> To be “complete” you need to support all the hardware. You can’t. You redefined a crucial word from the author’s thesis, in a way that’s obviously not remote

> To be “complete” you need to support all the hardware. You can’t. You redefined a crucial word from the author’s thesis, in a way that’s obviously not remotely close to what was originally meant, and then concluded that the argument was “wrong”. Well, of course…