MrYellowP

> It's her life

Clearly it's not. It's the life of those she copies and is influenced by. I strongly doubt any of the people like your sister are actually making actual decisions about their lives.

You absolutely should try getting through to her, because that's in her best long-term interest. She's literally destroying her life.

Well ... go on, don't keep it to yourself.

MultiThreading! Finally! \o/

Mate. It was pure sarcasm. Furthermore ...

> Movements to enforce language usage changes like this are usually well-intentioned and can sometimes have positive impacts.

No. It can never have any positive impacts whatsoever, because enforcing language usage means that you are being forced to speak, thus think, in a specific way.

The correct course of action is changing society and culture back into a society of people who don't give a fuck about words.

A society of sane people who don't have imaginary pain because of words they read, or hear. Emotionally mature people.

There is no positive impact from enforcing speech patterns, ever, and you even considering the possibility makes you an extremely questionable person.

I don't understand what "emulating executables" means and reading through the text didn't clear that up.

So it's an emulator that emulates whole platforms so one could run windows executables on other platforms, without any required extras? Like having WINE combined with an actual emulator?

I'm confused. Is this a tool for 80s style crackers to write the modern equivalent of trainers?

Did you just assume Joe's gender?

I'll have to report you to the scottish police for HateCrime.

Furthermore, I find your use of "obese" offensive, so I'll report you twice.

You're funny, thinking it makes a difference in the long run.

People have grown shallow and mindless, not even recognizing that there is no substance behind many of the things they hear or read.

Now some genius might respond with "people have always been like this" and that is likely true, but the scale nowadays is vastly different. The omnipresence/constant exposure is making it worse and, because parents aren't actually raising their kids anymore, there is no entity left to correct all this nonsense in the minds of the next generation.

Or it's being outlawed doing so, of course.

> potentially dangerous

> 2 + 2

You really couldn't come up with an actual example of something that would be dangerous? I'd appreciate that, because I'm not seeing reason to believe that an "output beyond the most likely one" output would end up ever being dangerous, as in, harming someone or putting someone's life at risk.

Thanks.

> to prevent abuse.

People never grow tired of the ever-repeating excuses to further reduce our freedoms, or to hide criminality, or just insult the already lacking collective IQ.

Think of the children! We need to prevent abuse! Someone's feelings might be hurt! Someone might get harmed! Seeing real breasts might cause trauma!

Or one that's not so often used, but still really effective:

We're just bulldozering this place, because it's so horrible. Instead we turn it into a luxury resort for rich people. People who believe that it's because we're destroy any and all evidence are just conspiracy theorists. (in regards to Epstein's Island)