3 ms·

> And why should the government and the tax payers be held responsible and be forced to pay for the bad decisions of Microsoft and their customers? Ah, a motte

by pfdietz 2mo ago

> And why should the government and the tax payers be held responsible and be forced to pay for the bad decisions of Microsoft and their customers? Ah, a motte and bailey argument! I always love those. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

carlosjobim 2mo ago
I don't find anything hard to defend about my argument. It origins in response to people arguing on the lines that the government should subsidize RAM because it is expensive. But it is not expensive for a customer unless they're getting a lot of it. My argument has been the same all through this thread, while hackers are arguing all over the place. The most absurd argument is that any consumer would need more than 8GB, when it is proven beyond all doubt in physical reality that 8GB gives you extreme amounts of power in for example an Apple device - at consumer friendly prices.
- pfdietz 2mo ago
  > I don't find anything hard to defend about my argument. Of course. Because "I need more than 8 GB of RAM" and "the government should subsidize Microsoft" are logically equivalent statements. If you're insane.
  - carlosjobim 2mo ago
    You have provoked yourself into a rage, because you didn't understand the arguments being made here. Whether you have the capacity to understand, I don't know. But I'll assume so, and explain: 1. Nobody has argued either for or against for the government to subsidize Microsoft. 2. However people are arguing that the government should subsidize RAM makers. And their extended argument for it is that people choose to purchase Microsoft Windows. A well known low quality product. That's a very weak argument. If you choose to make bad decisions and use sub-par solutions when good solutions are readily available, that isn't something that the government should take to account when deciding on subsidies.

by pfdietz 2mo ago

carlosjobim 2mo ago

I don't find anything hard to defend about my argument. It origins in response to people arguing on the lines that the government should subsidize RAM because it is expensive. But it is not expensive for a customer unless they're getting a lot of it. My argument has been the same all through this thread, while hackers are arguing all over the place. The most absurd argument is that any consumer would need more than 8GB, when it is proven beyond all doubt in physical reality that 8GB gives you extreme amounts of power in for example an Apple device - at consumer friendly prices.

pfdietz 2mo ago
> I don't find anything hard to defend about my argument. Of course. Because "I need more than 8 GB of RAM" and "the government should subsidize Microsoft" are logically equivalent statements. If you're insane.
- carlosjobim 2mo ago
  You have provoked yourself into a rage, because you didn't understand the arguments being made here. Whether you have the capacity to understand, I don't know. But I'll assume so, and explain: 1. Nobody has argued either for or against for the government to subsidize Microsoft. 2. However people are arguing that the government should subsidize RAM makers. And their extended argument for it is that people choose to purchase Microsoft Windows. A well known low quality product. That's a very weak argument. If you choose to make bad decisions and use sub-par solutions when good solutions are readily available, that isn't something that the government should take to account when deciding on subsidies.