Hacker News Search

fsflover 6y ago
Does this sentence change the meaning? The OP did not say they wanted Apple. They said they didn't want to be forced into Android. Of course, without Apple, in the absence of any other alternatives, you are forced into Android.
- zepto 6y ago
  Yes it does. Clearly the OP wanted Apple, since otherwise they wouldn’t have made reference to ‘stopping Apple’ affecting them. If they didn’t want Apple, they wouldn’t care if Apple was stopped.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    No, it doesn't. The OP never said they wanted Apple. But without Apple you are forced into Android (because there's no other obvious choice) and this seems to be the problem.
    - zepto 6y ago
      In this explanation, you have neglected the meaning of the statement: “Please don’t stop them”. Why would they care about Apple being stopped if they didn’t want Apple? For your explanation to make sense you need to account for the meaning of both sentences of the paragraph the OP wrote.
      - fsflover 6y ago
        > Why would they care about Apple being stopped if they didn’t want Apple? Because without Apple you only have Android.
        zepto 6y ago
        Sure, but if they didn’t want Apple this would be irrelevant. If you don’t want Apple, you only have Android regardless of whether Apple is stopped or not. That sentence is relevant to the meaning of the paragraph, and implies that they do want Apple.
        fsflover 6y ago
        > If you don’t want Apple, you only have Android regardless of whether Apple is stopped or not. No, there are also GNU/Linux phones.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        zepto 6y ago
        Quoting you: “Because without Apple you only have Android.” https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25350315 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25350315
        fsflover 6y ago
        Yes, unless you know about alternatives. This is why I commented in the first place.
        zepto 6y ago
        Right, but both of us believe that the OP didn’t know about the alternatives, so they clearly were saying they did want Apple. If you want to claim that they would change their mind about wanting Apple if they knew about the alternatives, that is unlikely but not impossible. However when they made the comment, they clearly did want Apple because otherwise they wouldn’t have cared about whether anyone ‘stopped Apple’.
        fsflover 6y ago
        They might also choose Apple, since otherwise it would be Android (i.e., even worse). Apple has a lot of drawbacks too after all. This is not what I would consider "wanting", it's a forced choice (just like choosing Android when Apple is "stopped" would be).
        zepto 6y ago

fsflover 6y ago
Duopoly is not the same as "a finite number of platforms to choose". Duopoly means both companies can restrict the rights of users and stay in business, despite the users may not like them.
- zepto 6y ago
  That doesn’t change anything that supports the claim that this was a forced choice and therefore the OP didn’t ‘want’ Apple. No finite number of businesses is guaranteed to produce a product to a given person’s liking, duopoly or not. In any case, according to you, GNU/Linux phones are an option, so it’s not a duopoly. Also, let’s note that you’ve conceded they they do want Apple, but are now trying to make the case that this isn’t a ‘real’ kind of want.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    Yes, it does change something. I know many people who hate both companies, but choose Apple as a lesser evil. And yes, this is exactly not a 'real' kind of want. Given that, and that the OP didn't say they like Apple, you cannot neglect a poosibility of them not wanting Apple.
    - zepto 6y ago
      This is a straight up fallacy. You are attempting to redefine want as like. Want doesn’t imply like and you can want things that are available even if you’d prefer (or want even more) an option that isn’t. In fact this is always true of things we want. It doesn’t invalidate the meaning of the word want. Examples: “The prisoner wants to be released from solitary confinement back into general population.”, “Voters wanted a candidate who would reduce taxes.”, “Jack wants his father to beat up the bullies at school”.
      - fsflover 6y ago
        https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/want https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/want What you mean here is "have to", not "want".
        zepto 6y ago
        Nothing in that definition contradicts my usage. If you can see a semantic difference between their examples and mine, please explain it. And, the only person saying that Apple is a forced choice, is you. That isn’t a given. It is a conclusion you want us to agree with. This is an attempt at ‘affirming the consequent’, I.e. your argument assumes your conclusion to be true, which is a fallacy. I have to assume you know this.
        fsflover 6y ago
        > Nothing in that definition contradicts my usage. At the same time, nothing in that definition contradicts my usage, too. > And, the only person saying that Apple is a forced choice, is you. That isn’t a given. This is a given. When you only have just two options, and one of them is openly anti-privacy, anti-consumer, it's clear that the other option is a forced choice. I am far from the first person to say that about Apple.