this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2026
677 points (95.6% liked)

Technology

81653 readers
3907 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Analog@lemmy.ml -4 points 5 days ago (49 children)

I just dislike sensationalism.

If the truth isn’t enough, then I don’t want it.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (47 children)

You dislike the truth. You should watch Tobacco CEOs deny that cigarettes were an addiction.

https://youtu.be/A6B1q22R438

[–] XLE@piefed.social 2 points 4 days ago (46 children)

Hopefully Analog returns to Lemmy in far less than 12 days, and heavily edits their comments to reflect their error

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Yeah, that was some serious ninja editing.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

What editing? Didn’t edit either if those posts.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

The comments I replied to were heavily edited after I replied. You can comment at the bottom with an Edit: and then explain what you changed. Otherwise, it is known as a ninja edit and it is generally frowned upon because it makes the conversations convoluted. Cheers!

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Since you care deeply about truth or something, when will you be correcting your comments that, at best, lack huge amounts of truth that change the contents you put forth? At best, you accidentally skipped multiple paragraphs that contradict your claims. At less best, you knew better.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Post said he said a thing. He did not say the thing. Not complicated.

Could have worded the post title to be accurate: didn’t. Instead, lied.

Words matter. Truth matters. Interpretation is how you get religious people performing atrocities based on millennia old writings.

“[Asshole] Squirms Under Questioning, Refuses To Admit 16hrs A Day Is Addictive Behavior.”

Not hard.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Your comments now are a huge shift from

"That sounds like problematic use," the Instagram boss answered. He did not call it an addiction.

He also didn’t say it was a tomato.

Seems that, in the interest of accuracy, you should update them, lest you be the thing you claim others are.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I recommend a re-read, my good buddy, of all my posts in this thread.

Truth. Not lies. Not conjecture.

This can be the truth that he was dodging the question.

Don’t say people said things they didn’t say. Simple.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Your original post was a lie, or dumb accident, through omission. And now that you know better, you are lying intentionally in it.

You know damn well they were talking about addiction and not tomatoes. And yet you dishonestly tell people those two things are the same.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Did the douchebag say exactly what the post title said he said?

[–] XLE@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Have you walked back your lie comparing the actual topic of addiction to the irrelevant topic of tomatoes? Make sure you post an explicit correction along with an apology.

"If the truth isn't enough, I don't want it." Please demonstrate.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You support lying. Good to know.

If you don’t understand the tomato comment, no wonder you’re having so much trouble with the interpretation and lying topics!

[–] XLE@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There's no way you can say that the inquiry was about tomatoes as much as it was about addiction. Not without being incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest.

You are now intentionally leaving out multiple paragraphs of content that would prove the opposite, which adds to your deception.

Demonstrate a grain of honesty by fixing your lies and maybe you'll have a right to talk.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You really don’t understand and are just driving the point home the more you post. I feel kinda sorry for you.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Please defend your use of your lying false equivalency. Demonstrate your wisdom, Truth Seeker.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What do you think my original point was?

Yours was essentially “it doesn’t matter if he said addiction or not, he was dodging the question. All the evidence points towards him claiming that much usage is not an addiction.”

[–] XLE@piefed.social 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I told you what your point was. Over and over. And I told you how you were misleading (and now, just intentionally dishonest). Quite a few people seem to understand exactly what I told you.

So if you think there's a communication issue, it's on your side to fix.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You got it wrong and aren’t willing to recognize that. The fact that you can’t even paraphrase my point (no matter how wrong you think I am) shows just how out of your depth that you are.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The stupid/malicious dichotomy just keeps coming up with you, huh. How did you miss the explanations? Ditto for your original wrong comment.

Even if you think you are right, o arbiter of truth, apparently dozens of people disagree with your take when shown context. That's on you bro. Go fix it.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How can you be arguing with someone and not even know what their position is? No, none of your prior posts come close.

Naw, screw “know” - you’re fucking clueless. You have no idea and are screaming into the wind.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Even if you think you are right, o arbiter of truth, apparently dozens of people disagree with your take when shown context. That's on you bro. Go fix it.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You’re out here swinging on a straw man if you can’t restate what you think my position is, and have it be remotely accurate. Which, so far, you’re not even close.

Did I summarize your position well enough? Any clarifications?

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Wrong.

Even if you think you are right, o arbiter of truth, apparently dozens of people disagree with your take when shown context. That's on you bro. Go fix it.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

lol @ copy and paste. You’re committing a second logical fallacy: appeal to authority.

Still so wrong “bro”

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

lol you missed the duplicate the first time, yet another sign of your illiteracy. And you ignored it, typical of the belligerent hypocrite... But tell us, o wise one, what "authority" do you feel was appealed to?

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Did not miss it just thought you were lazy, and I was right. You’ve never even heard of logical fallacies, have you?

Quick review: I fully understand your point, as demonstrated by you not correcting me, despite being repeatedly challenged to do so. You think you understand mine, but do not. And never have. Which is why you’re so full of yourself here. Again, laughably so.

You couldn’t argue your way out of a paper bag. Proof: this discussion. You don’t even know which way is up.

I do appreciate the fun though.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Quick review: I fully understand your point, as demonstrated by you not correcting me

Wrong, I called you wrong already, you weird liar.

You think you understand mine, but do not. And never have. Which is...

Your fault, even if I assume you might be right.

Genuinely, are you mentally well? I asked you what authority you think I'm appealing to. Am I speaking to a person or an LLM?

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What is the name of the authority you think I used?

Look at the examples in the link you posted.

Do I have to draw a picture for you, o smart one?

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You really don’t get it? Oh my.

Let’s see if you can take the first baby step. What do you think my argument is? If you can’t do that then I can’t help you any more.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You accused me of an appeal to authority. Tell me the name of the authority.

We aren't switching topics until you actually finish your accusation (and we both know you're wrong and you can't), or I get a retraction and apology from you (also likely impossible).

I just want a tiny fraction of the truth you say you want.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] XLE@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And you're broken as expected. You accused me of appeal to authority, that's the argument you chose to make.

O Truthful One: what authority

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can’t do it can you? Because you already did go back, recognized how badly you fucked up, and are now like a dog with a bone; too dumb to understand both original comment’s references and that saying “look how many ppl downvoted you” has zero bearing on factual correctness.

You keep saying you did state my point to ensure you understand it. Link it.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is that your final answer on the "authority"? People? lol

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Everything u say is a an intended distraction from your initial massive failure. Can’t handle being so wrong, can ya?

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah the projection

Bro an appeal to authority requires an authority be appealed to, you capable of acknowledging that?

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I explained that. You are a dog with a bone. Just as sharp too - can’t remember the question you’ve just been asked. And been asked so many times.

So. Many. Times.

And again, no you haven’t gotten it remotely right. You’re furious and you don’t even know about what.

Beating on a straw man. Furious, he sits at the straw man: everyone agrees you’re wrong! Why won’t you see!?!

I’m sitting over here like lol this has nothing to do with me. You go be mad at yo’ little self and the straw man. Get ‘im! rofl.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

O wise LLM, what authority are you accusing me of appealing to

Take a break from being a hypocrite and realize that if the truth isn't enough, I don't want it.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] XLE@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can't accuse me of appealing to authority if there was no authority. You either stupidly or maliciously lied. Time to admit it, even consider apologizing and not being a hypocrite for even a moment.

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

"If the truth isn’t enough, then I don’t want it."

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Says the person who hasn’t answered a single question.

There was no clearer way to admit you knew you were wrong from the very beginning. Especially when I asked you to state my argument and you couldn’t do it.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Can't hear you over your false accusation of appeal to authority

[–] Analog@lemmy.ml 1 points 23 minutes ago

Not false. If you could read. Answer the first question first.

[–] XLE@piefed.social -1 points 4 days ago

@RemindMe@feddit.org about correcting misinformation in 24 hours

load more comments (43 replies)
load more comments (43 replies)
load more comments (44 replies)