Yes it takes some effort to delete them, but so does looking left and right before crossing the street.

There’s no reason to assume software being innocent/bug-free unless proven otherwise. This is not the case with humans, at least in civilized parts of the world.

Compare a modern clip to something that was made in the 70/80s. I guess it does take some skill to not end up with 2 bodies just lying atop each other and properly cutting away the boring/disgusting stuff while still maintaining some "flow".

And there’s lots and lots of competition .. so differentiating on quality might still be worthwhile, despite it possibly not being the most important factor.

Nevertheless, the real issue here is that those services exist because there is demand for them and the "legitimate suppliers" don’t seem to feel a need to attend it. As Valve’s founder put it "Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem".

Is there any service out there with Netflix-level breadth of the titles available? Is there any service out there that let‘s you watch without having your name associated to "adult videos" in various databases? Is there anywhere people can turn to when still underage? Is there anywhere people can go to for getting the latest "fappening" leaks?

Hence piracy.

Yes, some of those reasons may be questionable or outright wrong, but given that the situation is what it is, why not try to at least make the best out of it and settle for some youtube-like service/agreement where the content creators will get at least some share of he profits and at least some control over the contents can be retained?

The argument about torrents vs "tubes" however seems pretty irrelevant. If you want HQ videos, don’t mind the wait and have plenty of storage available then torrents are likely the better choice. If you need something right now, don’t have much bandwith or storage and don’t care much for quality, a steaming service might work well enough for you. That there exist some unscrupulous streaming service providers is no different from torrents containing malware or torrent-indexing/tracking-sites/communities engaging in similar behavior as streaming services.

Go figure.

Are there any sandboxes in existence which are definitely not worse than useless?

Android was trying to imitate iOS and needed to establish itself and survive in a harsh market environment. It needed to be flashy, appeal to elitists, be affordable enough for the „poorer“ market segments, foster an economy around „apps“, etc. The result was an unholy monstrosity that, nevertheless, managed to beat iOS (on market share) as it was supposed to.

Chrome OS instead was an attempt at reducing a computer as much as possible to being just an interface to the internet – merely a technical artefact required to interface with the digital world, since humans don’t happen to have WiFi built in. Sort of like Google Glass, but envisioned in a world were smartphones did not yet exist. Market concerns and technical viability were secondary. The result was something that functionality-wise works as well as current technology allows, but nevertheless is the only laptop out there that truly „just works“. If anything actually ever breaks, you can go to the store, buy another one and have it work exactly the same like your old one – just type in your login credentials and everything’s back to where you left it.

I agree that in a perfect world both these „things“ should be achievable by only one product, but, reality being the mess hat it is, lead to Google developing two different products and now painfully trying to converge them into only one as much as possible.

Looking forward to oil-shareholders claiming how expensive electric cars for the elites are making electricity unaffordable for the poor.

I think the words you're looking for are "micromanagement" (if it's about dealing with more than one unit) and "mechanical skill" if it's about having twitch reaction times (for last hitting, landing spell-combos, etc.)

I play DotA on and off, and thi is the part that irritates me the most :x

Even assuming you'd somehow manage to produce and combine atoms to a spec, there's positively no way of obtaining that spec.

I think you'll need to look at the other end of the spectrum to see an abundance of (wrong?) models of causality: Religion and Law.

There are no "confirmed" cases of anyone actually going to heaven or hell or purgatory (or whatever else), and yet many of us still conform to some arbitary ruleset in the hopes of eventually ending (or not ending) up in one of thoses places, because we have constructed some model of how doing this gets you into hell and doing that gets you into heaven.

Similarly, we have plenty of evidence on how companies spend huge effort on finding loopholes in tax laws in order to avoid taxes, and yet instead of simplyfing the ruleset (so that there are obviously no holes in it) we still opt for piling on more laws (so that there are no obvious holes in it) because we construct (faulty?) models of how those new rules will prevent further exploits.

Please publish this in a paper or at least a blog article so I can properly quote you the next time a discussion on ACID comes up. :)

For some reason though we're the exception here. Most people seem to have enjoyed ME2 more than ME1 because nobody seems to care about having an actual coherent storyline as opposed to a bunch of one-off missions, fancy graphics and a character with a recognizable face from TV.

Because evolution graced (cursed?) us with a reward system and parents that utilize (abuse?) it.

Having something capable of high-level reasoning, while free from the desires, fears, moods and other emotions humans suffer is part of the reason why we're looking into AI right?

> that's just your opinion, man

Maybe? I have 5 fingers on my hand - is that an opinion? Maybe it is, because what's an opionion anyways? But who would dispute it?

> Somewhere at the bottom of every perspective, there are some arbitrary axioms

Well not quite. "Arbitrary" perhaps in a formal sense, since logic doesn't care about specific universes but truths that hold in all of them. Yes, you still end up having to settle for implicit definitions somewhere along the line (what a finger is, what method you use to count them, etc.). But there nevertheless is some difference between merely assuming something exists, and assuming what should exist.

Something that is all-knowing would be able to figure out the difference between premises that indeed need to be true for our universe to exist (like me needng having 5 fingers right now), and those that humanity merely believes or wants to be true (like it being good that I not use those fingers to poke out someones eyes).