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’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?

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.

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?

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.

At this point, one of the things keeping Twitter alive is that 99 percent of journalists and media outlets have refused to leave, despite all the evidence that there’s nothing to be gained for them on that platform.

It’s just their own FOMO that keeps them there.

I’d wish they’d follow the lead of those organizations who simply left, or, better yet, started up their own Mastodon instances.

Chinese electric car makers get absolutely massive state subsidies. There are companies like Nio that have never made a single dollar of profit. Nio has been losing money on every single car they sell, to the point where they’ve been losing almost a billion dollars in the last quarter alone.

However, China doesn’t care. The state keeps financing these companies, because if they can undermine European and American auto makers to the point where they’re simply unable to compete and maybe even completely collapse, then Chinese car makers will be the only ones left in the market, and they’ll be able to charge any price they want.

And realistically, which American or European car maker will be able to compete with a multitude of Chinese competitors that all can afford to lose billions and billions every year without batting an eye?

So that’s why they want to fight “low prices.”

It’s not that you’re not saying it often enough, it’s that you’re stopping halfway through what’s being proposed here.

You’re seeing it as a one-sided, negative thing for the Palestinian side that the atrocities of Hamas are being “singled out” - but you’re completely ignoring the fact that they’re being “singled out” in order to be hidden from children.

This means that children would never learn - at least not on their own, via social media - of these atrocities committed by Hamas. That would appear like a net positive for the Palestinian side.

You’re getting caught up in the “singling out” part while ignoring the “in order to hide it from children” part.

That’s an argument, sure.

It just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, at least if presented as an argument criticizing Israel.

“We want kids to see all the atrocities committed by our side, but none of the atrocities committed by our enemies” would at the very least be an unconventional approach to war time propaganda.

You know what I’m getting at?

OP is implying parents should be ok with Israeli violence, but not ok with Palestinian violence.

Parents should want their kids to see violence committed by Israel, but they should want their kids to not be able to see violence committed by Palestinians?

Why?

Because they were removed, I’ll type up the sanitized version: the parent comment is pointing out the author of the article is singling out Palestinian violence, but is ignoring the violence, the genocide, being carried out by the Israeli government and the IDF.

You’re still not making sense.

If this is a pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian propaganda plot, then why should parents want their kids to see the violence, the genocide, that is being carried out by the Israeli government and the IDF, but not the atrocities and the terrorism committed by the Palestinians and by Hamas?

Wait, I don’t get this argument.

You’re saying parents are cool with it if their kids see atrocities committed by Israel, but as soon as a Palestinians terrorist group commits atrocities, parents don’t want their kids to see it - implying parents want to protect the reputation of Hamas?

Google already did this.

However, the onus to mitigate problems created by one company shouldn’t be their on competitors.

Apple launched AirTags alone, leveraging its massive Find My network, in order to have an immense advantage in the market, and this helped Apple rake in millions and millions of dollars.

It could have coordinated with Google even before the AirTag launch, but this would have probably resulted in missing out on millions in profits. So Apple chose profits over mitigating ethical and moral concerns, and only fixed problems a long time after it started selling the product to customers.

If Twitter is doing business and earning money in the European Union, then it has to abide by national law - just like any other business operating in the EU.

In a scenario where Twitter doesn’t comply with the law, the European Union can fine Twitter, appropriate earnings from the European market, sue in the United States or invoke bilateral agreements, file for extradition, or shut down Twitter in the EU via IP ban and having the app removed from the various national app stores. Google and Apple will comply for their app stores, and European providers will comply regarding an IP ban. Some people might still be able to figure out how to access Twitter via sideloading and VPN, but it would effectively destroy Twitter’s business in the European Union.

So yes, there’s a lot the EU can do.

No that was an observation.

An observation about the argument is part of a debate, an observation about the person that is making the argument is an ad hominem.

It’s literally the definition of “ad hominem.”

In that regard, your defense that you were merely making an observation is irrelevant. It’s relevant what you were making an observation about.

I’m not judging you for it, I don’t think you’re of poor character due to it.

Again irrelevant, and I don’t particularly care either way what you may or may not think about me.

The relevant point is that instead of tackling the argument that was being made, you decided to instead attack my comprehension.

That’s an ad hominem, an attack on the person you’re having a conversation with.

I’m not complaining about that, by the way, I’m merely providing you with an explanation since you’re apparently ignorant - i.e. lacking the knowledge - of what does and what doesn’t constitute an ad hominem.

You, on the other hand, are the one complaining about being attacked after bringing the conversation down to a level of ad hominem attacks, and you seem to be interested in maintaining that low level of discourse by throwing in another ad hominem here.

So my suggestion to you would be: either refrain from attacking other posters and focus on the arguments they’re making, or try not acting insulted when you’re being treated the same way that you’re treating others.

Of course, I’d be happy to!

It was when you questioned my comprehension of the argument that was being made instead of the argument itself by saying “you just haven’t understood the position.”

That’s literally an ad hominem.

I just had that conversation with a group of adults who all had iPhones and were unwilling to add non-iPhone people to a group or change messaging apps.

The reasons given were:

• My iPhone is too old, I can’t install another messaging app.
• I’m not going to install another app where I have to remember another password.
• Messages don’t go through when we add a non-iPhone user to the group.

The conclusion by the group was “just buy an iPhone!”

And that’s a group of adults. I can’t imagine the bullying and peer pressure teenagers have to face over something as idiotic as messaging apps.

Why complain about ad hominems after attacking me? You’re the one who lowered the level of the discourse - why are you complaining now?

You were clearly arguing against a position that nobody here took.

That means you either lack the reading comprehension to understand what was stated, or you’re purposefully creating a strawman to argue against.