antisocial /ăn″tē-sō′shəl, ăn″tī-/

adjective

1. Shunning the society of others; not sociable.

2. Hostile to or disruptive of the established social order; marked by or engaging in behavior that violates accepted mores.

3. Antagonistic toward or disrespectful of others; rude.

Source: https://www.wordnik.com/words/antisocial

[1]: https://www.netflix.com/title/81311783

So you’re saying people who thought randomly-generated, meaningless sentences sound smart aren’t themselves smart? Who would’ve thought.

Meanwhile, delaying or canceling elections through executive order would be blatantly illegal, particularly when no conflict is taking place on U.S. soil. The case likely wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court, but if it did, I have no doubt elections would be promptly reinstated.

I'm not saying the Supreme Court has a perfect record, of course. Not even two years ago, they essentially ruled that the president is above the law. But at least in matters regarding the balance of powers between branches, the Supreme Court is wary of the power of the executive branch, and that should certainly include the president's ability (or lack thereof) to interfere in elections.

Meanwhile, the most recent estimates show the Steam Deck, the most popular handheld gaming PC by far, having sold around 4 million units, while every other handheld gaming PC (including the Asus ROG Ally, the predecessor to the ROG Xbox Ally) having sold around 2 million units combined. While the Xbox name carries some weight, I highly doubt the Xbox Ally has sold significantly in the two months since its launch.

TLDR: You’re likely correct that numbers from Windows handhelds did not contribute significantly to the added Windows 11 users in December.

However, I still think that, in general, more freedom of choice is only a good thing.

> Is there any real difference between the scores of toothpastes or breakfast cereals in contemporary supermarkets?

That depends. Do you have a preference for one flavor of toothpaste or cereal over another? Do you have dental issues that require a toothpaste with whitening effects, or without fluoride, or with baking soda? In a cereal, do you value health concerns over taste, or vice versa? If so, then yes, there is a real difference between different choices in these cases. Making one choice over another can have a direct impact on quality of life, if often a minor one. And this is what makes freedom of choice so important for me: it’s the freedom to strive to improve quality of life—synonymous with the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, as the article briefly touches on, freedom of choice isn’t the only kind of freedom, and arguably isn’t the most important one, either. I think this is the point the author was trying to make, but she doesn’t go into much detail. Freedom from oppression is a prerequisite for freedom of choice, and freedom from suffering is (on paper) the ultimate goal of it. Therein lies the debate: when does increased freedom of choice impede on these other two freedoms? Which should be prioritized in these cases? The line is different for everyone. I would’ve liked to see the article add more nuance to the discussion.

Were they there?

> Instead of feeling bad, examine the gap between your current life and the one you yearn for.

Say, for example, my definition of fulfillment is having a large array of close friends. If I find myself distracted from or am unwilling to shower, that will drive many people off. If I miss social cues and communicate “in a different language,” so to speak, that will make it difficult to relate to people and become close with them. If I don’t let myself sleep, I’ll be robbed of the motivation and energy I need to pursue this goal or any other.

That’s just an example. But the vast majority of people, regardless of how they define fulfillment, will have to “play society’s game” to some extent.

“$10.77. Same as my PIN number.”