BTW, why is the article now flagged? Is it because it's paywalled?
Readit NewsDeleted Comment
What are your credentials?
None, and that's exactly how many blog articles I wrote on this topic.
When you resort to ad hominem attacks, it makes it seem as though you were unable form any specific objection to the actual content.
This is not an ad hominem attack. It's fair to ask about an author's credentials when they write a public article. (I do believe he lacks the credentials, but happy to hear a counter-argument.)
And from which worldwide schools of fashion you need credentials to even dare to remark that the emperor has no clothes?
To remark - none. To be taken seriously -- probably some, otherwise the noise of millions of bloggers is too much to handle. Which credentials, I'm not sure, hence my question.
FWIW, the author has university education and is currently a Visiting Professor of Science and Religion at Union Theological Seminary, New York. I personally don't find it relevant to the topic, but was curious to see what others thought.
Not saying he's making a good point (or not), but you don't need specific credentials to write an article on your blog about an opinion you have.
Of course you don't. I thought, however, that you may need some credentials to be upvoted by an audience of highly technical readers.
Dead Comment
Can someone explain to me if the article in The Information on this topic is completely dumb, or whether I'm dumb for misunderstanding it: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/microsoft-unbundles-.... (You don't need to pay, just read the few paragraphs visible for free.)
The author claims there's no benefit to consumers because prices went up. The whole point of the rule is to prevent MS from killing off competition by keeping the prices low. So the benefit should be in the form of a healthier ecosystem (and long-term high quality / price tradeoff) rather than the price level today.
stadia42 commented on The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics (2015) blog.jaibot.com/the-copen... · Posted by u/one-possibility
This article seems like a major failure of both imagination and empathy. Paying homeless people $20 a day to be wifi hotspots or paying people's bills on the condition that they become vegan helps in the moment, but these solutions are actively harmful in the long term if practiced as a default response to the problems they ostensibly address. Such "solutions" calcify in people's minds, and provide a convenient excuse to not execute the kinds of large, systemic shifts that a complete solution necessarily entails. These things are so repulsive to the general public because regular people, on some level, understand that everyone has an unconditional right to the safety and dignity that homelessness and living without water or medicine is incompatible with.
"repulsive to the general public because regular people, on some level, understand that everyone has an unconditional right to the safety and dignity"
I want to point out a couple errors in your statement.
1. The correct verb to use is "feel", rather than "understand". "Understand" can only refer to an objective fact that can be verified, proven, etc.
2. While some "regular people" (including myself) share your views, it is not all of them, and not even an overwhelming majority of them. In fact, I suspect it's only a minority, perhaps a tiny minority of people worldwide who actually agree with you (and me). So perhaps a better way to say it, "repulsive to me and others who share my beliefs because we...".
These may seem like small things, but actually writing the way you do make your statements sound like a religious tract (kinda like "Human beings understand that God's will is absolute"). I doubt that was your intent.
Seriously though, I think the author is overworried about accelerationism but correctly rates sama power grab inclinations. What's your thought re TFA rather than the author?