It never ceases to surprise me how North American homes are just a source of time wasting for the owners. I grew up in Italy and we never had to do any of that (except repainting the rooms once every 20 years with my father).
It's interesting that one of the lessons learned in Europe from the 1918-1945 era is that that the army, law enforcement and the judiciary body must be self-governing and the government must oversee their functioning bust must not be allowed to directly influence the membership of said forces except for the top national leadership.
This is to ensure that the country has centers of power strong enough to oppose an attempt to dictatorship.
For example, in Italy the judiciary has a governing body of its own whose members are partially elected by the parliament, but also partially by the judges themselves. Lower judges are exclusively appointed by the judiciary governing body or through a civil service exam, and neither the government nor the parliament have any say on it.
I fail to understand why "Try again later" is considered bad because "Generic", but "Please try connecting again" is good because it's "Help them fix it". Likewise, it says "You changes were saved" is good because it "provides reassurance", but is it true ? The next sentence is "but we could not connect to your account", which could very well mean that the request didn't go through and the changes weren't saved. There's no way of knowing.
> You have moved from "We know" to "We have an educated guess"
No. You kept blabbering about "science" when most uses of knowledge are not about science. The original topic was also definitely not "science": it was about having a reasonable opinion about whether, empirically, the rate of discovery of vulnerabilities is increasing or not.
Pragmatically, correlation *is* evidence of causation in favour of the best explanation, until somebody finds a better explanation.
> It could equally be argued that the AI slop that's being produced makes for a lot more vulnerabilities being shipped.
This is also true, and does not exclude the other, because for the moment the vast majority of production software in the world (and therefore the bulk of enticing targets) was written before AI. If LLM software will become prevalent in commercial setups, then LLM-generated code will eventually become the majority of targets.
We know because we could see the effects of the average rate of vulnerabilities discovery and exploitation, and it's definitely going up very fast. Until recently, vulnerabilities were relatively hard to find, and finding them was done by a very restricted group of people world-wide, which made them quite valuable. Not any more.
* Appeal to authority, ad hominem: the conclusion might be true, you often have to judge a person's moral character and experience too.
* Appeal to tradition, wealth, poverty: sometimes the speaker has life experiences that justify the conclusion, but can't be explained in a brief conversation.
* Ad baculum: sometimes it's wise to stop engaging with the counterpart.
* Ad populum, to emotion: sometimes the argument is not really about the truth of a proposition(the existence of a problem, and gravity thereof), but about how politically feasible it is to do something about it.
* Correlation, not causation: correlation is evidence of causation in favour of the current best explanation. What that might be, is a matter for discussion. In day-to-day life we almost always lack the time for achieving 100% certainty.
More generally, very often people don't have time discuss a matter with treatise-level precision and diligence. We almost always have to rely on a judgement of the speaker or other circumstances, see also standards of proof in legal systems.
Sometimes the true core of an argument is not really expressed overtly, whether consciously or not, and you have to figure out what the discussion is really about (very useful advice in a marriage or any close relationship).
Telemetry only tells you what users do, not why and doesn't explain their mental models. Try asking directly: open a discussion board (for example Github's Discussions) and encourage them to post about aspects of the software they found puzzling/annoying/inefficient. Take 15 minutes a week to go through the posts to see if anything attracts your attention.
By "All you haters that give me grief for drinking my daily cup of decaf can shut up now", you are implying that decaf has the same health benefits of real coffee. That's not proven. And if you weren't meaning to imply that, there was no point to that reply.
That wouldn't be a problem if it weren't that the built-in MB navigator is by ar the best I've ever used, and definitely better than all of the apps (Google Maps, Apple Maps, Waze, Nokia Maps, TomTom, Garmin, etc...).
So what ? It's not possible to be reliable, open and have many features.