ThinkPads generally aren’t low to medium Windows laptops though, they’re literally several thousand dollar machines. It’s just they age incredibly well, so they end up on the used market at a heavily discounted price after a while. I’d be surprised if a Chromebook outperformed a ThinkPad when it comes to actual performance.

Yeah that’s a good point about keyboard and mice, that’s kind of why I like having an actual standalone laptop. For me I feel like a tablet isn’t as portable as a phone, but it’s also not as useful as a standalone laptop, so it’s kind of hard for me to find a use case for it.

faster with the things it can do

What do you mean by this? Surely you don’t mean actual performance, right?

I don’t game a ton but having the performance to be able to do so is really nice IMO. The battery life is great as well (like 6+ hours depending on what you do etc), and being able to put any OS I want on it is huge too. I also like how durable it is too.

I feel like if I got a tablet, I’d want a keyboard, and then a mouse too. That’d still be best for portability though, most likely, but it’s kind of nice having a full laptop experience.

I was thinking of buying a Chromebook for travelling cause it’s cheap. I was very close to buying one, but someone told me about the world of used ThinkPads. I ended up buying a used ThinkPad with an AMD R7 4750U and I am so glad I did. It can run literally every game I want lol

I thought it was his sister who wrote the speech the AI read, but yeah, this whole thing feels wrong and gross.

Windows is malware.

I remember when Linux users used to say that, but it turns out they were right.

I’m glad I leaved that cursed OS behind.

I mean, it’s kind of not incorrect:

Windows 11 users reportedly losing data due to Microsoft’s forced Windows 11

I would work on open-source software and play games, which is what I already do, I’d just have more free time to do it.

Seems like PewDiePie is a lot more open-minded than a lot of Windows users lol

I agree with the first part of what you said, but I disagree with your last sentence.

I have been using Linux on my desktop PCs and laptops since 2017 and it’s been working great for me, even playing games. Honestly, I probably play more games on Linux than I did back when I was on Windows lol

Pirating Nintendo games is ethical.

Sure but his doctors are keeping him alive regardless, clogged arteries no problem they’ll clear that right up too. He will outlive people far healthier than him. That’s just how these things go.

I’d say there’s zero chance, he could probably easily outlive us all somehow.

Good, make them suffer.

I guess I just feel like the playing field should be a lot more even at the start.

But the playing field is never going to be equal. There are always going to be some people more disadvantaged than others, so having the same cap for everyone could leave people in unequitable situations.

I think a hard cap of like 2.5 million could be fair, because it at least balances some of the inequality by not having people be outrageously rich to the point where it’s unachievable for anyone not born into it. Like, inheriting 250 million or more is far more than anyone could ever obtain in their life normally.

The disabled cousin might not need the windfall if we didn’t let people hoard so much. I’m just not sure how it’s morally acceptable for those who have rich generous relatives to have a life so different from someone who doesn’t, though.

So in that case, all disabled people should live in poverty because it’s not fair if only some do? If we can’t help everybody then nobody should be helped? I’m not sure that’s a great goal to achieve.

Honestly, I agree with that. I think a 2.5 million cap is reasonable for pretty much everybody. Nobody ever needs more than that, and nobody could ever reasonably obtain more than that in their life normally.

So if you cap it to 30k, that still means that parents dying means that their children’s lives are still left uncertain. There would still be the problem of people being unable to afford housing.

I’m not sure that no inheritance at all, or 30k for everyone at age 18 actually solves anything.

Ah, I understand, I agree then.

To be fair, people do discriminate based on height too, do they not?

People make fun of short guys, tall girls, etc.

That seems reasonable to me, I think that would be a good idea.

I would have agreed with you when I was younger, but now that I’m older I think I changed my mind, I’m not so sure it’s fair to make people suffer with late-stage terminal diseases where their whole life is reduced to suffering.

(that is to say, I do not really believe that there is such a thing as a “fate worse than death” so to speak, because I believe that death is the least functional state a person can have and anything above that implies at least some functioning even if that state is still highly undesirable)

Is constant, unending suffering where you are in a state of constant unimaginable and untreatable pain a state worth living, though? Should people have to live that way, just because death is “worse”?

Everything is in someone’s head. Without consciousness, we are nothing, so saying something is “in someone’s head” is the wrong way of putting it.

Have you ever heard about functional neurologic disorder? Just because symptoms are psychosomatic does not mean they are not actual symptoms.

Dangerous people can be stopped from hurting others without locking them in cages or treating them poorly.

I’m actually very curious about this one!

How should mass-murderers be handled then, in order to keep the public safe? I think we can all agree that mass-murder is bad, so how can the public be kept safe if a mass-murderer is allowed to roam free? How do you prevent someone from doing the same horrific acts multiple times if not locking them away from the general public?