Cheating is absolutely a sellable skill.

Assuming you are asking genuinely, here’s an answer.

Q wasn’t created as a result of V’s(or P’s) intolerance, it’s a specialisation of a larger group, P.

P and Q aren’t mutually exclusive, you can be both.

V can and do enjoy both P and it’s subgenre/offshoot Q.

If you don’t understand in general why larger social groups might sometimes give rise to more specilaised subgroups or offshoots (for reasons other than exclusion) then any answer you receive is not going to make sense to you.

Incidentally, the same explanation works for the cooking show example, as it’s the same basic premise.

I’m not the person who replied to you but I’m fairly confident that person was mimicking your phrasing with an example they thought was simpler for you to understand, in order for you to see how it sounded incorrect.

It seems you didn’t get the context of that, which is probably why it seemed like an odd reply.

in contextual translation:

If television viewers were accepting of cooking then why did they have to create a subgenre of cooking shows?

becomes

In the same way that cooking shows exist as a sub-genre of TV shows in general without requiring broadcasters to have first banned cooking on TV , queercore can exist without requiring punk to have first been intolerant of it’s LGBTQIA+ members.

Condensing english prick comedian?

Probably Ricky Gervais

i’m of the opinion that if someone has done their best* ^[1] to consider the consequences of an approach and chooses to take that approach while accepting the potential outcomes, then that is an acceptable decision making process.

In some cases escalation might be a potential outcome and as long as the person understands that, then them choosing that option is their considered choice.

In the same way that freedom of speech* ^[2] isn’t freedom from consequences, freedom of choice isn’t freedom from other peoples choosing to act against you.

If you want to make what seems like a poor choice from my point of view, i might advise against it, but ultimately it’s up to you.

However, i’m also free to try and stop you if that’s what i choose. In this case i’m not looking to curtail your choices, but i am pitting my choice against yours.

The difference is in the potential for creep.

The proposed implementation would actually be less invasive than a national ID card (assuming the implementation information provided is complete and accurate), but also usable in less scenarios.

AFAICT there is no provision for actually verifying the person using the app is the person who’s identity is verified in the app.

What’s to stop one person having a verified identity and just sharing it with the people around them once it’s been issued ?

As an example, with an ID card in a bar you need to match the photo, this digital system would be like turning up to a bar with an ID that had no picture or details on , but just said “over 18”, you could then hand this to a friend and they could also use it.

I personally think that if a system is mandatory then an easily circumventable verification system is the best choice , but such an easily circumventable system is exactly the kind of thing governments have used as an excuse to push for further encroachment.

Take the UK for example, the online safety act they have is easily circumvented with a VPN (which many people noted before it was implemented) the government basically stuck their head in the sand and claimed vpn’s weren’t widespread enough to be a problem.

Skip to now and they’ve got representatives looking to force vpn compliance with the online safety act without having the slightest clue about why that wouldn’t and can’t work the way they want.

A more suspicious person might suspect the attack on vpn usage was an expected part of the overall plan.

Even a less suspicious person could still see the direct line from one to the other.

I’m not saying they will, but if i were a betting person, I’d certainly put some money on it.

The problem you’re having is that your looking for a logical answer without considering the mindset of the other side.

They aren’t trying to build a reason based/lawful way to defend themselves.

They are using bad faith and/or weaponised ignorance to be cruel dicks, that’s the point.

They can then build on top of this to be even greater dicks to a larger variety of people.

There are potentially other motivations in the bigger picture, but at this level it’s just “how can i weaponise my truly astonishing levels of crippling insecurity to hurt the ‘other’” because that’s how pretend they have control/power enough to enjoy life.

They’re the self-appointed Gender HOA, giving out citations because they have nothing else in their life.

see my reply here

Yes, i get that, copilot is like opencode or cursor, though perhaps with less general access to models.

There was a reply

Copilot? You mean the AI with terms of service that are in bold and explicit: “for entertainment purposes only”?

followed by

I suppose GitHub Copilot is meant, which is a different thing.

i was asking why github copilot is different in that context.

There are many such projects that have done similar things that aren’t getting the attention this one has.

The reason this one it getting the attention it is, is because of the replies and behaviour of the dev.

Ok, so there are 70-81 copilots, github is one of them.

Why is github copilot a different thing in the context of the reply that was being responded to ?

Different how, isn’t github owned by microsoft ?

If you’re stuck at review you aren’t seeing 10x development, you’re seeing 10x code generation.

This is especially important because without the review/test/deploy part of the pipeline you aren’t actually seeing any progress towards business goals.

Once you do get these parts sorted, you can then look at what multiplier you’re seeing.

That’s not to say there isn’t an improvement in your workflow, just that you can’t say with any certainty what kind of improvement without measuring the end to end.

It might turn out that the rest of the pipeline is way easier , in which case your multiplier will be higher, it might also be much harder, in which case the multiplier will be lower.

I’m not taking shots, i mean it seriously, especially if you need to report any of this to the rest of the business.

edit : In addition, if it turns out that review is going to be a bottleneck you can get extra resource pointed in that direction which will benefit the workflow overall.

another edit: i would consider correctly managing the expectations of those you report to as a vital skill.

Oh yeah, im familiar, crossed is top tier.

Dropped off of my radar a while back, but I’ll pick up again eventually

Posts show up on the lemmy equivalent of r/all regardless of community subscription.

Not that that is necessarily a reason to change your rules, just pointing out that it’s possible to see this post without a sub.

Yeah my bad, crash to desktop, or in the case of the switch, crash to homescreen

I used effectual equivalent for a reason.

I did say it was somewhat hyperbolous but there are real life examples that are possible.

Something like extended bullying directly leading to suicide, lies with the intention of causing harm or death.

Calls to violence that lead to deaths that otherwise wouldn’t likely happen is a good example of one that can be technically correct but difficult to prove.

Intentionally telling someone a door leads to safety when it actually leads to a spike pit is effectually the same as stabbing them yourself.

Are those examples good enough for an answer?

Im looking for how the idea holds up at the logical extreme so I can understand the bounds of the theoretical context.

There doesn’t have to be a good answer either, some ideas only work in a limited boundary and break down at the extremes.

I know its a hyperbolic example (though entirely possible in the context you describe)

What would be your thoughts on speech that had the effectual equivalent of murder?

There’s no traps here im just interested in the thought process behind the context you provided.

Side note: if verbal violence is possible then it would probably track that there are degrees of violence, much like the physical equivalent.

If that’s true the argument that you shouldn’t regulate subjectively heavy violence because “who here hasn’t physically hurt someone?” Isn’t a reasonable as it sounds at first glance.

For the record, Rowling is a shitbag, the potter books are mediocre and the actors were the best thing about the movies.

None of that bias is in the foundation of my questions though.

i played this game hard for a while, but there were so many CTD progress reverting bugs that it finally killed my enthusiasm for it.

Custom printed.

The front rack grills, keystone panels and thinkcentre mounts are from a website but all the other printed parts are custom.