We have religious freedom, people are allowed to believe whatever they want. That doesn't mean that everyone has to keep silent, though.

Ironically, the only people victimizing Christians are grifters like this dude, who promise and sell them something they don't need and that won't work. This phone network grift is no different than those TV pastors who own private jets.