3 ms·

Sure, you can always claim that some random lockdown is vital. The thing is, not every assertion is the same. Yours could be nonsense while mine could still be

by dao- 8y ago

Sure, you can always claim that some random lockdown is vital. The thing is, not every assertion is the same. Yours could be nonsense while mine could still be true.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
If you claim something like "John is a carpenter because John is a human and carpenters are humans" and someone points out that your logic doesn't follow (by applying it to some other known non-carpenter human), you can then claim that this doens't prove that John isn't a carpenter, but the point is that the original claim utterly fails to prove that he is.
- dao- 8y ago
  Where did I assert something similar to your example? It seems like a false analogy. The criticism wasn't even that my logic was flawed but that the same argument could somehow be made to justify any user-hostile action. If the problem in your point of view is that I didn't /prove/ how big of a problem sideloading was then yes, I didn't even attempt to do that. There's a separate subthread on that question.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Where did I assert something similar to your example? It seems like a false analogy. The criticism wasn't even that my logic was flawed but that the same argument could somehow be made to justify any user-hostile action. That's why your logic is flawed. If a construct can be used to "prove" various known-false statements then it has no value in proving anything. > If the problem in your point of view is that I didn't /prove/ how big of a problem sideloading was then yes, I didn't even attempt to do that. There's a separate subthread on that question. There is no proof of it there either. The most popular platforms (Android on mobile and Windows on desktop) allow the user to load their own applications, showing not only that it can't be a major cause of failure in the market but that it seems to be a characteristic of the player with the most share.
    - dao- 8y ago
      > If a construct can be used to "prove" various known-false statements then it has no value in proving anything. Yes, if... But it can't. That criticism of my statement didn't make sense. > There is no proof of it there either. The most popular platforms [...] I meant this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        > Yes, if... But it can't. That criticism of my statement didn't make sense. It applies directly. Anything that gives the user a choice can make the user experience worse for a user who makes the wrong one. But it also makes it better for a user who makes the right one in a way different from what the developer would have had to use as a default -- because sometimes something is right for 70% of the users, so it should be the default, but the other 30% are better off with something else. Taking away the choice makes the 30% worse off to benefit the 10% of the 70% that would have chosen incorrectly for themselves. That is not a relative advantage. > I meant this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257 I'll reply there, but note that you haven't addressed my point -- other platforms survive and indeed have the largest share without prohibiting users from installing software, even when competing directly against others that do.
        CorpusCalcium 8y ago
        Nobody is "prohibited" from doing so. You want a Firefox that lets you do whatever you want, you can easily use an unbranded or pre-release build, or even roll your own or use someone else's lightly-tweaked fork. Nobody owes you an officially supported product that's for a wide audience and is also a complete free for all. Even Ubuntu and other Linux distros require you to opt into third-party software channels. You just don't like the specific choice that Mozilla is giving you, but it's still very easily there.

by dao- 8y ago

Sure, you can always claim that some random lockdown is vital. The thing is, not every assertion is the same. Yours could be nonsense while mine could still be true.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

If you claim something like "John is a carpenter because John is a human and carpenters are humans" and someone points out that your logic doesn't follow (by applying it to some other known non-carpenter human), you can then claim that this doens't prove that John isn't a carpenter, but the point is that the original claim utterly fails to prove that he is.

dao- 8y ago
Where did I assert something similar to your example? It seems like a false analogy. The criticism wasn't even that my logic was flawed but that the same argument could somehow be made to justify any user-hostile action. If the problem in your point of view is that I didn't /prove/ how big of a problem sideloading was then yes, I didn't even attempt to do that. There's a separate subthread on that question.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  > Where did I assert something similar to your example? It seems like a false analogy. The criticism wasn't even that my logic was flawed but that the same argument could somehow be made to justify any user-hostile action. That's why your logic is flawed. If a construct can be used to "prove" various known-false statements then it has no value in proving anything. > If the problem in your point of view is that I didn't /prove/ how big of a problem sideloading was then yes, I didn't even attempt to do that. There's a separate subthread on that question. There is no proof of it there either. The most popular platforms (Android on mobile and Windows on desktop) allow the user to load their own applications, showing not only that it can't be a major cause of failure in the market but that it seems to be a characteristic of the player with the most share.
  - dao- 8y ago
    > If a construct can be used to "prove" various known-false statements then it has no value in proving anything. Yes, if... But it can't. That criticism of my statement didn't make sense. > There is no proof of it there either. The most popular platforms [...] I meant this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > Yes, if... But it can't. That criticism of my statement didn't make sense. It applies directly. Anything that gives the user a choice can make the user experience worse for a user who makes the wrong one. But it also makes it better for a user who makes the right one in a way different from what the developer would have had to use as a default -- because sometimes something is right for 70% of the users, so it should be the default, but the other 30% are better off with something else. Taking away the choice makes the 30% worse off to benefit the 10% of the 70% that would have chosen incorrectly for themselves. That is not a relative advantage. > I meant this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18583257 I'll reply there, but note that you haven't addressed my point -- other platforms survive and indeed have the largest share without prohibiting users from installing software, even when competing directly against others that do.
      - CorpusCalcium 8y ago
        Nobody is "prohibited" from doing so. You want a Firefox that lets you do whatever you want, you can easily use an unbranded or pre-release build, or even roll your own or use someone else's lightly-tweaked fork. Nobody owes you an officially supported product that's for a wide audience and is also a complete free for all. Even Ubuntu and other Linux distros require you to opt into third-party software channels. You just don't like the specific choice that Mozilla is giving you, but it's still very easily there.