Cis people have launched more missiles at people in general. Better ban any sort of similar treatments for cis military members too.
Cis people have launched more missiles at people in general. Better ban any sort of similar treatments for cis military members too.
Helping "bad people"? There's nothing inherently more bad about Palestinians than any other nationality.
Scotch sounds rad as fuck.
Don't tell me what to do.
There's approx 14 million Palestinian people. To claim all of them are as bad as a group like Hamas is either incredibly stupid or incredibly bigoted.
Did you actually read the OP? OP is talking about specific kinds of social media that exclude Lemmy among others.
You can probably actually do this reliably in cases where those political views work against the persons interests. It's not like people voting against their own interests is an uncommon phenomenon.
If they make it difficult or impossible to acquire through purchase ... I think an argument can be made for surfing the high seas.
I don't think this particular line of thought makes for a very good argument without more info. The other case makes sense. But for this one, people aren't obligated to sell you things. If you own something sentimental or private to you that I want, you're not obligated to sell it to me if I want it and I'm not justified in stealing it from you if you don't want to sell it.
For ex: Think of embarassing photos of yourself, private letters between you and others etc.
Machine learning techniques are often thought of as fancy function approximation tools (i.e. for regression and classification problems). They are tools that receive a set of values and spit out some discrete or possibly continuous prediction value.
One use case is that there are a lot of really hard+important problems within CS that we can't solve efficiently exactly (lookup TSP, SOP, SAT and so on) but that we can solve using heuristics or approximations in reasonable time. Often the accuracy of the heuristic even determines the efficiency of our solution.
Additionally, sometimes we want predictions for other reasons. For example, software that relies on user preference, that predicts home values, that predicts the safety of an engineering plan, that predicts the likelihood that a person has cancer, that predicts the likelihood that an object in a video frame is a human etc.
These tools have legitamite and important use cases it's just that a lot of the hype now is centered around the dumbest possible uses and a bunch of idiots trying to make money regardless of any associated ethical concerns or consequences.
Hell yeah.
Limits don't disprove this at all. In order to prove 0.999...=1 you need to first define what 0.999... even means. You typically define this as an infinite geometric series with terms 9/10, 9/100, 9/1000 and so on (so as the infinite sum 9/10+9/100+9/1000+...). By definition this is a limit of a sequence of partial sums, each partial sum is a finite geometric sum which you would typically rewrite in a convenient formula using properties of geometric sums and take the limit (see the link).
The thing is that it follows from our definitions that 0.999... IS 1 (try and take the limit I mentioned), they are the same numbers. Not just really close, they are the same number.
https://math15fun.com/2017/02/25/finding-limits-graphically/ If a limit exists... (such as the case in this link), -1 is a hole... but not -0.999999...
What you're saying here isn't actually true because -0.999... and -1 are the same number. -0.9, -0.99, -0.999 and so on are not holes, but -0.999... is a hole, because it is the number -1.
You see the distinction here? Notations -0.9, -0.99, -0.999 and so on are all defined in terms of finite sums. For example -0.999 is defined in terms of the decimal expansion -(9/10+9/100+9/1000). But -0.999... is defined in terms of an infinite series.
The same sort of reasoning applies to your other decimal examples.
It's even more apparent in "weird" functions like the one outlined here... https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3136135/limits-of-functions-with-holes-variables-vs-constants for x=1 the output is 2... but for x=0.99999... it's 1.
You take limits of functions. The first limit is the limit of a function f that, according to the diagram of the problem, approaches 1 as x goes to 1. But the second limit is the limit of a constant function that always maps elements of its domain to the value 2 (which is f(1)). You can show using the epsilon delta definition of the limit that such a limit will be equal to 2.
The notation here might be a little misleading, but the intuition for it is not so bad. Imagine the graph of your constant function 2, it's a horizontal line at y=2.
But I think that it's a matter of the origin of the 0.9999...
This is correct. It follows directly from the definition of the notation 0.999... that 0.999...=1.
I don't think that 3/3 is ever actually 0.9999... but rather is just a "graphical glitch" of base 10 math. It doesn't happen in base12 with 1/3, but 1/7 still does.
Then you are wrong. 3/3 is 1, 0.999... is 1, these are all the same numbers. Just because the notation can be confusing doesn't make it untrue. Once you learn the actual definitions for these notations and some basic facts about sums/series and limits you can prove for yourself that what I'm saying is the case.
I do accept that we can just presume 0.999... can just be assumed 1 due to how common 3*(1/3) is.
It's not an assumption or presumption. It is typically proved in calculus or real analysis.
But I do think it throws a wrench in other parts of math if we assume it's universally true. Just like in programming languages... primarily float math that these types of issues crop up a lot, we don't just assume that the 3.999999... is accurate, but rather that it intended 4 from the get-go, primarily because of the limits of the space we put the number in.
It definitely doesn't throw a wrench into things in other parts of math (at least not in the sense of there being weird murky contradictions hiding in math due to something like this). Ieee floats just aren't comparable. With ieee floats you always have some finite collection of bits representing some number. The arrangement is similar to how we do scientific notation, but with a few weird quirks (like offsets in the exponent for example) that make it kinda different. But there's only finitely many different numbers that these kinds of standards can represent due to there only being finitely many bit patterns for your finite number of bits. The base 10 representation of a number does not have the same restriction on the number of digits you can use to represent numbers. When you write 0.999..., there aren't just a lot (but finitely many) 9's after the decimal point, there are infinitely many 9's after the decimal point.
In a programming context, once you start using floating point math you should avoid using direct equality at all and instead work within some particular error bound specified by what kind of accuracy your problem needs. You might be able to get away with equating 4.000001 and 4 in some contexts, but in other contexts the extra accuracy of 0.0000001 might be significant. Ignoring these kinds of distinctioms have historically been the cause of many weird and subtle bugs.
I have no reason to believe that this isn't the case for our base10 numbering systems either.
The issue here is that you don't understand functions, limits, base expansions of numbers or what the definition of notation like 0.999... actually is.
There's definitely a bit of "forcing" these people want to do with this version of Jesus, they just don't want to admit it.
Why should the government support someone's bad eating habit when they don't support someone's alcohol habit, or cocaine habit?
I'm not a doctor at all, but for certain addictions, people can die from the withdrawls that occur if they just stop. I'd imagine in those cases rehab and treatment requires supporting the habit via the drug itself or a safer analog in order to keep the individual alive so that they are able to draw down and eventually quit whatever the source of their addiction is.
For example:
On the bright side, you are now the proud owner of a hip designer bean plate.
I feel like the same kind of argument can probably extend to either intellectual property or real physical objects. With physical objects certain limits have to apply of course (like me withholding things you need to survive could potentially justify your theft).
With intellectual property, if you write stories for yourself to pass the time you aren't obligated to share/sell those stories to me and it would be wrong for me to break into your home and make copies of them if you chose not to sell/share them with me.
if the Palestinians are blameless then why arent they rounding up hamas cultists and giving them to the Israelis?
This point specifically is bat-shit fucking stupid enough to deserve its own comment. It makes absolutely no sense at all for random Palestinian civilians to take on the dominant military power of the region they live in in the middle of an armed conflict and trying to use that as justification for your earlier points is stupid.
Backtrack then crunchbang. Eventually I moved to arch. I've been using debian and mint lately though.
Arguably a lot of these tools are designed specifically to reduce the effort a human has to put in to create the art they want to make too.
Given that music boxes are very very old it is plausible that beethoven could have made a remark sharing his opinion on this exact issue. I don't mean to agree/disagree with your point, I just find that kind of interesting.
If you go see an independent mental health professional aren't there only two outcomes?
They confirm you are as mentally fit as you think you are and you go on with your life (possibly with more resources than you previously had if your mental health really does take a dive).
They identify something that is actually wrong with your mental health and help you fix or learn to cope with the issue.
I'm not seeing the downside here. Who cares if it's coming from some shady government boogeyman or some random stranger?
People talk a lot about stackoverflow for figuring out bugs and miscellaneous coding questions but the whole stackexchange project has a lot of other very excellent websites.
I've interacted with communities here for some of my interests that I hadn't really interacted much with on reddit due to my primary interests being more niche and having a slower rate of content generation.
It's kind of good and kind of bad though. Some communities for things I care about are full of people who are dogmatic to the point of being actively stupid. But I do like thinking about the ideas and topics of those communities, and discussing flawed ideologies within a particular community is probably worthwhile and necessary.
You cannot use the outcome of a proof you’re validating as the evidence of the validating proof.
You should read what I said more closely. If you read what I actually said (literally the very first paragraph), you'll notice I told you what the proof of 0.999...=1 is.
Let me fill in some of the details I left out for you. By definition, 0.999... IS the sum as n goes from 1 to infinity of 9/10^n. By definition this is the limit as N goes to infinity of the sum from n=1 to N of 9/10^n. The sum from n=1 to N can be evaluated (by the link in my original post) to be (9/10)(1-(1/10)^(N-1))/(1-1/10). So, from calculus we take the limit of this formula as N goes to infinity, it is (9/10)/(1-1/10), arithmetic tells us this value is 1. So, the limit of the sequence of partial sums we mentioned earlier is just 1, by definition this tells us 0.999...=1
What I've just outlined to you is the "infinite series and sequences argument" shown here, it is equivalent to the "rigorous proof" argument they also give.
You cannot use the outcome of a proof you’re validating as the evidence of the validating proof. Prove that the limits work without a presumption that 0.999… = 1. Evaluate a limit where there’s a hole in the function for 1… then prove that 0.999… also meets that hole without the initial claim that 0.999… = 1 since that’s the claim we’re testing.
Your whole statement here is not an issue because:
In my original comment I actually told you how the proof for 0.999...=1 works.
I just outlined the proof for you again.
I also sent you a link just now containing more explanations and proofs of this fact.
So you you tell me I don’t understand things… when you’ve not provided proof of anything other than just espousing that 0.999… = 1.
Again, the issue is you failing to see that I already told you the proof of this fact in my original post (and in the current post).
And I know how to work with floats in a programming context. It’s the programming context that tells me that there could be a case where the BASE10 notation we use simply does “fit” the proper evaluation of what 1/3 is. Since you know… Base12 does. These are things I’ve actually already discussed… and have covered.
I'm not sure if you meant to say the base 10 expansion of 1/3 does or doesn't "fit" the "proper evaluation" of 1/3, but it does. Hint: try to apply my previous proof method to the series 3/10+3/100+3/1000+... to show this series evaluates to 1/3.
The issue that you're getting so mystified by here is really to do with divisibility. Ieee floats are irrelevant and arguably don't even really describe the entire set of real numbers very well to begin with.
It turns out that any rational number (i.e. a ratio of two integers) has a repeating decimal expansion no matter what base you pick (in some cases this expansion is not unique though fwiw). See here for an explanation of this. You might want to also read about Euclid's division lemma as well.
It's just that the way the denominator of your rational number divides the base you choose determines the sort of pattern you see when computing the base expansion (specifically whether or not the denominator divides the base tells you when the base expansion can terminate or not).
For example say we want to know the base 10 expansion of 1/2. To compute the first digit you can notice that since the base 10 expansion of 1/2 is given by 1/2=b_1/10+b_2/100+b_3/1000+... for each b_i being some integer between 0 and 9 (inclusive), that the integer part of 10(1/2), gives our first digit b_1, notice 10(1/2) is 5, so our first digit is 5. To compute our next digit consider 1/2-b_1/10=b_2/100+b_3/1000+..., this tells us the second digit of our base 10 expansion is the integer part of 100(1/2-b_1/10), but this value is just zero. If we keep repeating this process we keep getting zeroes. Notice we have a sequence of statements of the form 10(1/2), 100(1/2-b_1/10), 1000(1/2-b_1/10-b_2/100), ... that we're using to successively calculate out the actual values b_1, b_2, ... and so on. Since 2 divided 10 we got b_1 to be equal to 5, which caused 100(1/2-b_1/10) to be equal to 0, so b_2 was zero, so 1000(1/2-b_1/10-b_2/100) ended up being equal to 1000(1/2-b_1/10), which is zero, so b_3 is zero and so on. The fact that 2 divides 10 causes a cascading sequence of zeroes after b_1=5 when we start actually trying to compute the digits of 1/2 in base 10.
We can try the same trick for 1/2 in base 3 now. We know our base 3 expansion of 1/2 has the form 1/2=a_1/3+a_2/9+a_3/27+... (these denominators are increasing powers of 3) where our a_i's are integers between 0 and 2 (inclusive). So, the integer part of 3(1/2) gives us our first digit a_1, but 2 doesn't divide 3 cleanly, so we have to use Euclid's lemma (i.e. division) to find the integer part of a_1, notice 3=2(1)+1, so 3/2=1+1/3, so our first digit is 1. Cool, so now we need to find our next digit, similar to before we see it is the integer part of 9(1/2-a_1/3)=9(1/2-1/3)=9/6=3/2, but this is just the same problem as before, so a_2=1 as well (which is what we expect). Continuing this process leads us to a sequence of 1's for each digit in the base 3 expansion of 1/2.
The fact that the decimal expansion for 1/2 terminates but the base 3 expansion doesn't is due to 2 cleanly dividing 10 but not 3 in the above process. Notice also, that the general method I've outlined above (though not the most efficient) can be applied to any rational number and with any base that is a positive integer.
But you’re cherry picking trying to make me look dumb when instead you’ve just added nothing to the conversation.
I don't really think I'm "cherry picking" or "adding nothing to the conversation". You're speaking from ignorance and I'm pointing out the points where you're reasoning is going astray and how to resolve those issues. Rather than feeling dumb because you don't know what you're talking about, you should read what I said to try and see why it resolves the issues you're struggling with.
Hell yeah!
If you really want to shill for...
Yeah, I don't think that's what I'm doing. I think you're misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding my point. My point is that the argument below needs more details to justify why/when piracy is acceptable. I'm not claiming piracy is totally unethical or anything like that, nor am I shilling for anything.
If they make it difficult or impossible to acquire through purchase ... I think an argument can be made for surfing the high seas.
For what it's worth, I don't think your point about ethicality problems in the entertainment industry makes for a very satisfying argument either. If my neighbor steals from somebody else, am I justified in stealing from my neighbor? Maybe? But that reeks of self-interest and doesn't actually help the real victim.
If my neighbor steals a pound of sugar from somebody and I steal their car, to me it seems like I'm still doing something unethical. If my neighbor steals somebodies life savings and I steal their car, it feels like at best I'm doing something morally neutral, if not still outright wrong.
I'm not saying piracy is unethical, nor am I saying people shouldn't pirate. What I'm saying is that certain arguments for piracy being ethical aren't very good.
Sure, but breaking and entering is a crime - just like theft. Copying someone’s documents is wrong, but it’s not a crime (not unless you commit a crime with those documents, eg fraudulently take out credit). In that case, it’s a civil offense against the victim - just like copyright infringement.
My issue is mostly just to do with the moral status of piracy rather than the criminality of it. It feels like in some cases piracy should be justified and in others it shouldn't be. The criminality of an act is a separate thing. I think I was kind of explaining things poorly with my examples. The distinction between breaking into a home vs not in my example was meant to show the act of copying somebodies personal documents could still be wrong whether or not a crime had taken place under current laws.
Crimes are prosecuted by the government. To be convicted of a crime you have to be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt - in other words, it’s more than 99% likely you did it.
Civil offenses are prosecuted by the victim. The burden of proof is “the balance of probabilities”, ie it’s more than 50% likely you did it. The victim must also show actual damages.
This is very interesting. Establishing damages over reproduction of ones personal documents seems like it would be almost impossible to establish unless an actual crime had also taken place.
In the US, media companies have perverted the law around copyright infringement, and they manage to get awarded statutory damages well in excess of any actual damages they incur. This is why we had all those ridiculous Napster lawsuits where people were fined hundreds of thousands for downloading a handful of songs. In the rest of the world, they could only be awarded actual damages, and the lawsuits weren’t really worth anything.
Media companies would really like copyright infringement to be theft, and they’ve lobbied hard for that. However they haven’t managed it, not yet anyway. They did manage to establish a crime of commercial copyright infringement, though, where if you pirate a significant amount of material or do it for profit you could be criminally charged.
This train of thought for me seems to lead towards the most satisfying justifications I can think of for why media piracy is probably morally justifiable.
If you’re talking about having family photos pirated, there’s a privacy issue, not a property issue.
It's pretty clear that I'm talking about more than just family photos. It's also pretty clear that what I'm saying is that privacy problems are one of possibly many issues with copying data without permission. My actual point here from the start has been that it's not always ethical to copy other people's data without permission.
Everyone talking about media in privacy talks about distributable media. If you want to include other things, that’s on you, but you’ll be yapping in the void as that isn’t what the conversation is about. Not secrets, or private documents.
All of the types of media and data I'm talking about are distributable in a colloquial sense. This conversation is about the fact that copying data without permission isn't always ethical. The data we're talking about here absolutely includes secrets, private documents and so on.
As for the term of taking, it’s clear what taking means when you try to erroneously conflate piracy with stealing. It doesn’t mean the same as taking a shit either,
I don't think that's what's happening. I'm talking about the ethics of copying data. Perhaps sometimes copying data can be considered theft, but whether or not copying data is theft, has nothing to do with my point. A thing being called theft doesn't make that thing morally wrong or right. The term theft itself has little to do with the actual issue we're talking about.
Also, I've never actually claimed piracy is theft. I'm also not claiming piracy is morally wrong, or even that theft is inherently morally wrong for that matter (a person can be justified in stealing in some cases).
it has nothing to do with personal definitions, merely the accepted definitions when talking about either piracy, or stealing.
Lets assume you're right and that literally everybody in the world uses these words the way you do (they don't). I don't think arguing "but that word means..." makes a very good argument against the fact that copying data from other people just isn't always morally right. The fact that you don't like how I use certain words is just not a good argument against what I'm saying. If you understand what I mean and you disagree with what I'm saying, then why not argue against my point instead of complaining about the fact that you don't like HOW I use certain words? If you understand what I'm saying and you agree that sometimes it's wrong to copy other peoples data without permission, then why are we still discussing this?
I'm cherry picking, yet you cherry picked the sentence "I don't really think I'm cherry picking" over the entirety of my previous comment to you?
Virtually my whole last paragraph was ignored in my original comment.
Did you not read the entire last paragraph of my first comment where I directly quoted and responded to the last paragraph of your original comment? Here, let me quote it for you. I see reading is not your strong suit.
Quote I took from your last paragraph:
But I do think it throws a wrench in other parts of math if we assume it’s universally true. Just like in programming languages… primarily float math that these types of issues crop up a lot, we don’t just assume that the 3.999999… is accurate, but rather that it intended 4 from the get-go, primarily because of the limits of the space we put the number in.
My response:
It definitely doesn’t throw a wrench into things in other parts of math (at least not in the sense of there being weird murky contradictions hiding in math due to something like this). Ieee floats just aren’t comparable. With ieee floats you always have some finite collection of bits representing some number. The arrangement is similar to how we do scientific notation, but with a few weird quirks (like offsets in the exponent for example) that make it kinda different. But there’s only finitely many different numbers that these kinds of standards can represent due to there only being finitely many bit patterns for your finite number of bits. The base 10 representation of a number does not have the same restriction on the number of digits you can use to represent numbers. When you write 0.999…, there aren’t just a lot (but finitely many) 9’s after the decimal point, there are infinitely many 9’s after the decimal point.
In a programming context, once you start using floating point math you should avoid using direct equality at all and instead work within some particular error bound specified by what kind of accuracy your problem needs. You might be able to get away with equating 4.000001 and 4 in some contexts, but in other contexts the extra accuracy of 0.0000001 might be significant. Ignoring these kinds of distinctioms have historically been the cause of many weird and subtle bugs.
Quote I took from your last paragraph:
I have no reason to believe that this isn’t the case for our base10 numbering systems either.
My response:
The issue here is that you don’t understand functions, limits, base expansions of numbers or what the definition of notation like 0.999… actually is.
But you keep doing you.
Lmao, be sure to work on that reading comprehension problem of yours.
What are you even expecting? How am I supposed to read your mind and respond to all the super important and deep points you think you've made by misunderstanding basic arithmetic and calculus? Maybe the responsibility is on you to raise those points if you want further response from me on them and not on me to somehow just magically know what you want?
I'll take your approach. No, that's not what "taking something" means, because clearly the definition they're using for that is more inclusive.
Yeah, a drunk guy crashing into an asian themed fast food restauraunt is very comparable to an ex president making promises to deport and destroy anybody too far left of his current politcal position if re-elected. These events are definitely of a similar scale and nature. Thank you for the sane comparison.
I can't trust you on this because you are using the words 'true fact'.
This is not about whether your neighbor is committing wrongdoing in your community, rather whether the system itself, and the edifices that hold it up are conducting themselves in good faith. Without these major players pressuring government to extend the enforced monopolies of copyright longer (that is, robbing the public – you and I – of its catalog of public-domain material) and failing to enforce educational and fair use, we wouldn’t have IP laws at all, and piracy would not be a thing.
Firstly, the neighbor comment I made is an analogy. Nobody is claiming this is about literal neighbors committing wrongdoings in a community. I'm not sure if you've missed my point with that analogy or if you're choosing to willfully misunderstand it here?
Second, what you're claiming here isn't correct when you talk about "what this is about". My comment which you are replying to was not about whether "the system itself, and the edifices holding it up are conducting themselves in good faith" or anything like that. My whole point is about whether "If they make it difficult or impossible to acquire through purchase … I think an argument can be made for surfing the high seas." is good reasoning or not. Nobody is debating you on whether the modern media industries, the government, etc are corrupt or acting in good faith. That has nothing to do with my actual point.
We’re not pirating from the artists. We’re not pirating from our neighbors. We’re pirating from giant corporations who’ve been plying the government for over a century now to strip rights from the public.
You keep jumping back to these points of "well the media corporations, the government, etc did X wrong by us, so we're automatically justified to pirate", that's not how this works. The whole issue is why does that justify piracy? Doubling down and trying to say "BUT I WAS WRONGED!" is not a good argument here. Being wronged in some way does not make it morally acceptable to just do whatever you like.
You certainly asserted such by arguing piracy is morally.
No I didn't. You are either ignoring or misunderstanding what I'm saying. My claim is that certain arguments don't justify why piracy is permissible. Not that piracy is morally wrong.
If IP belonged to the public ...
I'm not making any claims about who IP belongs to.
So please, by what authority are you asserting puts IP in the hands of private interests, thus making piracy a moral wrongdoing.
I can't give you any authority on this because if you reread what I actually said, I'm not claiming piracy is morally wrong and I'm not claiming anything about IP ownership.
Of course you wouldn’t be justified in harming a minimum wage worker because the policy of the corporation. That is like the opposite of the point.
That's a pretty obvious example of the point I was making when I said: "Something being wrong isn’t an immediate justification for whatever action a person takes in reaction."
Say my neighbor owns a company and exploits immigrants to do lawncare. Maybe I’d pay for it if I knew he was actually taking care of his workers and not exploiting them, but he sucks, boo. So while he is away on vacation I borrow his equipment without asking to do my own lawn. Does it hurt him? I mean technically there is more wear & tear on the equipment. Will he notice? No. Do I give a shit if it causes it to break faster than it would have otherwise? Nah, fuck him.
This feels like very self serving reasoning. I don't think you're actually justified in doing something along these lines. Even worse, you can actually cause more harm by doing this. Your wear and tear on your neighbors tools can make the jobs of the already exploited immigrants harder and if the tools break the immigrants may be blamed for it. This actually feels like another good example of my point above that a wrong does not automatically imply justification, regardless of how much it might benefit you personally.
With their original comment,
If they make it difficult or impossible to acquire through purchase (false scarcity by removal fro market) or if despite purchasing a physical object, say a car, I can’t fully use it or repair it without special software I think an argument can be made for surfing the high seas.
I'm only talking about the first case of the or here. I specifically pointed out the other case that you are referring to was not something I had an issue with.
Edit: And how does this change anything? Companies aren't any more obligated to sell people things than individuals. There are instances where it may be beneficial for a company to choose not to sell certain products, for example if a better product exists that should succeed the old product or when a certain product is later discovered to be harmful in some way.
You revised your text to change its wording. No footnotes.
I'm pretty new to lemmy, but in the web interface comments which have been edited show a little pencil icon with their edit time where the post time used to be. If you look through our comment exchange you'll notice, none of my comments to you have that icon. I did edit a comment to somebody else, in that comment I added a footnote asking for more details about a point they were making, this had nothing to do with our exchange.
Notice also, in my original message (which has not been edited), my point was "I don’t think this particular line of thought makes for a very good argument without more info", this is exactly what I have been telling you my point was this whole time, whether or not I edited any comments.
I can no longer assume that you’re arguing in good faith.
It's pretty ironic to assume the other person is not acting in good faith while you continually respond to a misrepresentation of their position. This is very literally a strawman fallacy. If you aren't intentionally misunderstanding what I'm saying, then you should work on your reading comprehension skills.
For your reference, here is a comment that I will edit.
Edit: Here is the edit.
Lol what? Goddamn how big is your estate that one single use of a lawnmower is going to so significantly destroy it that it’d be noticeably harder to use? This is like putting 10 miles on a car. Not putting sugar in the gas tank. Jesus.
It seems plausible to that a manager that is already abusing people would go out of their way to do things like docking pay over pretty trivial things like relatively minor tool damage? It doesn't even have to be at the same scale as actually breaking the tools to cause the kinds of harm I'm talking about.
Point is, if someone is a piece of shit I could care less about inconveniencing them. Which is all stealing from large corporations amounts to. (Again, large corporations, not smaller shops which even if shitty will do shit like take losses out of cashiers pay checks where it is legal [or not, they often don’t care] to do so, so it’s best not to steal from them either way.)
I can sort of get behind the idea that large corporations do a bunch of bad shit, we have an obligation to try and oppose/prevent bad shit from occurring, piracy harms large corporations hence is an act of opposition/prevention, so piracy is justified in that sense. But I don't think this kind of position is free from issues either.
You're getting downvoted but you are right. Stuff like this is a super cool example of exactly the type of thing you are talking about imo.
There's a lot of AI generated art that sucks. But that does not imply that in skilled hands an artist can't use those tools in creative/interesting ways.