upvote

points

by Kwpolska13 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby tgma13 hours ago|
[-]
I am reading the post again. It does appear the author is not fully aware what DFU is supposed to do. They are talking about "storage devices" in that context, which is a total misread--their interpretation of DFU seems to be something close to "default boot device."

The DFU port is definitely not the singular one on the right side of the device. The documentation debate is about which port on the left side of the device (closer or farther from MagSafe.)

reply
upvoteby lapcat10 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> They are talking about "storage devices" in that context, which is a total misread

What misread are you talking about? I'm talking about storage devices because the documentation says you can't update macOS on an external storage device while it's connected to the DFU port.

> their interpretation of DFU seems to be something close to "default boot device."

No, that's not my interpretation. I have no idea where you're getting that from the blog post.

reply
upvoteby tgma9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Fair enough. I now see the connection (i.e. separate from DFU process another doc excludes DFU designated port from participating in your process.) Regardless the documentation is 100% correct re which port is DFU port. If your process fails, it could be for any number of reasons only one of which has to do with using the DFU port, so it is not a logical implication to conclude the failure means DFU port is wrong.
reply
upvoteby lapcat8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> it could be for any number of reasons only one of which has to do with using the DFU port

Any number? How about naming them. Name one.

People in the comments here claim I'm wrong but totally hand-wave away my issue.

reply
upvoteby tgma7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
One can logically disprove a theory without providing an alternative theory: reductio ad absurdum.
reply
upvoteby lapcat7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> One can logically disprove a theory

You haven't done so.

> reductio ad absurdum

You misunderstand what this is. You suggested in another comment that I test the theory by trying the DFU process, but that is not reductio ad absurdum.

reply
upvoteby tgma7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> You haven't done so.

Theory: "the DFU port seems to be the USB-C port on the right side of the Mac [p], not on the left side."

Reductio ad absurdum: "[p] port R is DFU => [q] we should be able to execute DFU process on port R (and not port L)" We execute DFU on port R and it fails [NOT q], therefore [NOT p], so the theory cannot be correct. QED

reply
upvoteby lapcat7 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You can turn every empirical theory into a so-called "reductio ad absurdum" by phrasing the results of empirical tests as a premise in the argument, but that is itself totally absurd and a mockery of the logical idea.
reply
upvoteby tgma6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's not a mockery—that is precisely at the core of scientific method. Theory makes predictions (logical implications), and if you empirically find contradictory evidence, the theory is proven incorrect.
reply
upvoteby lapcat6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Theory makes predictions (logical implications), and if you empirically find contradictory evidence, the theory is proven incorrect.

Of course. But again, that is not the form of argumentation known as reductio ad absurdum.

Reductio ad absurdum is not at the core of scientific method. Reductio ad absurdum is used for example in pure, nonempirical mathematics and geometry, and typically starts by assuming the opposite of the conclusion.

reply
upvoteby klausa13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Genuinely curious — did you use an LLM to write this post; or do you have this tone naturally?
reply
upvoteby astrange7 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Love that this post starts with "genuinely curious" (a Claude-ism.)
reply
upvoteby tgma13 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
No LLM entirely organic. (If you are talking about referring to the author as "they," that is impact to my head from working at woke workplaces.)
reply
upvoteby klausa13 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I can't really put my finger what (falsely!) tipped me off here.

I think the short, single clause, internal-monologue-ish sentences is what did it?

> I am reading the post again. It does appear the author is not fully aware what DFU is supposed to do.

That especially came off like an LLM being called out on being wrong about something?

reply
upvoteby nixosbestos9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Ah yes the woke practice of the singular they, when gender doesn't matter or is ambiguous. Which a hundo-percent never existed before scary mean woke-ism.
reply
upvoteby tgma9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Have you done editing your name calling out or should I wait a bit longer? C’mon get it out of your system.
reply
upvoteby nixosbestos9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby tgma9 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
[flagged]
reply
upvoteby defrost8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> Also yes, it is 100% corporate woke-ism...

In your experience, sure.

Some of us have done it that way since Usenet in the early 1980s w/out ever having worked in corporations, attended HR meetings, and well before woke entered the recent zeitgeist lexicon.

Using they is indeed a grammatical usage stretching back centuries in the english language.

Oxford Eng. Dict. cites it used in that manner going back to circa 1200. (well, as ' https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%BEe%C8%9D%C8%9D ' in Middle English)

reply
upvoteby tgma8 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sure, it is a personal experience, but no, you cannot gaslight me out of my personal experience by citing your superior knowledge of Middle English. The existence of such construct is not germane here. Forcing people to use the language a certain way is. Anyone who has faced this knows exactly what I am talking about and they can judge for themselves. Since this subthread was adding precisely zero value, I am going to stop right here.
reply
upvoteby defrost8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I would not deny you your experience, I merely remind you that you do not speak for all and the experience of others.

Perhaps take your complaint to the root offending comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46853452 that started all this by projecting their personal gripes outwards and onto all.

reply
upvoteby nixosbestos2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It's SO FUNNY HOW YOU JUST USED IT. Oh my god, I knew you would eventually, but in an actual reply in this thread. Truly amazing.

Anyone... They...

But yeah, I'm the weird one for using "they" the same you did rather than go look up the post authors gender. Jesus fucking Christ. Props for keeping the makeup on.

reply