I'm getting so sick of all the gaslighting about whether or not it's even a valid question. The guy is so obviously a habitual and pernicious liar and then he weasels out of things like, "teeeeechnically I didn't say that, hee-heeeeee" and it's over and over again like we're some kind of drooling idiot character in a story about a malicious genie granting wishes that ultimately come back to bite us in the ass, except I have nothing to do with it and yet my CEO might still listen to this asshole and fire half the staff.
The best anyone can say is, "but mah AI" and can't refute that he is one of the weaseliest, sheistiest characters they've ever seen, but refuse to say anything out of fear of losing their Technojesus come to save them from the fact they never did bother to learn how to invert a binary tree and are just waiting for the world to discover that their imposter syndrome isn't just a psychological anxiety hangup, it's for real.
Sorry, I love Linux, but could you imagine managing a fleet of the cheapest hardware possible and also teaching a bunch of 6th graders how to use Linux? School IT workers are already heroes. I don't like Google, but they're a necessary evil to keep those guys from tearing their hair out every day unless we dedicate significantly more resources to computing in schools.
We managed fine with crappy old Windows XP Thinkpads in elementary school. Modern Linux is far easier, and I'm saying the slight challenge would be educational.
I build environmental and structural sensor networks for work and this has my wheels spinning, but honestly I can’t think of many uses for the additional bandwidth. You could packet additional metadata maybe? GPS or network info? I’ll get one and play with it but off the top of the dome I think sub-Ghz is sufficient for most everything I do.
You’re right. But your statement was that no product worth using is bug free. I said that no software exists that is without bugs. Your statement uses the presence of bugs to indicate a product is worth using. But since all software has bugs, that applies to every product ever made. It doesn’t have any discriminating power. So it’s not fallacious on its face but it’s not useful either, and that’s what I was trying to point out.
> Your statement uses the presence of bugs to indicate a product is worth using.
This is not correct; "If a product is worth using, then it has bugs." (P→Q) does not imply its converse "If a product has bugs, then it is worth using." (Q→P). Buginess is presented as a necessary condition of being worth using, not a sufficient one.
It does, however, imply "If a product has no bugs, then it is not worth using.".
To be clear, my statement is that "No product worth using is bug free" (which is what dpark said) does not mean the same as "all bug free products are worth using" (which is what your response to dpark implied).
That was exactly my point. The presence of bugs in a product (in this case Apple Maps) does not mean it should not ship. “No open bugs” cannot be the criteria for whether a product is ready to ship.
reply