The problem with compromising for a “middle ground” is that, when the right decide to re-litigate the issue (if they ever stop litigating to begin with), your starting position is now that middle ground. Compromising for a middle ground simply moves the Overton window to the right.

It’s a bad joke. You feeling the need to write 4 paragraphs explaining the joke is testament to that.

31?! Hate really ages you.

I’m not sure this is the case, but I like to imagine that the statue is polished from people petting it.

In what world is mid 30s young? I’d rather have a political cabinet of people who have to live with the consequences of their decisions, than a hundred variants of Holden Bloodfeast.

You’re right. All 8 billion people in the world aren’t telling you you’re wrong so it isn’t literally everyone. You’re the only person rejecting objective fact. People are quoting Apple’s license agreement. “nuh uh, free”. People are rebutting your top level “show me a receipt” comment. “I never mentioned receipts, you brought them up. Also nuh uh, free.” People are explaining the economics of perk systems. “No evidence that Apple applies this general economic theory to its business. Also nuh uh, free.”

You are evidently working with a definition of free that deviates from the commonly understood definition of the word, insofar that no one has yet agreed with you. You need to communicate better because what you are doing now isn’t working. Start by defining what you understand the word free to mean.

You know, if I made a statement and everyone responding disagreed with me or appeared to be misunderstanding me, I’d consider the quality of my own communication first before spending a day telling everyone else that they’re wrong or failing to understand me. You’re the common factor in all these discussions.

Your argument hinges on the fact that it doesn’t appear on your receipt. Neither do any of the components of my M1 Macbook Pro other than the optional extras that I selected. By your logic I only paid for the itemised extras.

You’re arguing that any perks tied to a purchase aren’t actually factored into the cost, which is certainly a mindset that some people have and those people are the kinds of consumers that give marketers wet dreams.

A “free” perk that has the implicit requirement of buying into the company’s ecosystem - whether through a software subscription or purchasing proprietary hardware - is not free. You’ve already paid into the ecosystem and there is no additional cost.

I own and use Apple products. That’s how I know you’re talking bollocks. You also realised at some point that you were talking bollocks, which is why you’re now pivoting to absolutely absurd responses to pretend this is some elaborate troll attempt.

Alright Theseus, how many components of a macbook need to be removed until you’re no longer buying a macbook? Would you be satisfied receiving an empty box since the monitor, CPU, motherboard etc. are not individually itemised on your receipt for a MacBook?

The OS is a component of the whole product by Apple’s own reporting and marketing material. If you bought a Macbook directly from Apple and it came without MacOS preinstalled, would you consider that a fulfilled transaction?

We have one for combinatorics: Ask Fibonacci about his rabbits.

Just an observation from a mathematician: I’ve never heard this comment from someone who was competent in high school maths. Whenever I mention that I’m a mathematician and someone responds how they “never got on” with maths, usually the next thing to leave their mouth is some gripe about financial literacy.

12 years later is “shortly after”?

The punchline is ANAL.

“Exquisite use of an interrobang, good sir. I doff my fedora to thee.”

You’re thinking of Arthur Jermyn. Innsmouth is the fish people that the neighbouring town thought was simply a product of spending so much time fraternising with the Chinese.

Sounds like we have the same reading of that statement, and I would say a very similar reading applies to “you’re responsible for getting yourself off.” My issue is with people misappropriating the message to assert that it’s somehow okay to be apathetic to your partner’s needs.

That just sounds like a refinement of “you’re responsible for your own happiness”, which is a maxim of selfish people abusing therapy talk to justify their apathy/callousness towards their partners.

Partnerships are collaborative efforts for mutual gain, not zero-sum games where we’re individually responsible for maximising our own output from the system. A good partner should actively want to see their partner happy and fulfilled.

Bravo to the exceptional bravery on display here. I’m sure the majority of PhD graduates, including myself, wish they’d had the gumption to name and shame the suppressing factors contributing to a toxic academic environment. Reading this makes me kind of appreciative that my troubles were only administrative mismanagement and an inexperienced supervisor.

Also what the hell is up with TU Delft? It’s only partway through March and this is the second time this year that I’ve seen a PhD candidate publicly call out the institute.