Treat ?

Word choice or disagreement with the assertion as a whole?

It could be the loom or it could be laserdisc

I meant ‘forced’ as in ’ forced by their capitalist greed and culture ’ not like there’s an actual threat to anything but the quarterly bonuses of the current golden parachute holder.

Eventually, perhaps they’ll fuck up enough for it to be an existential threat to the company.

I’m the meantime they’ll just continue pretending copilot is a serious contender outside of their walled garden and probably lay off a few thousand people they don’t care about, to balance the numbers.

Edit : “a few days later” - https://lemmy.world/post/48874177

TL;DR;

Capitalists gonna capitalise,

Fiscal gain is always going to be the reason behind decisions, even if it doesn’t seem like it on the face of it.

Especially microsoft, with it’s history.

I’ll preface this with, this is just my opinion etc…

I say must, should, has to, etc with the conviction of my opinion, not proof of objective fact.

i have some insight into the subject/industry but nothing i’d be willing to verify with anyone, so make of that what you will.

It’s less a specific thing to point to and more of a general “profit driven company is going to make profit driven decisions”, even if perceived altruism was deemed the best fiscal decision, the primary goal is still commercial viability.

A full extra year of security updates requires resources.

Unless they are doing something wildly outside the norms of software development, that means development, testing, deployment, hosting, tooling, marketing/PR, support and more.

There’s both CapEx and OpEx costs to that kind of endeavour.

For a product of any size that’s a non-zero resource cost, for a product the size of windows that’s a big number, perhaps not in the grand scheme, but it’s a non-trivial amount.

That is historically not the kind of thing that microsoft would do/has done just for the altruistic benefit of it’s users.

Feel free to provide examples to the contrary, i’d be pleasantly surprised.

So assuming it’s not altruism that drives this decision, the only other conclusion i could come up with was commercial viability/profit/money.

That might be a failure of imagination on my part.

The projected cost of not doing this must outweigh the projected benefit of going through with it.

Be that in goodwill, user/customer retention, PR, straight up sales or something else, there must be a benefit that outweighs the cost of just dropping support.

I could speculate on specifics but it’d mostly be rehashing the thousands of articles on poor decisions (and poor timing) around the whole win 11 rollout and windows in general.

i don’t mean this from an old man shouts at cloud viewpoint, i don’t particularly care for windows(or microsoft) but I’m not a rabid hater.

Microsoft has some good products that i use regularly, despite their constant and repeated attempts to enshittify all of the end user experiences they can in pursuit of fiscal gain.

That being said, the win 11 rollout has been a shambles on many fronts.

Microsoft is forced to provide another year of security updates because a series of historic and ongoing colossal fuckups have made it more commercially viable for them to do so than the alternative.

There is no “give” here, they are doing it for themselves, that the user potentially benefits is incidental.

The argument they were making is poor.

However, moral conviction has no bearing on objective correctness.

Edit: If it did, any voluntarily suicide bomber would be objectively correct.

I’d address the other point but It doesn’t sound like you’re open to viewpoints that are not your own.( and don’t seem to understand what objective truth actually entails )

Edit Edit:

“Cowardly Downvotes Are Bad” is another example of something that is subjective.

I believe it to be true, but that belief doesn’t change the the fact that that statement isn’t objectively correct. ( as in, provably true for everyone regardless of their perspectives or beliefs )

It was originally a mandatory download masquerading as a plugin, you couldn’t remove it.

You could turn it off, except there was a convenient “bug” that meant it took every opportunity to turn itself back on.

They eventually got sick of the complaints (or already had all the data they needed) and “fixed” the bug.

The fact that a bunch of businesses telling them that “an on by default AI plugin that can’t be permanently disabled, catastrophically fails a bunch of mandatory data security guidelines” and that they would not renew, probably also helped jetbrains prioritise better.

Now it’s just a default install on by default. That has it’s own panel functioning as an ad ( until you turn it off )

Not sure if you can fully uninstall it or not.

All of this is in their forums and issues, feel free to confirm.

And I actually like their products, but that was a shitshow.

“One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter” is a concise way that the goodness or badness of an actions or outcomes is filtered through the subjective lens of the whoever happens to be considering the topic.

On an individual level, “don’t be a dick” is a pretty useful guideline , but even that is subject to what each person thinks constitutes dickish behaviour.

We’re social creatures, we have to live in societies, and it’s not difficult to determine pro social vs anti social behaviors.

Even that is subjective, think about what is socially acceptable in Finland?, how about Russia?, Morocco? France?

Do they all have the same idea of socially acceptable behaviours?

How about now vs 50 years ago? 100 years ago? 200 years in the future?.

Sure, there are some that are fairly common, but i wouldn’t consider those to be of a sufficient percentage of the whole that i could disregard behvaioural subjectivity, but that’s just my opinion.

The problem with most things that use good and bad as a foundation is that they never account for perspective.

Good and bad are made up and subjective.

If you don’t account for that in your positions then you’re setting yourself up for fundamentalism.

yeah there’s a bunch f performance bumps you can get with a fixed end platform and a whole company invested in making games that run on their platform perform well.

You can also plug headphone directly in to the controller (although you’ve probably seen that).

nightmare for battery life if your headphones are above average impedance though.

(or maybe it’s just my headphones, i’m not an audio snob, who knows?)

You’re also not mentioning that even the base ps5, which was released 6 years ago, performs better than a Steam Machine.

is that based on the specs or some reviews somewhere ?

edit: nvm, looked it up

6700(ish) for ps5 OG

vs

7600 for steam machine

pretty close , though ps5 probably wins due to very specific optimizations for games compiled for that platform.

I’m seeing 7700xt for ps5 pro, not sure if that’s correct but it certainly beats a 7600.

huh, i knew they used bing under the hood but for some reason it didn’t occur to me that the promotions and ads would bleed through.

that’s an easy one.

google is an ad company, their main customers are the people who buy ads, pretending you need a toilet seat let’s them charge toilet seat makers more to “target” you

https://noai.duckduckgo.com/

I’m not promoting DDG, I don’t use it either, just saying that they do provide a no ai version (currently at least)

Also note that no LLM doesn’t mean no “promoted” listings

It is, but he’s still him, just with more mental health issues.

Sugar is clearly not a necessary part of nutrition. I have several relatives who live completely sugar-free who are feeling better than they ever have. No sugar intake, not even fruit, no carbs that turn into sugar. It’s the LCHF diet. So it’s a pretty good example after all.

Ketogenic and low carb diets aren’t sugar free, they are very low sugar, even grains contain trace amounts of sugars.

But let’s agree to disagree on that one,it’s not particularly important to this general context.

Look, you’re doing your very best at making me out to be the bad guy here.

If you think that me disagreeing with your viewpoint is making you out to be a bad person there’s not much i can do about that.

With your extreme stretching of what I’m saying, that “we as one people on earth” is “still a grouping” but it’s a group consisting of all people? Come on, bruh. Really? That’s just being extreme.

My stance has been that categorization and grouping are core parts so linguistic understanding and communication, so trying to make out that they are only detrimental in their usage is silly.

I keep pointing out your usage of groupings in your attempts to explain why grouping is bad, to emphasise that point.

Claiming hyperbole doesn’t negate your usage of groups, large or small.

I feel like you’re up to some kind of rhetorical abuse here. It’s not sea-lioning, but almost tangential. Breaking down every single detail of what I’m saying, isolating it from its context, then generalizing it. Ignoring the major points. It’s not a pleasant way to have a discussion, friend.

If you want to make broad claims and then insist counterpoints are nitpicking, that’s on you.

If you want to quote a major point you made, with all the context surrounding it, i will point to the direct counter to that.

You know what I’m saying and what you’re doing isn’t cool. Just thought I would let you know. (Also, inb4 “oh oh, it’s not pleasant when you’re WRONG?!” I can see this one coming, so please. I’m saying this knowing full well how it sounds.)

Your opinion of coolness isn’t really a concern, if you don’t want to engage that’s fine, just say so.

Incidentally the pleasantness of a conversation isn’t necessarily tied to the correctness of your (or my) position. If it’s unpleasant for you feel free to disengage.

Look, I’m just calling it out like I see it, that name-calling isn’t productive,

There was no name-calling, quote the section where it happened and i will concede this point.

and I told you I’m focusing on this particular example of calling this person a Luddite and how it isn’t helpful to the conversation at all. There’s no need for grouping one individual in this case. Right? That was my point.

And i used that specific example in my response.

The message i originally replied to is here :

I don’t understand the reason or need to be calling anyone anything, even if it’s accurate. Names for groups of people who think a certain thing only serve to polarize the discourse, at best, or worse, target them with propaganda (aimed at the “other” group).

Creating a “them” is just counterproductive to the conversation and the facts.

I responded to that general statement, when you then wanted to focus on the more specific context, i responded to that.

It seems you don’t want to discuss this with me, that’s fine, pretending to be aggrieved about me responding in general to a specific statement when that’s provably false is “not cool”

I would say that just because it comes naturally to us doesn’t mean it’s what’s best for us. Just like sugar tastes good doesn’t mean it’s good for you.

Thats not a great example because sugar is a necessary part of nutrition.

It is, however a great example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater because if you hear “sugar bad” and then stop all sugar it’s going to cause problems.

Excess sugar is bad, sure, sugar in general, not so much.

Names for groups of people who think a certain thing

You mean like, vegans? Animal rights activists? Conscientious objectors?

Even your example “people who think a certain thing” is a grouping.

We are one people on this earth, even if we have small differences in our needs and circumstances. And we have very common, global problems right now.

Thats still a grouping, it’s just a large one. That can also be a dangerously naive way to go about problem solving.

“They are all the same so the solution for all the people in that group must be the same” gets people killed.

In this particular case, is was not necessary to introduce the fact that a person could be referred to as a “Luddite”. It made no difference and only served to polarize and segregate

Necessary, probably not? , useful, possibly.

That you hear Luddite and think of it as automatically bad might say more about you than the person using the term.

Also segregation is literally the point of grouping and categorisation, again if you think segregation = automatically bad, that might say more about you than you think.

I’d go as far as to say if you see groupings as only a way to be hateful, you might want to consider if your way of thinking is the problem.