Is it intentionally hostile on Apple’s part to bar androids from joining? Yes. But the reactions from Apple users aren’t entirely unjustified

The reaction from Apple users is to blame Android users - which is entirely unjustified.

But of course, post purchase rationalization and brand loyalty play a big part in why people want to externalize blame rather than questioning their own decision or blaming their favorite company for providing a shitty cross-platform messaging experience.

It really depends on what a Trump reign will look like, right?

Will he be able to round up tens of millions of people and deport them, as he has promised? Will he institute another Muslim ban, as he has promised? Will he stay in office after his next four year term, as he has said he wants to? Will he use the office of the president to persecute political opponents, as he has promised? Will he “root out” all the “vermin” in the United States, as he had promised? And if yes: who will get declared to be “vermin?” How will they be “rooted out?” Will he make torture legal, as he promised? Will he bring back family separation and child detention camps? Will he threaten nuclear war again? And if yes, will some crazy regime take him up on the offer?

And if all of that or even just a fraction of that comes to pass, will you still sleep well, knowing that you might have been able to stop all of that but voting for the lesser of two evils was just beneath you?

Because ultimately, that’s the decision you’re making.

It’s probably just a definition thing.

To me, constructive criticism means that the criticism doesn’t just point out failure, but that it then also shows how to correct that failure.

By itself, “you’re doing it wrong” is just destructive: it takes something apart, it destroys it. Without a subsequent “and here’s how you would do it right,” it doesn’t become constructive, it doesn’t help in putting things back together in the correct way.

Sure, as a first step, “you’re doing it wrong” is completely justified when something is actually wrong.

But without the second step - the constructive part - it just doesn’t constitute constructive criticism. By itself, it’s just criticism.

Is saying “you’re doing it wrong” really constructive?

Just like when they thought that yelling “Let’s Go Brandon” was sooo fucking clever.

Most people will buy a computer, that computer will have Windows 11 on it, they’ll start using that computer and the pre-installed OS that came with it, and maybe, occasionally, they will complain that “this is different now” and that “they always change things, it’s so annoying” and that will be the end of it.

If you’re talking about people who install or even just upgrade the OS on their computer by themselves, are aware of such a concept as “alternative operating systems,” engage in any kind of conversation about operating systems on social media, and then care enough about the topic to downvote people who disagree with them on purely ideological grounds, you’re already talking about a tiny, tiny minority of computer users.

Well, let’s see what Trump has said about that:

“We are going to win four more years. And then after that, we’ll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years.”

or how about

“I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.”

or

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

or how about when he admired Xi Jinping:

“He’s now president for life. President for life. And he’s great. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot someday.”

Having ten apartments on one floor requires less toilets and plumbing than having 100 people working on one floor.

Installing a bathroom is easy. Installing ten bathrooms is easy.

These buildings aren’t being converted because it’s impossible to do or because living conditions would be harsh if they were converted - these buildings aren’t being converted because people calling the shots don’t want to miss out on those fat profits they’re still hoping to make.

A jury if his peers still found that Trump was a rapist. The judge in that trial clarified that the jury finding meant that Trump was a rapist.

This was after the Trump camp claimed, after losing the defamation suit, that none of this meant that Trump was a rapist.

So the judge explicitly clarified that the jury had found that Trump had committed rape.

Roman concrete structures still exist after 2000 years. If you want to “hide” the CO2 somehow, then concrete doesn’t seem like a bad idea.

I’d argue that is ProPublica, so generally very far from the kind of media outlet that would publish feel good stories, and that the story itself isn’t even a feel good story: even the rich, powerful attorney with the powerful lawyer friend and the powerful doctor friend had to pay for the treatment out of his own pocket, and the story ends with the insurance company, after losing the car, still only paying a fraction of that after having dragged out the entire case for years and years.

More like “Celebrity” Lawyer Dershowitz. As in: everybody knows his name, he’s a celebrity - for defending the most deplorable people who have ever faced trial.

Neither the Catholics, nor the Baptists, nor the Episcopalians, nor the Presbyterians, nor the Orthodox, nor any of the other “Christian” denominations/jurisdictions have ever put out an official position statement on behalf of their churches condemning this Christofascist Nationalism shit.

That sounds a lot like the voices who, after 9/11, were demanding that Muslims should issue public statements condemning al Qaeda, because “silence means agreement.”

Yeah. Wanting a Tesla 5 years ago is very different from still wanting a Tesla today, in 2023, after Elon has told everyone, in public, exactly who he was.

Since you seem to know a lot about Tesla: when people pay those $12,000 for the “Full Self-Driving package,” does Tesla tell them they can’t use it when it gets cold outside?

Republicans: “This would never happen, even if Roe v. Wade got overturned!!!”

Republicans: overturn Roe v. Wade, pass laws that prohibit abortion in case of rape

Republicans: “Well, nobody wants that, but it’s the law of the land, and we just have to abide by it!!!”

These are basically small concrete boxes sunk into the ground. They’re only meant to stick out a bushfire for a few hours.

You could probably just keep a few bottles of oxygen or a carbon dioxide scrubber stashed in there, just in case. If you can spend $10,000 on one of these bunkers, spending a few hundred more isn’t going to make a difference.

Anything longer than a few hours would get dicey anyway without room to move around, without room to stash water or food, without a toilet or beds.

“Yeah, but everybody already knows that the Republicans are insane and only want to destroy government, so they obviously can’t be blamed. Let’s blame the Democrats instead!!!”

It doesn’t “serve the people” to help right wing extremist bomb throwers into positions of power after they’ve already attempted to overturn free, democratic elections and tried to install an unelected leader against the will of the electorate.

There’s literally deposition in front of lawyers, in various court cases, with Trump being taped, on video, saying “well, if it feels true, then it must be true!”

One was the Trump University case where he was claiming that it was fine that people who had never even met him were saying they had been personally instructed by Donald Trump, because “if they felt that way, then it was true in a way” and therefore not fraud.

The other one was him suing a New York Times journalist who had found that Trump was really only worth somewhere between $150 and $250 million. Trump claimed that he was worth more than $2.7 billion and therefore sued for $5 billion.

In the deposition, Trump claimed his wealth fluctuated and depended on his feelings on any given day.