←back to thread

Traveling with Apple Vision Pro

(azadux.blog)
471 points tosh | 9 comments | 16 Oct 24 13:48 UTC | HN request time: 1.616s | source | bottom
Show context
fjuskpl[dead post] ◴[16 Oct 24 14:06 UTC] No.41859183[source]▶
[flagged]
lee-rhapsody[dead post] ◴[16 Oct 24 14:09 UTC] No.41859198[source]▶
[flagged]
DrillShopper ◴[16 Oct 24 14:16 UTC] No.41859264[source]▶
Why do you care what a kooky murder thinks? What do you think Ted Bundy thinks about this? What do you think Charles Manson thinks? Jeff Dahmer?
replies(2): >>41859284 #>>41869275 #
throwaway48476 ◴[16 Oct 24 14:18 UTC] No.41859284[source]▶
Did any of them write a book on technology?
replies(1): >>41859680 #
DrillShopper ◴[16 Oct 24 14:46 UTC] No.41859680[source]▶
No, but I fail to see how that matters.

I don't care if he wrote the fucking Bible - he's a mass murderer and the world was better with him in Supermax.

replies(1): >>41860376 #
1. edm0nd ◴[16 Oct 24 15:40 UTC] No.41860376[source]▶
Side note, he was an extremely talented math nerd and his manifesto did raise some interesting questions about technology and society.

I wouldn't exactly call him a "mass murderer", he only actually killed 3 people over a 17 year time span. IMO a "mass murderer" kills a lot of people all at once in a single location, for example, like McVeigh.

replies(1): >>41862309 #
2. DrillShopper ◴[16 Oct 24 18:41 UTC] No.41862309[source]▶
He only successfully killed 3 people - he definitely tried to kill more. That has to enter into the calculus. Not only that, by sending his packages through the mail he endangered many many more people in the process.

Relatedly: What's the threshold for you for body count before someone loses credibility? 5? 10? 100? 1000?

replies(2): >>41862526 #>>41862532 #
3. Dylan16807 ◴[16 Oct 24 18:56 UTC] No.41862526[source]▶
> Relatedly: What's the threshold for you for body count before someone loses credibility? 5? 10? 100? 1000?

I don't think any of those necessarily makes someone lose credibility for their writings.

replies(1): >>41863223 #
4. throwaway48476 ◴[16 Oct 24 18:57 UTC] No.41862532[source]▶
Credibility for what?
replies(1): >>41863240 #
5. DrillShopper ◴[16 Oct 24 20:02 UTC] No.41863223{3}[source]▶
I think you and I fundamentally differ on this point then.
6. DrillShopper ◴[16 Oct 24 20:04 UTC] No.41863240{3}[source]▶
In this case, his views on technology. I'm sorry, someone who thinks the solution to the problem is to mail bombs loses all credibility in my mind.
replies(1): >>41864202 #
7. throwaway48476 ◴[16 Oct 24 21:51 UTC] No.41864202{4}[source]▶
It is necessary for the problem and analysis to be linked like that?
replies(1): >>41866136 #
8. DrillShopper ◴[17 Oct 24 03:22 UTC] No.41866136{5}[source]▶
When someone goes unhinged and starts a mail bombing campaign and then threatens to kill more people if newspapers don't print his unhinged rambling manifesto then yes I think it's very important that every mention of him be paired with understanding of the lives he ended. Fuck him. I'm glad he's dead, and I'm glad he rotted in Supermax first.
replies(1): >>41868327 #
9. throwaway48476 ◴[17 Oct 24 10:53 UTC] No.41868327{6}[source]▶
Now you just want a caveat? Your arguments are inconsistent and hard to follow.