Thanks for the extra info, especially about the family's great care and communication. But one correction: the victim was a woman.

Yep. Disney tried a similar tactic, citing the Disney+ terms of service when one of their guests suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a restaurant at one of their parks. Disney wanted to use the ToS to send the case to arbitration, but relented.

What I meant was that Windows users just expect pretty much everything to be controllable via a GUI. They don't do CLI, even though for some uncommon tasks it is essential. Just like almost all Linux distros that have GUIs for most common things, but not all.

I can't give you a better reason because I'm not the OP. I'm not sure the OP actually has one, other than GUIs being somewhat self-describing in terms of available options. And I can relate to that. But it only takes you so far. Point-and-click becomes point-and-grunt after you gain facility with a system. It replaces a 102-key device with a 2-key device that limits you to what a GUI designer has allowed you to access.

I'd suspect the initialization/configuration steps in the sound subsystem or its audio clients, not the GUI. But I could be wrong.

I have seen similar glitches happen in Windows that "just go away" when you reboot or reattach devices.

What part of Gödel's work do you mean? His Incompleteness Theorem? Because that's not relevant.

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem reveals that axiomatic systems cannot, within themselves, reveal all true statements via proof-arguments: being true is a broader category than being provable.

I'm talking about how we cannot determine whether an individual can make more than one free choice under given pre-choice starting-conditions because you cannot duplicate the identical pre-choice starting-conditions in order to find out.

So, you're saying my "test" for free will (assuming we could carry it out, which I claim we can't) could fail to show free will, even if it exists, if a person chooses the same thing every time. In that situation, I would say you cannot tell the difference between someone with free will who always chooses the same thing and someone without free will who in fact has no option but to choose the same thing. And again, we're back to being unable to show the existence of free will.

As I said, I don't think there is a way to settle the question of whether one actually has a choice. And I'm not hearing you say there is one either. Claiming that predictable behavior does not rule out choice does nothing to support the existence of such a choice.

For someone raised on Windows, it just is.

And as others here have pointed out, there are many Linux distros that probably will support Iamthecheese's common tasks in GUIs.

How old were the distros you tried? I just googled and found someone who uses an AE-5 with Linux kernel 6.6.9 as of January 2024. No problems.

Or better still: Slim Whitman's Indian Love Call.

Forgive my rewording of your post: you appear to claim that non-quantum physics is essentially deterministic and therefore does not support the concept of free will, whereas quantum mechanics proposes an uncertainty in the universe that may be fundamental, and thus supports free will.

I'm a physicist, not a philosopher. This discussion mostly is in the philosopher's bailiwick. So, with that disclosure, let's move on.

Compatibilists are those who reconcile determinism with free will by claiming that a person has free will even if their mental state is the consequence of deterministic processes. This sounds as though they claim free will is an illusion, but our legal system demands that people take responsibility for their actions, so perhaps we're forced to accept this illusion.

However, non-deterministic quantum theory does not necessarily support free will. The strictest non-deterministic interpretation that I know of is the Copenhagen interpretation, which states that a system does not have definite physical properties until it is measured. The mind could make measurements of the external world and still be induced to follow certain patterns as a consequence of them. The initial uncertainty may again present the illusion of free will without it actually being present.

In the end, free will is something that may be impossible to prove is present, because that would require that you could make more than one distinct choice from exactly the same initial conditions, and you cannot conduct such an experiment, because any attempt to offer the same choice more than once could not hide the history of prior choices.

One. Last. Time.

You said that all religions are cults and all cults are religions.

I say that not all religions are cults and not all cults are religions.

And we'll have to leave it at that.

Interesting. Is he really counting on his wife's resuscitation, or is he just a widower with baggage?

I wonder whether the "utilitarian" perspective he has now will fade over time. He's being a bit of a dick right now, but if his new partner is okay with it, then I'm not sure we can argue.

I didn't see anything about his dating profile in TFA, so I assume that's your speculation.

Cryogenics preserved his late wife's body. It did not guarantee that she could be resuscitated. I doubt she can anyway. Even if she could, how long would he have to wait for it to be possible? Would he even live long enough to see the technology created?

In short, his wife is dead. Let him get back on the market.

You ignored what I wrote.

You (essentially) said all religions are cults and all cults are religions, by wrapping them in circular definitions. I claim that not all religions are cults, and not all cults are religions.

Religions are like clubs. There are certain rules you need to follow in order to join. A religion (or any other organization) is a cult when those rules become abusive. The BITE model identifies what sorts of rules might be identified as abusive. The point at which you consider a group to be a cult is somewhat personal, but usually happens when you consider the collection of apparently abusive characteristics to pass a threshold you decide on.

You pointed out some existing religions as having cult-like characteristics. I agree that the Church of Scientology is a cult, and that the Church of Mormon certainly shows some cult-like aspects -- particularly with its strict rules on tithing, missionary work, behavioral restrictions, control of access to worship spaces to those deemed worthy, and so on. However, those are just two examples. There are plenty of religious groups that don't apply that kind of control on their members, allow them to leave the organization if they wish and suffer no exit-cost, and generally provide fellowship and encouragement, not punishment and judgement.

And there are plenty of cults that are not religions. They can be: political; self-improvement, therapy, or personal-development organizations; pyramid-marketing schemes; and so on.

And for the record, I'm not religious. I just object to painting groups with a broad brush.

No, I "got" what you were saying. I just didn't agree with it. Not all religions are cults, and not all cults are religions.

The characteristics of a cult are more complex than you claim. See the link I provided.

There are more detailed ways to measure whether a group has cult-like characteristics. See the BITE model, for example.