Ok, thanks for the engaging discussion. Goodbye.

Could we stop having this meta-debate about what a person who is not either of us meant, and instead could you comment on the substance of my post?

I don’t know how the original poster meant it, but one possible way to interpret it (which is coincidentally my opinion) is that the concept of intellectual property is a scam, but the underlying actual legal concepts are not. Meaning, the law defines protections for copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets, and each of those has their uses and are generally not “scams,” but mixing them all together and packaging them up into this thing called intellectual property (which has no actual legal basis for its existence) is the scam. Does that make sense?

For someone who bitches all over this thread about people strawmanning their position, this is a pretty fucking great reply.

Hint: one can be pissed about people throwing around the not-based-in-legal-reality term “intellectual property.” One can be pissed about people using it as part of a strategy to purposely confuse the public into thinking that copyright infringement is the same as theft, a strategy which has apparently worked mightily well on you. One can be all of those things, and yet still feel that copyright infringement is wrong and no one should be entitled to “literally everything someone else creates.”

What you posted was a textbook definition of a straw man.

My brother/sister in Christ, everyone in this discussion is talking about copyright infringement. That is the actual legal name for what we colloquially refer to as “piracy,” according to, you know, the law, which you previously referenced as something we should look to.

You say “ask the dictionary” — multiple dictionary definitions as well as Wikipedia say that theft requires the intent to deprive the original owner of the property in question, which obviously doesn’t apply to copyright infringement of digital works.

You say “ask the law” — copyright infringement is not stealing, they are literally two completely different statutes, at least in the US.

So, what the hell are you talking about? Copyright infringement is not theft.

Apple uses a unified memory where the memory chips are embedded on the SoC in the first place. The memory modules are on the same silicon wafer the chip is cut from, not separately on the Mobo

This is 100% false. All Apple Silicon Macs use standard LPDDR4X or LPDDR5 memory chips, the same as are used in other computers, which are soldered on a PCB next to the SoC. They are not on the same die. The high memory bandwidth on M1/M2/M3 comes from having a lot of memory controllers built into the SoC -- it's akin to a PC with an 8+ channel memory setup. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing technically preventing Apple from making an Apple Silicon mac with socketed memory again, other than those sweet sweet profits for shareholders.

This is incorrect; the M-series chips all use standard LPDDR4X (M1) or LPDDR5 (M2/M3) chips, not part of the SoC, and soldered directly next to the CPU. The SSDs are also standard NAND chips, again external to the SoC, connected via PCIe.

Sorry if my post was confusing. The first point was referring to cables for iPhones before the latest iPhone 15 models — previously, you’d get a cable that was standard USB-C on one end, and Lightning (the proprietary connector) on the other. You could use those cables along with any standard USB-C charging brick to charge the phone. My point was that the charging brick does not need to be proprietary, and the proprietary part (the cable) was included with the phone.

All iPhone 15 models use completely standard USB-C and come with a C to C cable in the box.

You said Arch can do “literally anything” that any other distro could do, and I’m trying to point out that by having to issue imperative command(s) to set Nix up on Arch, you’ve already conceded that the entire state of the system is not able to be declared in a config file, which is one of the features of NixOS. So there is at least one thing that NixOS can do that Arch can’t. I imagine there are other examples (and not only when comparing with NixOS). So again I ask, can you please refrain from hyperbole?

No, because while that lets you use nix to manage some of your packages, it’s still fundamentally limited by being hosted within the imperative Arch install. See for example section 2 in the very link you shared, which talks about starting the nix daemon at boot by messing with your systemd config.

1. If by “charger” you mean the brick that plugs into the wall, which I hope you do because it’s the only thing that Apple omits from the box, then Apple also uses that same cable type (USB type C). It’s only the other end of the cable that is proprietary. And the cable itself is included with the phone.

2. All of this is moot for the iPhone 15 pro and non-pro which are fully USB type C.

I love Arch but I’d caution you against hyperbole like this. For example, NixOS has a declarative config for the whole system along with atomic builds that can be rolled back or switched dynamically. Not aware of any way to do any of that in Arch.

Start with one site at a time, and if a site/service doesn’t allow you to change your email without contacting them, make a note of it, and don’t worry about it for now. To begin with, focus on the sites that you can change yourself. This will give you a sense of making progress, perhaps faster than you might think.

I started switching off of gmail about 4 years ago and I’m still checking it periodically. Most of the messages I get to my gmail account these days are spam or mistaken emails due to people signing up for services and thinking that my email address is theirs (I have an early “first initial/last name” gmail address that I got in 2005). But every once in a while something legit will pop up and I make it a point to change the address.

I don’t know if I’ll ever actually close my gmail account or stop checking it, but at this point I’ve got 99%+ of the services I care about switched over to my new address, so if Google boots me, I won’t care.

I’m sorry if this comes off as rude or blunt, but here goes:

I am not aware of any evidence that resurrection is possible, or indeed that anything that could be called “supernatural” is real. Don’t you need to establish that before you can claim that arguments for a flipping resurrection seem strong? What am I missing here?

Yeah, email relays are probably better. I wasn’t necessarily considering those in my comment. But there are tradeoffs there too; now all your incoming mail can be read by a 3rd party, and there’s one more server between you and your email that needs to be up and working for you to properly receive mail.

I agree with the tradeoffs stated here, but I’d argue that any email address you hand out can serve as a unique data point, tied to you.

myusername@gmail.com for obvious reasons.

myusername+token@gmail.com — easy to filter out the plus and everything after, and it’s very likely more people use this format than uniqueusername@my-own-domain.com, making more likely that this filtering would actually be automatically applied.

This seems like faulty logic to me. What other things in your life do you affirmatively believe “by default” just because their counter-arguments seem implausible to you? Doesn’t it make more sense to not hold belief in something until you have evidence supporting that belief?

Which part would you like a citation for? I am happy to provide.

The part I quoted: that "the universe formed itself and all matter, presumably from a state of non-being." I take particular issue with 1) the "formed itself" language, because it sounds a bit like you're referring to the universe as an entity that can act of its own accord, which I don't believe is correct, and 2) "presumably from a state of non-being," because it sounds like you believe science has actually established that there was likely a "state of non-being," when I don't know that a "state of non-being" is even something that makes any sense to discuss in a scientific manner. So if you had citations to corroborate the entire statement, that would be ideal.

Edit: and your second paragraph strays pretty far from the original topic of reincarnation. Yes, in a many-worlds interpretation of the cosmos, there are infinitely many copies of me, and an infinite number of them have put their hands through walls as if by magic. But this is pretty different from the commonly-accepted concept of reincarnation, in that you aren't saying that we are reborn again only when we die, but rather that we exist in infinitely many universes simultaneously.

Lastly, Science tells us that the universe formed itself and all matter, presumably from a state of non-being.

[citation needed]

If “you” can form once, is it so absurd to believe that it could happen twice? If twice, why not an infinite number of times?

I don't believe it's impossible. But I'd put the odds of the exact same atoms arranging themselves in the exact same way so as to form another "you" in roughly the same ballpark as me being able to touch the palm of my hand to a 6" thick wall and have it pass right through. Both my hand and the wall are mostly empty space, so it's possible for the atoms to all align in the correct way for it to happen, but the odds are infinitesimally small.