"Because I feel like it."

So in other words, because she wants to? As in, "because it's her body and she can do whatever she wants with it"?

You may already know this now, but I want to post it for those who don't because it's really cool and way ahead of its time.

That was for the VMU, the visual memory card. It stored your game saves but also some games had minigames you could play directly on it, often with bonuses in the main game. In the Sonic Adventure games you could take care of chao and such on it. That thing ate batteries like candy though.

It's not an opinion that proprietary for-profit software will betray you, it is an inevitability. It has happened every single time. If it was FOSS, we could salvage it. It's proprietary, so we can't. When it fails it must simply be abandoned. I just hope you learn the right lesson when this happens.

I'd argue it's pretty stupid to use FOSS but then depend on a proprietary server that only one for-profit company is allowed to run to deliver all that software, trusting them to just never do wrong or leave you high and dry. I'd also argue it fits the analogy perfectly, because the analogy was about saying "I haven't had a problem yet" in response to being shown the potential problems of the action.

I don't like this logic because it's predicated on an nondescript "they" with unlimited shadowy power. It leads to unhelpful conspiratorial thinking bordering on the magical. It obfuscates the real problems we face, and if we don't understand them, even a violent revolution to defeat it would eventually replicate the system we destroyed because we didn't understand how it came to be in the first place.

The reason it's hard to change the system is because the system is self-reinforcing through individuals acting in their own immediate best interests and not acting as a class, not because "they wouldn't let you change it, they'd just [rig the elections/not let you vote/kill you with a space laser]". But that's a complex answer, and it's much easier to believe in the latter and call it a day.

I never said people use asbestos recreationally. But the logic is still the same. Why shouldn't a person be allowed to buy a new house built with asbestos if they're supposedly fully aware of the danger and risk of damage it does to their body over a long period of time? Everybody knows the dangers of asbestos, don't they? The commercials tell us about asbestos exposure leading to mesothelioma every day. Just let them make their own choices about asbestos, right? And while we're at it, lead pipes, and lead paint, and grounded electrical outlets, and the list goes on.

We don't want to have a nanny state, right? You should have to individually make all of these potentially life or death choices, all the time.

I dont have that principle, I think there are cases when you should and when you shouldn’t [let aggressors do whatever they want]

Personally I don't think there's any case where we should be telling other peoples to just accept their annexation or colonization. I'd be interested to hear the argument otherwise.

I’m more concerned about the US. Why is biggest kid on the block when it comes to genocide and war so enthusiastic to supply Ukraine with arms?

Because it defends American hegemony and weakens an anti-American state. It's not a hard question to answer. That doesn't mean it's not also the right thing to do regardless. Bad people can go good things for bad reasons. Unfortunately some seem to think the deaths of Ukrainians and pillaging of their land is a sacrifice worth making in order to geopolitically weaken America. I'm all for reducing America's global power, but I'm not so cruel as to choose other people's lives to trade for it against their will.

If Ukraine wants to defend itself, I think it's a good thing to air them in that; I also think making such invasions as difficult and expensive as possible is the anti-war position.

Do you similarly believe this for pushing others to vote? A single vote is small fish too.

The back and forth on what is and isn't communism will continue until there aren't two humans left to argue about it. I've described the classical Marxist view of communism including the withering away of the state. It has been redefined by various persons and groups over time, but I don't have a high opinion of those definitions.

Communists do not reject the establishment of a governing apparatus

Anarchists also do not inherently reject the establishment of a governing apparatus.

Nobody said it was easy, but the alternative is give up and die. Personally, I'm too spiteful to accept that.

It is open; if you want that, just install Linux on it yourself. Valve explicitly left it open so you can do that. The version Valve ships on the system is tailored for the Steam Deck. Obviously it's going to prioritize Steam for ease of use. But nearly all of their work is open source and already merged upstream. You can just put regular Linux on in it.

Anyways, I think you're on the wrong thread.

We all do. We already do this throughout society. Individually we make choices on what is good or bad, and collectively those choices add up and are expressed either in law or social contract.