this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
15 points (80.0% liked)
Harry Potter
882 readers
1 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Completely wrong. I can’t place a phone call on my stove, just as I can’t cook dinner on my smart speaker or browse the internet on my WiFi-enabled ceiling fan. They are all very different types of devices that serve very different purposes. The fact that they all share a standard communication protocol doesn’t suddenly mean they’re the same.
Wrong again. First of all, the internet isn’t a concept but a reality. And the reality is that it’s made up of millions of different networks that do nothing more than share data in a common format among one another.
Here’s a perfect example. Back in 1999 as an April Fools joke a proposal was made to support the transmission of internet traffic over “avian carrier”. In short it described sending & receiving internet traffic via carrier pigeons. In 2001 a Linux user group in Norway teamed up with a group of carrier pigeon enthusiasts and actually implemented the protocol, sending a handful of packets of data over a distance of a few kilometers.
By your logic, carrier pigeons are a part of this one global device because they have been used to transmit internet data.
Your argument about calling someone from your stove is entirely pointless, because you can't use your hard-drive as a network card. But that doesn't make it any less useful as a network card. You also can't cook tea on your laptop (I am guessing) but that doesn't make it any less useful as a laptop.
The laptop is still a collection of functioning devices that make up a larger whole. You can take one out and put it in another device, and both devices (both laptops) will still function just as well.
The internet is made up of lots of little functioning devices, all of which are interchangeable, but it can still be viewed as one large thing.
And hey -- the wider the internet becomes, the harder it is to destroy Horcrux Number 3, so you don't see me complaining.
I propose an end to the argument here stating that the lore isn't clear on whether a collection of objects can be simultaneously made into a single Horcrx.
I entirely agree.
However it was a lot of fun, so thank you :)