Comment by modo_mario
8 hours ago
>It’s like saying my car isn’t really a car because I can’t adjust spark timing.
What if it only drives along select predetermined monetised routes?
8 hours ago
>It’s like saying my car isn’t really a car because I can’t adjust spark timing.
What if it only drives along select predetermined monetised routes?
What if my aunt had three wheels?
I don’t see the value in hypotheticals like that. If the claim is that a computer is not really a computer unless every user can do any low level operations they want, is it also true that a car is not really a car unless every user can do any low level operations they want?
Manufacturers are taking away right to repair too! I think you picked a bad example. Back in the 60s you absolutely could change every low level component on a car.
Even a car that you are not allowed to drive at all is still a car. It just isn't your car.
Exactly!
Our argument shouldn't be about the device's capabilities, but about its ownership. And increasingly, as this enshittification progresses, the person buying the device is becoming less and less its owner.
That’s still a car.
You could own a race car that cannot legally be driven on any public roads and it’s still a car.
I agree with brookst that this sort of redefinition is a poor rhetorical tool.
I think we call those buses, usually!
No, a Bus is a big car with more space for passengers. The Route has no relation to the naming.