p1peridine

I'm reading the book not his manifesto version. There are no mentions of bombs in his book so the fact that he's the unabomber is of no importance. He's facing the consequences of his actions (good!). Doesn't mean that the book isn't good.

> would conflate liberals and leftists?

The book is from the 90s. You have to factor that in to be sure that he's conflating anything really. Lets also remember that Kaczynski is a literal genius. Top 1% of intelligence. Based on this also I don't believe that he thinks it makes any difference OR it made perfect sense in the times when he wrote it.

It's irrelevant because in a two-party political system they both (leftists+liberals) side to the left. The psychology (traits) of leftism/liberals are similar. The psychology (traits) of conservatives are the same no matter what "sub-type" (in lack of a better word) of conservative they claim to be because they side to the right. Wouldn't you call a neo-conservatives a conservative?

Since Ted is from the US he lives in the forementioned two-party political system. Making the distinction between leftist and liberals makes more sense imo in the European political system (not two-party) and perhaps others.

Left/Right, the political leaning can be observed because of various clues and traits. It's well understood. In academia and elsewhere.

> reactionary conservatives

Absolutely! Kaczynski also goes hard into conservatives. You should read the book, he is also criticising his own political leaning. He isn't so political-focused in his book. It's more on the sociology/psychology side.

“It is obvious that [leftists] are not cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality.” ― Theodore Kaczynski

What? You're thinking of some other dive. I'm talking about the dive that was done in '78 to demonstrate that we had the ability to fix the underwater pipes at that depth. It's THE dive that made us literally filthy rich as a nation, in the years after. Everything depended on the outcome of this dive. No one had attempted anything like this before, that's why we brought in experts from the US.

Do not underestimate the importance of this event. Surprised you didn't know this.

It happened on February 7th 1978. Skånevikfjorden, Norway. On the West Coast. Taylor Diving Company brought in 3 divers + crew.

David Hoover, one of the three American divers, died in the accident that day. RIP

> It's long enough ago that the knowledge has spread widely and much new equipment has been developed, such as the robots.

No one would disagree. If you're saying that it's possible for these robots to plant explosives - I wouldn't know but I can believe that. In this case it's irrelevant.

Om jeg forstår deg rett.. Du som er Nordmann kjenner vel kanskje til at vi måtte hente eksperthjelp fra noen karer nede i USA før vi kunne begynne å bore olje. Ingen Nordmann dykket den gangen, vi måtte ha hjelp. Ved å følge din logikk burde de jo vært Norske, siden slike folk visstnok er enkle å finne? Det samme dypdykket jeg refererer til her endte også i dødsfall av en eller flere av de Amerikanerne som turte det dykket her nede i Norsk sjø, på grunn av en ulykke.

Uansett, med tanke på Nord Stream, vi snakker om en sabotasje-operasjon med eksplosiver under vann. Slikt man ofte ser i klisjè action-filmer, men som (nesten) aldri skjer i virkeligheten. Mener ikke å si at noe av det du skriver er feil i teorien - tror bare muligens du undervurderer skalaen på en slik operasjon. Det er åpenbart en godt planlagt militær operasjon.

> Also, a web-app is in general a better user experience when compared to a desktop app, in this scenario. Because it is easier for the user to launch and use.

Embed an icon to your software, pin to taskbar or the system tray. User clicks icon -> large, non-minimizable popup window appears, gets users attention -> 'generate report?' -> Yes or No button.

Much better than having the user type some URL. They'll remember the icon but not the URL. Two mouse clicks, no keyboard needed.

> I can’t imagine how a non native would understand.

I don't understand it. Respectfully, I also find it mildly amusing.

> So you suggest that everyone can express any opinion, no matter how inflammatory, without any repercussions?

Yes.

I get the logic regarding hating on a product because it's trendy, however, I've followed MS Windows for a long time and more importantly listened to people around me, skilled teams of Windows software developers; with many different personalities and backgrounds; GUI designers, system driver devs, kernel devs, windows internals experts, and what do we all seem to have in common? We do not like Windows 11. Many of us used to praise Windows back in the day (WIN2K-XP-7 era).

To be frank with you, MS deserves all the criticism and I truly believe the 'biased internet swarm minds' to be correct this one time. Agree to disagree.

> People would also hate Edge despite benchmarks showing its latest iterations, even before the transition to chromium, as being one of the fastest and most performat browsers out there.

No Firefox is but it depends on the hardware. I'd encourage anyone to do their own benchmark - don't let anyone fool you with these paid benchmark guru sites.

> contrary to what this shallow blog article posted with no substance.

We'll see. If I'm not mistaken the author has written books on Windows even. Why would he lie about something so stupid? ghacks is not a blog it's a tech news site and pretty well known. Perhaps you don't like it because of the sites critical view regarding Windows?

> Average Joe users who user their PC for entertainment and work

Don't bring up average Joe - we're talking about power-users, you were the one who brought up 'power-user stuff' and that's what I quoted you on. I wanted to share the perspective of someone who do not share your praise and excitement for W11. Many seem to not share your experience that is an ad free, lovely OS.