Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship • Hacker News Board

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#301

Post by fsflover » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #294

fsflover wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it does change something. I know many people who hate both companies, but choose Apple as a lesser evil. And yes, this is exactly not a 'real' kind of want. Given that, and that the OP didn't say they like Apple, you cannot neglect a poosibility of them not wanting Apple.

This is a straight up fallacy. You are attempting to redefine want as like. Want doesn’t imply like and you can want things that are available even if you’d prefer (or want even more) an option that isn’t. In fact this is always true of things we want . It doesn’t invalidate the meaning of the word want. Examples: “The prisoner wants to be released from solitary confinement back into general population.”, “Voters wan…

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/want

What you mean here is "have to", not "want".

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#302

Post by zepto » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 3:43 PM UTC

fsflover wrote: post #301

zepto wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a straight up fallacy. You are attempting to redefine want as like. Want doesn’t imply like and you can want things that are available even if you’d prefer (or want even more) an option that isn’t. In fact this is always true of things we want . It doesn’t invalidate the meaning of the word want. Examples: “The prisoner wants to be released from solitary confinement back into general population.”, “Voters wan…

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/want What you mean here is "have to", not "want".

Nothing in that definition contradicts my usage. If you can see a semantic difference between their examples and mine, please explain it.

And, the only person saying that Apple is a forced choice, is you. That isn’t a given. It is a conclusion you want us to agree with.

This is an attempt at ‘affirming the consequent’, I.e. your argument assumes your conclusion to be true, which is a fallacy.

I have to assume you know this.

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#303

Post by intellix » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 10:11 AM UTC

gigatexal wrote: post #87

intellix wrote: post #86

I think at this point Apple are just laughing at their customer base and testing how much they can get away with

Nope they’re counting my dollar bills. They keep putting out amazing hardware: AirPods, iPhones, M1 Macs, etc., I’ll keep bending around their software (which I love 99% of the time) and their control of the experience which I think is what makes everything work so cohesively. We just bought a new MacBook Air with the M1 and my wife will use it until it dies so if it’s anything like our other Apple laptops could be 7…

My MBP 2013 lasted until 2019 which is amazing considering all of my prior laptops only lasted around 1 year. The same can't be said about the ones with any variation of the butterfly keyboard.

My keyboard is pristine on the 2013 and after only 6 months of my 2019 they're already wearing away. I think it's to make it feel old and worn so I'll buy another.

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#304

Post by fsflover » Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 8:05 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #302

fsflover wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/want What you mean here is "have to", not "want".

Nothing in that definition contradicts my usage. If you can see a semantic difference between their examples and mine, please explain it. And, the only person saying that Apple is a forced choice, is you . That isn’t a given . It is a conclusion you want us to agree with . This is an attempt at ‘affirming the consequent’, I.e. your argument assumes your conclusion to be true, which is a fallacy. I have to assume you…

> Nothing in that definition contradicts my usage.

At the same time, nothing in that definition contradicts my usage, too.

> And, the only person saying that Apple is a forced choice, is you. That isn’t a given.

This is a given. When you only have just two options, and one of them is openly anti-privacy, anti-consumer, it's clear that the other option is a forced choice. I am far from the first person to say that about Apple.

Re: Falling Out of Love with Apple, Part 3: Content and Censorship

#305

Post by unishark » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 6:01 PM UTC

harry8 wrote: post #281

unishark wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do you also agree with sanctions against the population? In a sense, censorship is an inaction for a communications company, not a positive act of assistance. Apple doesn't get paid for actually censoring anything. They get paid for whatever legal services they can still sell to innocent civilians. Suppose they were selling food and the govt insists they refuse to sell food to an opposition group. Taking the high…

> Apple doesn't get paid for actually censoring anything. Yep they do. They don't do it they don't get paid. They decide to do it, they get paid. They can count the difference in revenue and profit from those two alternatives. It is literally one of the things they are getting paid to do. Can you live with doing that for monetary profit? You can certainly make arguments both ways. This is not "sanctions against a pop…

> Yep they do. They don't do it they don't get paid. They decide to do it, they get paid. They can count the difference in revenue and profit from those two alternatives. I

I happily censor everything the government demands. Yet I do not get paid anything. Hence your logic is proven to be false. Specifically you have made a fallacy of omission.

Your perspective on what a sanction is indeed is too narrow to be very relevant. But you didn't answer, anyway. I guess you're against them as long as you can make the choice easy for yourself? But now stop dancing around and consider sanctions which restrict other forms of trade besides medical supplies.