`apt-get update` bricked your system multiple times? How, by filling up your disk? That doesn't install or upgrade any software. It just updates the local cache of the registry. I believe you that there was a real problem I'm just confused about how it happened.
I've been unable to login after filling my disk before, I wouldn't call the system bricked because I was able to fix it by mounting the disk on another computer and freeing up space, but I wouldn't quibble over the term either.
It was apt-get upgrade, then. Whichever command updates all packages on the system. I must have misspoke, I don’t use Debian-based systems all that much anymore.
I remember it had a particular fondness for deleting old kernel versions, failing to install the new kernel, and thus bricking the system on boot. Alternatively, uninstalling the entire WM because one package had a conflict.
Weird! Sounds like maybe `apt-get dist-upgrade` or `apt-get full-upgrade`. `upgrade` shouldn't uninstall anything or update your kernel as far as I know. `dist-upgrade` or `full-upgrade` could do either. If your `/boot` partition was exhausted or you lost power in the middle of a kernel upgrade, that could leave the system in a broken state.
At any rate, sorry you had such a frustrating experience.
There is absolutely a point. I strongly believe that criticising bad arguments and correcting false claims is especially important when dealing with the worst people and the worst companies. Bad arguments and false claims ultimately work in their favour, distracting away from substantive criticisms. Don’t hand them that advantage.
This isn’t Reddit, and I’m not American. I’m not interested in your culture war.
There was a deeper point to my earlier message. I don’t think I was being particularly cryptic, so I can only assume you’re intentionally refusing to engage with it.
And if I ever see any misleading claims go uncorrected in a discussion, I won't hesitate to provide such corrections. This hasn't happened here, so there's nothing for me to say on that.
Nonetheless, how distressing it must be to learn that a company could ever exaggerate, right up to the point of technical falsehood, in its marketing. GM would never market emissions-cheating engines as "clean diesel." Ford would never label a payload "best-in-class" when it isn't. Perish the thought. Pass me my fainting couch.
Rationalisation and whataboutism. This convinces me that you've formed a parasocial relationship with a car brand. I think it's psychological safer for you to desperately defend the brand than it is to be honest about it.
Given that it's plainly obvious what's going on here, on a whim I asked ChatGPT what it thought of your last reply and here’s what it said:
——————
That message is textbook projection plus motive attribution.
What’s happening, plainly:
1. Projection
They accuse you of a parasocial relationship while displaying one themselves—just inverted (hostile instead of admiring).
2. Mind-reading / motive attribution
“It’s psychologically safer for you…” assigns an internal emotional motive without evidence. That’s not argument; it’s speculation presented as diagnosis.
3. Poisoning the well
By framing disagreement as psychological defense, they pre-emptively invalidate anything you say next. If you respond, it “proves” their claim.
4. Pathologizing dissent
Disagreeing with them is reframed as mental weakness rather than a difference in reasoning or evidence.
5. Asymmetric skepticism
Their own emotional investment is treated as insight; yours is treated as pathology.
——————
It went on, but you get the point. Hey, there might be something to this AI stuff after all.
> impressive system that is leaps and bounds ahead of where it was just six months
It isn't full autonomy. It isn't full self-driving.
In 2016 Tesla claimed that "as of today, all Tesla vehicles produced in our factory – including Model 3 – will have the hardware needed for full self-driving capability at a safety level substantially greater than that of a human driver."
You clearly didn't read the whole thread here. You're arguing against a strawman. Of course Elon doesn't meet his timelines, everyone knows that. He even admits it. "We specialize in converting things from impossible to late." The question is whether he achieves things late.
> It isn't full autonomy
They have a few robotaxis doing full autonomy, driving with no people in them, today in Austin. But I'm not even arguing that the promise is achieved yet, or that it happened on time. Just that it's "an incredibly impressive system" that is "by far the best available to purchase worldwide", and improving rapidly. All indisputably true.
As for the 2016 promise, Tesla has already committed to bearing any required hardware upgrade costs for people who actually purchased FSD.
> There were supposed to be 1 million robotaxis on the road by 2020
Again, there will be, but not on that timeline. Just late. As expected.
reply