I can't speak for the dogmatic, as I don't know who they are. Certainly, there are Linux fanbois. There are Windows fanbois. God knows there are Apple fanbois. All of them preach the religion of their chosen OS. Meh. I like Linux. I use it on my home desktop, and have been doing so for two decades. That doesn't mean its the best OS for everyone. As I said in my post, use what works for you.

Oh horse feathers. Linux is a joke only to the extent that all operating systems are a joke. The Gnome file picker is a meme? How long has the BSOD been a meme? Yes, there are things about Linux that are broken and infuriating. There are things about Windows and macOS that are broken and infuriating as well. They are different things, but there are just as many of them. If you like Windows, it's probably just because you're more familiar with it and more knowledgeable in how to work around its quirks and limitations. That's fine. Use what works for you. But don't pretend that Windows is somehow superior when it's simply different.

I think that for many people, that's a distinction without a difference. Most of the people on here are pretty tech savy and can fairly easily navigate the labyrinth of prompts and confirmations they put up. I suspect a lot of less technical people get so confused they simply give up. If something is so confusing that you can't accomplish it, doesn't that mean it's hard to successfully complete?

How much of that is the music service and how much is cheap speakers with a cheap amp in a cheap car?

There is only one important question here: Can I still play Desktop Tower Defense?

Because a frame work is a general purpose construction that is written without any idea of what the final product may be. As such, it has to offer all sorts of possibilities and capabilities that are not useful and not relevant to the actual product being produced. If I can write a piece of software that does exactly and precisely what my project requires, that may be significantly faster than a similar piece of software that does what my project requires AND what his project requires AND what her project requires ...

The number of kills for drunk driving are probably too high. If you have a couple of beers and someone completely sober jumps the curb and runs you over while you're walking down the sidewalk, it goes down as an alcohol-related accident. Meanwhile, the statistics for COVID are probably being under-counted. The number of deaths for this year are around 260,000 above what would be expected. The majority of those are probably related to COVID in some fashion, even if the virus isn't the direct cause.

??? Really? You see my tag line and you think I'm a communist?

Uhm, no, that's not even wrong. Objective reality is what exists outside of human analysis or evaluation. Meaning doesn't exist in objective reality. The objective reality of text is that it is atoms of ink attached to thin sheets of wood pulp or it is magnetic variations on a hard drive disk or whatever other physical form it takes. There's no meaning to any of that. Meaning only emerges when a human being analyzes the form of the text in the context of a shared but arbitrary definition of language, etc. It exists only within the human mind. You can't find it in a lab. That's subjective. Any time you start talking about intent or meaning or any other aspect of human brain function, you are out of the realm of the objective and into the subjective.

You're looking for the No True Scotsman fallacy. But that isn't applicable here. It's not a fallacy to say that no true vegetarian would eat a steak. It's perfectly fine to be skeptical and question orthodoxy. It's perfectly fine to say that the value of hydroxychloroquine in combating COVID 19 hasn't been completely determined yet. It's fine to say that it needs more study or that it should be investigated more as a potential treatment. It is NOT fine to say that it will cure the disease without strong evidence of that. If you do that, you are violating the fundamental principles of medical research. You are violating what it means to be a doctor. You are a quack. No fallacy involved.

They can? That's why no one saw this video, you can't find it now and there have been no links to it in the comments on this story. Damn you, Tech Companies! How dare you hide this from me?

I see. So if I'm making a movie about Martin Luther King Jr. and I state that I want a black actor to play him and reject all white actors who apply for the role, then I"m a racist? That's your claim?

It's more than that. In many contexts, objective reality doesn't EXIST. I believe there is some sort of objective reality out there, although physics strongly suggests that it isn't nearly as concrete as we'd like to believe and that our senses give us a pretty distorted view of it. But there is nothing in that objective reality, whatever shape it may take, that can be labeled 'racism.' Even more fundamentally, there is nothing there that can be called 'right' or 'wrong' in the moral sense. These things are labels that human consciousness applies to things, and they exist solely within our subjective consciousness. There is no definitive answer, even in theory. There is only personal opinion and there never will be and never can be anything more.

It's reasonable to criticize people for spouting opinions or comments about the article without reading it. But the point of GPs post was that the summary should make sense and explain esoteric terms, so I can decide if I'm interested enough to RTFA. That's a basic rule of journalism.

Yeah, and that would also explain the struggles of all the other publications, like the LA Times, too right? It's all Open Source's fault. https://www.niemanlab.org/2019...