Sure, but they would point to something else as proof of not this. So let’s not grant the premise in the first place.

Thanks. I definitely know of the incident, but didn’t recognize the photo.

I’m not familiar with that event.

It’s never acceptable to vandalize shit but the sentences are wildly excessive.

Really, never?

Ya, you’re definitely confusing instance with community. I get the argument that fragmented communities can be a problem, but the ability to roll your own instance is not the same thing and is in fact the strength of the fediverse.

What do you mean by “the average buyer.” Wouldn’t all buyers currently be in the same exact position?

That explanation makes it worse.

The sheer idiocy of this take. Libre Office (or other open source alternatives) haven’t been around forever, and paying for software you use isn’t exactly an outlandish idea.

I work with Excel a lot for work. I’ve been tempted for a few years to buy a perpetual license for my personal machine because using the same software is just easier. I haven’t, and obviously now I won’t be.

But don’t put down paying a reasonable price for a perpetual license for software you use often. It’s thinking like that that’s gotten us all-subscription options.

Its your life man, feel free to sell yourself short at will.

I am genuinely confused at this statement. How am I selling myself short and what is “at will” meant to mean?

Go back 10-15 years (and ignore everything we’ve learned about Elon Musk.) Tesla’s were objectively cool.

But now they’re high priced, and software locked, track everything you do and everywhere you go, will trap you inside if caught on fire, require costly body work if in a fender bender which also takes forever, have replaced buttons with screens and door handles with software, and depreciate like a lead balloon.

No, dumbass, we’re not against EVs, we’re against your version of EVs. If Honda ever puts out an Accord EV with Android Auto / Car Play (and priced appropriately), the EV wars are over. That’s all we want.

Because much of the stated reason for EVs is the money you’ll save on fuel and maintenance costs, so spending extra money on something you’ll use once per year doesn’t fit the money saving narrative.

Ultimately, what I and the other commenter is saying is a once a year “need” really isn’t a need at all. To further my example, if I lived in the snow or traveled there regularly, then AWD is likely a reasonable expense, but if very rarely used it would make more sense to rent/borrow. Same goes for a truck (for hauling), or gasoline car for the range.

I drive an EV now and my next car will likely be an ICE AWD vehicle. But I’m also aware that it’s not the most economically sound decision and I’d be buying it for fun. Under no circumstances would I be justifying it by the longer range (which I very seldom need) or to travel to the snow.

Not to mention the need at some point to replace the battery, which can cost thousands.

I don’t mention that and the depreciation bullet point to disparage EV adoption. It’s a good thing we are moving away from ICE to EV. But it’s a little like two steps forward one step back, and most people don’t talk about the one step back parts.

5. They depreciate faster than room temperature milk.

Now, that depreciation may be (or probably is) offset by the decreased fuel and maintenance costs, but I see this point too often ignored.

“Consider”, yes. But buy based on every need, no.

I go skiing once per year. Should I buy a vehicle with all-wheel drive just to satisfy that one need? Of course not.

Keyboard setup would be a system level setting, no?

I consider that a website problem, not a me problem. I choose what I do on the internet, the internet doesn’t dictate the software I use.

I’d agree that buying an Intel Mac Pro three years ago and losing support is shitty, but on the other hand anyone buying Intel in the past six years certainly should’ve known their days were numbered.

I’d imagine Intel Mac minis are approaching the price of a Raspberry Pi.

I’ll lift a comment I posted elsewhere on the topic of the name.

From a 9to5mac article on the topic:

Breaking with tradition, Apple didn’t name macOS 27 after a national park, lake, or other natural landmark. Instead, this year’s release is named after San Francisco’s iconic Golden Gate Bridge.

Typical of 9to5mac “reporting.” The Golden Gate is a natural landmark, it’s the strait between San Francisco and Marin which the famous bridge spans. Nowhere in the OS release even says the word bridge.

Fun fact. While it might seem safe to assume the “gold” in Golden Gate refers to the gold discovery about 100 miles upriver that started the California gold rush, it was in fact named the Golden Gate prior to the gold discovery. John C. Fremont (my favorite early Californian) named it such because of the color of the hillsides when he first arrived.