That's it, I'm in my grandpa era, books (published pre-2022) and retro games only
If I could browse the internet at large with the same filter (that is to say only content pre-2022) I might consider still using it but as of right now it ain't worth it. Might just build a zeronet with my friends at this point.
While this certainly could be true, I would say it's only that way because state and federal government refuse to invest in our aging energy grid.
with proper taxation and directing that towards upgrading the infrastructure, supporting it is absolutely possible.
If my degree is not relevant to what I'm applying to I will either selectively reveal it or leave it out entirely for this reason.
Tim Cook for all his faults is always been great at politics and this is an extension of that.
I actually got rid of windows instance entirely, I just realized one day that I hadn't booted it up in 6 months, thanks Linux.
You're telling on yourself in real time you're accusing me of not seeing outside my position while demonstrating exactly that.
You're diagnosing my motives by something you literally cannot know because you have not engaged with a single word on the screen.
You're making unfalsifiable claims for the sake of, what I can only assume at this point is to insensing me based off of the amount of times you've doubled down and never actually responded to the points I've made
You're projecting your own behavior on me without evidence.
You're claiming that third party is in an online discussion don't exist while writing a public comment. It may be true that no one's reading this because we're so far down the rabbit hole it's very easy to disprove in general, just think about the last time you read a conversation you didn't comment in.
"I respond because I want to respond, not hypothetical higher ground." That's exactly my point I never said I had any moral higher ground just that there are holes in the argument worth exploring, I'm not trying to win or prove you wrong build a scaffold for respectful online debate. This is an example of you anchoring your own trauma to me.
At this point I would like to respectfully disengage I will still read what you say if you have something to say but I won't take it any further because at this point it's cyclical.
You're proving my point for me: you're boxing with your own ghosts rather than engaging what I actually said.
You try to use hyperbolic exaggeration to pin a list of positions I have never claimed to hold. This is almost certainly from past arguments.
With this exchange as an example, If I was an onlooker I would see someone who told me that there is a purpose in respectful debate and working to add clarity and consciousness instead of trying to win for onlookers and then another who has had no point engaged it and instead lashed out, that would both effectively communicate the point and teach me how to engage with someone who is talking past me.
You've tried to pin a bunch of positions I don't actually hold on me, I never said that police other people I said to approach ideas and jokes with skepticism.
What you hit me back with is both hyperbolic and not what I've actually said. I'm sorry for what happened to you but I don't see how what I've said has any connection to it.
Is your argument that you don't think anyone else reads what people post on social media, and that it has no effect if they do? Respectfully are you insane?
I don't think it's delusional to want to teach people things. When you respectfully deconstruct someone's half truths it can help people understand.
This is not to say that you should take everything seriously or that every person is worth engaging with of course you still have to be selective.
This is incredibly aggressive and has no connection to what I originally said.
What's tripping you up friend?