It was not set up to succeed, either.

So the issue you have is with the wording, not the sentiment ?

Then let's get those words in a form you'll understand.

"so many other good tools out there that don’t actively and routinely introduce "features" and "options" that increase the potential surface area for attacks and bugs, often to introduce anti-consumer functionality to the detriment of user experience."

To avoid confusion, i'm talking about Microsoft as a whole, their ecosystem in general and the list of easily findable examples of them doing sketchy shit to push ads, data collection and other anti-consumer nonsense.

I appreciate the answer but that's not at all what i asked.

I have anecdotes and personal experience i could cite but that's not particularly helpful in a general sense.

Pointing to claude submissions in projects is actively less than helpful in this case because it only proves that single files in isolation look like they are well written, it gives no indication of overall project quality.

People that I know to be good developers have also shared their experiences with it and say yes, it has written good code for them. I’ve personally used ChatGPT to generate very mundane tasks and the code it output was more than adequate.

So in a very limited context the code generated for you personally was acceptable, that's great, i've found much the same, but that's a far cry from "AI writes great code; I think we just want it to suck."

It's somewhat my bad though, when i say "citation" i don't need a full research paper (though that would be nice) i'd like something a bit more substantial than a "trust me bro".

It introduces security bugs and subtle bugs at probably the same rate as a human (I have no “citation” there, just what I’ve seen)

That's a load-bearing probably, my experience has been the polar opposite of that, I’ve been involved in two major AI initiatives and both choked hard on security and domain bugs. That could very well be a project management or company specific issue, hence the search for successful projects to compare.

My quest continues.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves in to."

Though it is occasionally possible to point out how their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny and get them to engage on it.

Only works with the ones not doing it on purpose, however.

Hope this helps <3

It does and your points are valid, but i'll respond to a couple if you don't mind.

Honestly, if someone is truly aware of the horrors of the animal agriculture industry and is totally fine with it, I would be very, very surprised.

As would i (outside of the sociopath possibility you also mention) , i was thinking more along the lines of people who fully understand and then accept it as something they can live with.

The comparisons of the meat industry to electronics i mostly agree with, except for this last part, not because it's incorrect as such, i just didn't provide enough context.

Melting metal, pouring it into moulds to make circuitry, etc. doesn’t hurt anyone directly, it’s capitalism and the drive for maximal profits which cause issues in electronics. I’m a huge proponent for the abolition of capitalism for this reason too.

I mentioned electronics because it's easy for people to at least shallowly understand how much they use them, what's not so obvious is the horrors of how they are produced, in a similar way to how people as a whole don't really understand how the meat industry is run.

Long before the metal pouring and assembly you have the rare earth elements industry that uses horrific limb-removing slave work camps to extract these minerals. it's not all of them, but it's significantly more than zero.

There are also cartel like warlords involved in some of the extraction sites.

Think of it as a similar situation to conflict diamonds, but more entrenched and critical to nation state interests.

I mentioned cobalt because it's the easiest to find credible documentaries, reports and discussions about, but it's not just cobalt.

Honestly a lot of the big industries are supported by modern day slavery and inhumane conditions or experimentation, i would also assume that extends to the non-human animals as well but i can't honestly speak to that.

Textiles (clothes, shoes, trainers), agriculture (avocado's have cartels because of course they do, coffee), pharmaceuticals, non-meat food (chocolate for example).

I keep coming back to the phrase "There is no ethical consumerism under capitalism" which aligns with your stance on the abolition of capitalism, but i tend to think of it as there is no ethical consumerism in general (at least right now) because i can't think of a way we could ethically overcome the sheer density of population using the level of logistical technology we have available and that's not even taking into account the (subjective) apparent nature of how human's deal with such large populations.

But me not being able to see how we make the jump from now to a post scarcity, fully equitable society is almost certainly just a failure of my imagination.

My main question is how do people seem to be able to decide they can live with limbless kid electronics but slave labour clothes are too far, cartel avocado's are an unfortunate necessity but meat is monstrous.

I understand that not all of those things are equal and battles need to be picked but it doesn't seem like the subjective severity is the deciding factor and how are the battles picked.

Holy fuck, "Space logistics simulator with some casual space piracy" the game.

For the receptive kind of brain that's some premium crack.

Sure, but that's not the only way people have guarded ideas.

Secret societies, artisan guilds that only taught it's members and on occasion killed people who find out their secrets, professions taught only to the direct student.

Just because the formal idea of something was recorded doesn't mean it wasnt around before.

As people we are constantly hoarding knowledge and ideas to benefit is individually or as a tribe.

Inaction when action is an option is still a choice.

One of the major premises of the trolley problem is the choice.

It's very specifically a scenario where everything is a choice.

The only way to not choose a scenario option is to not participate at all.

There is also the concept of "positive" grooming, for instance a child given specific education and resources to provide an advantage in something like politics could be said to be being "groomed" for politics or leadership.

I'd say the idea of grooming is more intentional than just regular child-raising, but that might be subjective.

As i said though, the current common usage is almost always negative and sexual in nature, it's just not a requirement.

IIRC the home assistant android app has VA functionality built in.

Not sure if it works in the same way as this box though.

To clarify , there is an aurora client for f-droid. https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/auroradroid

The OP mentions aurora store by name so they are probably not talking about the f-droid wrapper. Also if f-droid breaks rule 4 AuroraDroid almost certainly does.

I'm talking anecdotally and from my experience here, not as an absolute.

I will upfront admit i am somewhat biased against authority in general, especially what i perceived to be unearned authority (if you wish to be a respected authority, earn it and continue to do so) In this case however I'm talking about "authority" in a professional sense somewhat measured against the success or failure of particular projects or initiatives.

For the most part i agree with you but it seems like you are using the term "anti-authoritarian" as an absolute, as in being against authority is bad in all cases.

At a lot of companies "Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas" is considered anti-authoritarian because the company culture doesn't allow for that kind of autonomy of thought (by design or long term evolution usually).

Your example works in the context of a company that works in a manner that promotes/encourage that kind of person, not all of them do. My personal experience and that of my circle of colleagues and acquaintances, I'd guess that percentage is around 30/70 with the 70% being companies that either actively or passively punish/discourage both of those types of employees.

Which i'd imagine is what @bouh meant when they said "But good employees will hate your company, because you consider them like bad ones"

Anti-authoritarianism is a bad trait. when the authority in question is doing the correct things (for whatever definition of correct you wish to use). "Anti-authoritarianism" and "Critical thinking and standing up for your ideas" are not mutually exclusive.

As with most things it's contextual.