Then I must be missing a lot of projects, because I don’t know of any which use discord for any of these things, besides questions and answers. And even then, only for informal stuff. Anything more serious goes on GitHub (or alternatives) or forums.

Public forums serve a different purpose to a live chat. Actually what I’m seeing a lot in the comments is people making assumptions about what the purpose of the discord server is, and from those assumptions then conclude that it would be easy to use something else. Some assume that they use it for documentation (???), some assume it’s for technical support. But usually what I see, is that these kinds of servers are just an attempt to build a community. And for building a community in the tech space, discord has by far the biggest user base for a chat solution (unless you really think there are more target audience using Facebook messenger, than discord?)

I’m sorry but where is this random assumption that the documentation is on discord coming from?? It is extremely common for projects/organisations to have some kind of community discord, but I have never seen one that used it as their main documentation host. The discord are almost always just community hubs to chat with other community members.

then don’t brag about being 100% FOSS supporter

You are literally doing exactly what the meme was about lol. A discord alternative may simply not be a viable alternative for their needs, if no one is using it.

Anyone can clearly see if edits have been made, and I have not made any. Please don’t fabricate lies.

Isn’t it?

When those are just the precursors to the horrible murder, I’d have to say yes, magnitudes worse.

And I never asked you to explain why rape is awful, I never disagreed with that. I wanted you to explain why it being a precursor to murder, makes it magnitudes worse than murder. But for some reason you insist on pretending that I’m asking “why is rape awful”??

I’m not sure why you are being so condescending. I’m well aware how brutal rape can be, I’m also aware how brutal murder can be. But this doesn’t explain the logic of yours that I wanted to understand, which was that “when rape includes murder, then rape is magnitudes worse than murder alone”.

Ah ok. I was thinking of specific instances rather than an indefinitely long situation, so I see where you are coming from now.

Then I think I’m not understanding something here, maybe you can explain (asking genuinely). Because it seems to me that what you said doesn’t make sense with the definition of the word?

It wasn’t whether they are worse (I’d agree that they are often worse), but if they are magnitudes worse. If the kidnap, imprisonment and rape of one person is comparable to the murder of hundreds or thousands of people (since that would be magnitudes more).

In my opinion to call one magnitudes worse than the other is to immensely downplay the seriousness of the other.

So to be clear, when something is magnitudes more than something else, that means on the scale of 100-1000x more, or even higher powers of ten. If rape + murder is magnitudes worse than murder, then definitionally rape alone must also be magnitudes worse than murder.

Of course multiple atrocities are worse than a single atrocity, but talking about one being magnitudes worse than the other, to me seems to immensely downplay the seriousness of the other.

For example, to me “murder is magnitudes worse than petty theft” would be an appropriate use of the word.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but it sounds like you are trying to say that kidnap and rape are magnitudes more horrible than being horribly murdered?

But again it wasn’t the team, and it wasn’t " throwing shade" it was one guy, who listed it as one reason against AI. Power consumption is also a valid reason against using gentoo. People are able, and indeed should be aware of potential problems and downside of things, even if they are involved in other things which also has those issues. I am sure most of the gentoo team would readily acknowledge that energy consumption is a downside of gentoo compared to other distros.

You really went looking for something to hate on there didn’t you. That is the only sentence in the whole article that even mentions power consumption, all the other arguments both fit and against are for a variety of other topics.

It seems to be that you are more likely caught up in some kind of movement if one argument from one person is enough for you to label everyone there luddites

Sometimes people want to be generally helped, and sometimes people just want an answer to their question. If the answer is “it’s impossible” then that’s a valid answer, but if the answer is “I’m not going to tell you, instead I’m going to assume that what you actually want is me to teach you why you were wrong to ask the question in the first place” then theres a good chance that actually they just wanted an answer, and you deciding for them what they need comes across as patronising.

I think the talking down aspect comes from phrases like “you shouldn’t be doing X”, especially when these statements are made as absolutes, rather than contextualised with actual reasons.

Running GUI programs as root might cause security problems, or it might cause software problems. And while you might find these issues important, others might not.

In my opinion, saying something like “it’s not a good idea if you care about security” or “doing so might make your PC burst into flames” gives helpful warnings for OP and future readers without talking down to them by making decisions for them what they should and should not do.

You’re of course free to watch whatever you like, but it seems to be that if you are going to boycott anything which involves someone who happens to be an asshole, then there isn’t going to be anything left for you to enjoy.

I think where the difference lies is that you are interpreting “cost X lives” to mean “cost X lifetimes of Human experience” while the interpretation I, and articles use is more like “cost X people their status of being alive”

That is not what costing something means. Cost is to lose something which you have, it does not mean to lose the potential to something you don’t have. If an apple costs a dollar, it means you had that dollar, and now you don’t. The impact of the apple was for the number of dollars you have to decrease by one. If you buy it with 100 dollars it obviously doesn’t cost 100 dollars because you get 99 dollars back.

When talking about lives, we don’t get them back. People have lives, and if something causes them to lose them, it means costs them a life.

If I own a car, then after ten years of owning and driving it, I trade it to buy something else, that thing still cost me a car. The amount of car I have does not decrease over time but through use. It’s quality might, but the count does not care about quality. Same with life. People who are middle-aged do not only have half a life, they are still fully alive.

How is the language extreme? For something to “cost lives” means exactly for those lives to be cut short, there is no other meaningful definition. The language used is exactly as extreme as the scenario it describes, by definition.

Do you apply your same logic to other scenarios too? Like would rather that “the tsunami cost the lives of 55 people” be reworded as “the tsunami shortened the lives of 55 people”?