this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
63 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37757 readers
641 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Nope. The set of repairable designs is a subset of the set of constructable designs. Bigger search space means you can optimize the weight further. I wish I could say this in a less abstract sounding way but no, you don’t get to claim that adding a new requirement to a design can definitely be done without sacrificing on weight.

Sure, there’s designs to be had that are in that space, but they’re harder to get to than the design they found.

[–] tesseract@beehaw.org 1 points 9 months ago

you don’t get to claim that adding a new requirement to a design can definitely be done without sacrificing on weight

This is the 'My argument is right because I say so' argument. You don't get to unilaterally make unsubstantiated claims like that and then preempt the opposition like that.

Your arguments lack technical merit or the support by real world cases. Have you ever stopped to think that such arguments are only made by Apple and their fanbois? Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.