I mean the reason they implied you were being obtuse is clearly they are not talking about people in poverty or people who have no other choices.

That is in no way clearly understood from that single absolutist statement or the context around it.

They additionally went on to reply with

Maybe the Inuit had to 300 years ago. You have a Walmart near you. Be real.

That's not a reply (either literally or in context) that is considering poverty.

It's not quite a "let them eat cake", but it's in the same general vicinity.

Regardless, i suspected it wasn't as absolutist as it seemed, which is why my reply was prefaced with "If you truly believe that statement applies 100% of the time (in this context),"

My issue, as i very explicitly explained, is that using such absolutist statements gives the impression of mental inflexibility which subsequently weakens the perception of any surrounding statements (for me at least).

If I’m having a conversation about science with someone and they opened with "The world is flat" I’m for damn sure going to scrutinise everything else they say after that, even if it sounds reasonable.

About 70% of people in the US have the option to eat at least 5x less meat, if any at all, yet look for any excuse they can get to not do it. I grew up with people on very low incomes who were vegan, and this was 18 years ago when vegan options were far less available than they are now.

Sure, I’m not arguing against any of that, it sounds plausible.

I'd argue there's a conversation about the difference between "vegan options" and the general availability and accessibility of food that qualifies as vegan (and how that has changed over nearly 20 years) but that's a different subject.

They were not “privileged” by any stretch yet they saw it as a moral wrong and sacrificed to follow their morality.

Privilege is relative , people scraping by on 3 full-time jobs just to get food and pay rent aren't rich or affluent but (subjectively) they are more privileged than the unassisted mentally ill person living on the streets.

I assume the people you knew made their choices after weighing their options and that's all anybody can ask.

If they subsequently harmed themselves or their loved ones in the short or long term then that's their sacrifice to make.

However, judging someone else for feeding their family with the food the can afford rather than taking the "moral" high ground isn't something i can get behind.

And "You live near a walmart" isn't an argument made by someone who's considering their relative privilege.

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.

If you're going to reference the slippery slope fallacy so much, you should probably read where and when it actually applies.

From the wikipedia entry:

When the initial step is not demonstrably likely to result in the claimed effects, this is called the slippery slope fallacy.

You yourself just acknowledged that the worst-case is already happening, so the assumption that the worst case will continue to happen is reasonable.

Unless you wish to argue that :

The worst-case scenario is already happening

followed by you saying

Okay, but

isn’t an acknowledgement ?

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.

significant white space to it's classist and racist

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.

In fairness the msdn documentation is prone to this also.

By "this" I mean having what looks like a comprehensive section about the thing you want but the actual information you need isn't there, but you need to read the whole thing to find out.

They landed people on the moon and then did fuck all for decades.

Indeed, all i was saying is that they were capable given budget and circumstances.

That budget and direction comes from the government.

When Musk started SpaceX he was not well known yet, SpaceX came before Tesla.

I will admit, i thought spacex was just another company he bought his way in to, like tesla, seems i was mistaken about that.

He was able to get into the businesses he has because he was rich yes, but you can find many accounts of engineers that worked under him speak of how good he was at finding ways to cut unnecessary costs.

And you can equally find many accounts of having to distract him from the day to day operations because he's unreliable , unpredictable and chaotic (none of those meant in a good way).

He's also known for buying good press and using litigation to silence people.

He’s not a technical genius that’s for sure. But he has been a good CEO for SpaceX.

I doubt this, but that could just be bias, i don't have any actual evidence of the long term impact of him as CEO.

Recently though, he's provably been significantly more of a liability than a benefit, even if just from a PR and public sentiment point of view.

But I refuse to simply wave away his achievements simply because I don’t like him. I can not like someone and still acknowledge they have done something good.

Indeed, i push back on the myth that he's some self made tony stark genius, but it isn't like he's not achieved anything.

I would personally attribute most of that to neptoism, wealth, luck and opportunity, but that doesn't remove the achievement itself.

Sure, as i said, i don't disagree with that.

What does that argument have to do with whether or not people should assigned some responsibility for how they voted (or didn't) ?

Yes everyone understands all that. But are you saying we people that vote blue should keep trying the same failing tactics?

No, but if your tactic changes haven't been implemented by the time voting comes around and the choice remains "nazi's vs not nazi's" then you should be voting "not nazi's".

"The Dems continue to fuck up repeatedly, so i can understand why people chose nazi this time" isn't a tenable argument.

I'm not disagreeing with your disappointment in, well, everything.

I'm disagreeing with this part of your previous reply

Anyone else other than literally Nazie’s (aka Trump, JD, the majority of RNC members and leaders, and some of their voters), shouldn’t be blamed.

If a person understands that the choice is nazi vs not nazi and then actively chooses to not vote, they are tacitly choosing nazi.

"If i vote for the not-nazi's, they won't understand how disappointed in them i am" is not a good argument.

"Their policies don't align with what i want" is not a good argument

"They don't represent my values" is not a good argument

There is no good beginning half to the sentence "< INSERT REASON HERE >, so i tacitly enabled the nazi's"

Except maybe, "I genuinely believe the alternative is worse, so i tacitly enabled the nazi's".

Even then i'd probably disagree, but it would be a substantive argument.