Senal

for a long time, hotmail (and i think windows live mail) only checked the first 16 characters.

Not that i disagree with you, but coherence is one of those things that highly subjective and context dependent.

A non-science inclined person reading most scientific papers would think they were incoherent.

Not because they couldn't be written in a way more comprehensible to the non-science person, but because that's not the target audience.

The audience that is targeted will have a lot of the same shared context/knowledge and thus would be able to decipher the content.

It could well be that he's talking using context, knowledge and language/phrasing that's not in the normal lexicon.

I don't think that's what's happening here, but it's not impossible.

In fairness the msdn documentation is prone to this also.

By "this" I mean having what looks like a comprehensive section about the thing you want but the actual information you need isn't there, but you need to read the whole thing to find out.

I agree but I'd also add that this doesn't automatically make them bad people, just people who aren't' compatible with you.

I'm not defending them, It's entirely possible they are bad people, but it's not a given.

What i mean by this is that it's not necessarily because of some flaw with you or them, it can just be that you don't match up right now(or ever).

I think it's important to understand that sometimes the only way to find out if you match is to try it and see, it sucks when it doesn't work out but the alternative is never really finding out if it could.

If you'll notice I mention the biggest offenders and/or the the underlying management infrastructure.

Private jet owners getting systematically luigi'd would also fall under that remit, I was just using data centres as an example.

Oil rigs, Nestlé, blackrock etc would also all work , with varying degrees of efficacy and difficulty.

To address your argument directly, before you get all preachy think of the actual consequences of major data centres going down, all the critical infrastructure running on said data centres would also go down.

That's air traffic control, shipping and logistics ,and yes, agriculture; any system relying on cloud services running in those data centres

If you pick the right ones and do it properly (a competently executed strategy, if you will) then you could cripple most industries, with all the consequences that brings.

Just to be clear you are saying you didn't provide a claim of truth with no supporting argument because, and I quote

what i said were all truth claims.

no argument at all is needed.

I know you aren't going to understand how your reply doesn't make sense but if in the future you come back to this , this kind of thing is what people call mental gymnastics.

It kinda feels like punching down at this point so I'll leave you be.

Point to the advocation.

Edit: changed my mind, no need, see my other reply , good luck.

Indeed, but the definition does, I don't care at all about this hill, but not being able to understand the application of the definition of words is going to make conversations difficult for you.

I would assume a competently executed strategy of eliminating the worst offenders (and/or the managing infrastructure thereof) would probably have more impact, they probably meant legal things though.

For instance, a solo campaign of taking out the biggest data centers would probably work. Difficult though.

Stating something is true with no supporting argument other than "I said so" followed by some shaky(at best) logic doesn't leave much in the way of conversation points.

But lets give it a go.

Firstly there was no demand or proposal for any demographic to partake in the activity mentioned.

Secondly, assuming the first point wasn't true, by your rationale there would be no way to mention any activity without it being a suggestion that all current recipients must immediately perform said activity, which it patently ridiculous.

Thirdly, the suggestion that you are a best in class mental gymnast isn't a thought terminating cliche, perhaps you could claim ad hominem but as I said before ,"I'm right, because reasons" doesn't leave many conversational avenues open.

The rookie was the most blatant example for me and i was incredibly disappointed , because i like Nathan Fillion.

I heard it got less bootlicky later on but i never made it that far.

There are now, after months of push-back on the shit they were originally trying to pull.

A "plugin"

• installed by default
• that you couldn't permanently disable (though that may have been a bug)
• that you couldn't uninstall (that was intentional)
• had no corporate level "We can't legally use AI so remove all possibility of it causing us legal problems please" option.

I say "plugin" because up until this , plugins were optional, could be uninstalled and generally didn't "accidentally" re-enable themselves on restart.

They've fixed most of it now, but the backlash was interesting to say the least.

Though, to be fair that was only the full AI and not the built in "small" line completion, not sure what the current state of the "big" line completion is.