Custoslibera@lemmy.world to Memes@lemmy.ml · 7 months agoDon't recall ever having this explained to me...lemmy.worldimagemessage-square45fedilinkarrow-up1308arrow-down184
arrow-up1224arrow-down1imageDon't recall ever having this explained to me...lemmy.worldCustoslibera@lemmy.world to Memes@lemmy.ml · 7 months agomessage-square45fedilink
minus-squareGladaed@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1·7 months agoI would disagree on them calling them defective. This is unnecessarily confrontational. I would rather say the neglige their existence while using the simplest useful model. They should consider if a better model might be more appropriate.
minus-squareOurToothbrush@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down5·7 months ago I would disagree on them calling them defective. This is unnecessarily confrontational. That is only one or the reasons it is wrong to call them defective. They arent defective.
minus-squareGladaed@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1·7 months agoReading comprehension. I did not say so.
I would disagree on them calling them defective. This is unnecessarily confrontational.
I would rather say the neglige their existence while using the simplest useful model. They should consider if a better model might be more appropriate.
That is only one or the reasons it is wrong to call them defective. They arent defective.
Reading comprehension. I did not say so.