2 ms·

> not enough people are going to make the choice you're posing to have any significant effect. A billion flies can not be wrong... I am not personally affecte

> not enough people are going to make the choice you're posing to have any significant effect. A billion flies can not be wrong... I am not personally affected by what you choose to use. I could give two shits about it and go on with my day. It's you who stands to gain or lose - along with all those that make a similar choice. > That doesn't seem like "freedom". You are also free to stuff yourself with sugar, drugs, play russian roulette, sleep around with any willing consenting adult. But no, being free to do X does not mean that X is morally virtuous. And you don't get to say "spare me of your judgement" and you shouldn't be expecting any sympathy if you have to face any consequences when things blow up on your face.

mlyle 5y ago
> A billion flies can not be wrong... This willfully pretends not to understand the argument (I hope). My use of MacOS is not likely to make a big difference in the adoption of MacOS, and therefore ascribing all of the massive network effect of usage to me is a tad unfair. > I am not personally affected by what you choose to use. I could give two shits about it and go on with my day. OK. Personally, I'm doing quite fine with MacOS for my laptop. Thanks for your concern, but you don't need to call names and judge me over it. If you really don't care so much, you can spare us all the invective. > You are also free to stuff yourself with sugar, drugs, play russian roulette All of these things have likely and measurable short term harms to the individual doing them. Using Apple carries some risk of individual and systemic negative effects, but also some benefits (both individually and communally). Note, this is true of all things. I just drove to school to teach some classes to kids. I could have died on the way. There are possibly even better moral choices of where I could spend my time that are given up (opportunity costs). But, I judged this is what I wanted to do and the benefits outweighed the risks. > But no, being free to do X does not mean that X is morally virtuous. I'm pretty sure that I've done way more to make open systems possible on the desktop than you. The fact that one thing I'm doing isn't moving the needle that direction (but isn't hurting it, either) should be OK. Otherwise, you should immediately stop all activity which isn't helping the cause of open-systems-on-desktop to avoid accusations of hypocrisy. > you shouldn't be expecting any sympathy if you have to face any consequences when things blow up on your face. Anyone deserves sympathy when things blow up in their face.
- rglullis 5y ago
  > My use of MacOS is not likely to make a big difference in the adoption of MacOS, and therefore ascribing all of the massive network effect of usage to me. It's not all to you. But you are contributing to it, and you shouldn't be excusing yourself on the basis of "look at everyone else doing it". > I'm pretty sure that I've done way more to make open systems possible on the desktop than you. This is not a competition to see who is more virtuous or less of a sinner. It is just me arguing that using Apple products is a moral failing. > you should immediately stop all activity which isn't helping the cause of open-systems-on-desktop to avoid accusations of hypocrisy. I am not perfect and I am not free of sin. But at least I am willing to call a failing as such. The first step to redemption is to accept your own faults.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    > But at least I am willing to call a failing as such. I think there's room in the world for closed offerings and open offerings, and that they each have their own advantages and contributions to the world (and their own risks). > The first step to redemption is to accept your own faults. P'raps calling most of the world "weak-willed" (which I notice you've stealth-edited your prior comment to soften) and implying they may not be "smart" is going a bit beyond accepting your own faults and instead exposing others to harsh judgment for not valuing the things that you do.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      This is not about "open offerings" and "closed offerings". It is specifically about how little it takes for people to give away their freedoms. To wit, ~battery life~.
      - mlyle 5y ago
        > It is specifically about how little it takes for people to give away their freedoms. You frame it that way -- most people don't. I like having a MacOS computer. Lots of daily things work better. Including battery life. Linux still exists and I still use it elsewhere. If Apple turns evil, I can move to having a Linux laptop again and just be slightly more miserable.

mlyle 5y ago

> A billion flies can not be wrong... This willfully pretends not to understand the argument (I hope). My use of MacOS is not likely to make a big difference in the adoption of MacOS, and therefore ascribing all of the massive network effect of usage to me is a tad unfair. > I am not personally affected by what you choose to use. I could give two shits about it and go on with my day. OK. Personally, I'm doing quite fine with MacOS for my laptop. Thanks for your concern, but you don't need to call names and judge me over it. If you really don't care so much, you can spare us all the invective. > You are also free to stuff yourself with sugar, drugs, play russian roulette All of these things have likely and measurable short term harms to the individual doing them. Using Apple carries some risk of individual and systemic negative effects, but also some benefits (both individually and communally). Note, this is true of all things. I just drove to school to teach some classes to kids. I could have died on the way. There are possibly even better moral choices of where I could spend my time that are given up (opportunity costs). But, I judged this is what I wanted to do and the benefits outweighed the risks. > But no, being free to do X does not mean that X is morally virtuous. I'm pretty sure that I've done way more to make open systems possible on the desktop than you. The fact that one thing I'm doing isn't moving the needle that direction (but isn't hurting it, either) should be OK. Otherwise, you should immediately stop all activity which isn't helping the cause of open-systems-on-desktop to avoid accusations of hypocrisy. > you shouldn't be expecting any sympathy if you have to face any consequences when things blow up on your face. Anyone deserves sympathy when things blow up in their face.

rglullis 5y ago
> My use of MacOS is not likely to make a big difference in the adoption of MacOS, and therefore ascribing all of the massive network effect of usage to me. It's not all to you. But you are contributing to it, and you shouldn't be excusing yourself on the basis of "look at everyone else doing it". > I'm pretty sure that I've done way more to make open systems possible on the desktop than you. This is not a competition to see who is more virtuous or less of a sinner. It is just me arguing that using Apple products is a moral failing. > you should immediately stop all activity which isn't helping the cause of open-systems-on-desktop to avoid accusations of hypocrisy. I am not perfect and I am not free of sin. But at least I am willing to call a failing as such. The first step to redemption is to accept your own faults.
- mlyle 5y ago
  > But at least I am willing to call a failing as such. I think there's room in the world for closed offerings and open offerings, and that they each have their own advantages and contributions to the world (and their own risks). > The first step to redemption is to accept your own faults. P'raps calling most of the world "weak-willed" (which I notice you've stealth-edited your prior comment to soften) and implying they may not be "smart" is going a bit beyond accepting your own faults and instead exposing others to harsh judgment for not valuing the things that you do.
  - rglullis 5y ago
    This is not about "open offerings" and "closed offerings". It is specifically about how little it takes for people to give away their freedoms. To wit, ~battery life~.
    - mlyle 5y ago
      > It is specifically about how little it takes for people to give away their freedoms. You frame it that way -- most people don't. I like having a MacOS computer. Lots of daily things work better. Including battery life. Linux still exists and I still use it elsewhere. If Apple turns evil, I can move to having a Linux laptop again and just be slightly more miserable.