I’ll tell you what I told the other guy because you clearly didn’t read the article carefully, as is obvious from your comment.

Actually, I’ll word it a bit differently: based on the description of the image, show me beyond a reasonable doubt that there was ongoing “phone use”, as you just claimed. Those are your words, its what you just claimed, so you should have absolutely no issue explaining to me. Right?

Well, that is unless you go back and reread the article and realize that you won’t be able to. Not in a reasonable, legally sound manner anyway.

Calm down, Pol Pot. Before dehumizing everyone else and declaring yourself the guardian of all truth, consider this: admitting you made a basic mistake instead of going on an infantile tyrade about how people don’t deserve rights will go a long way for you personally. Do it for yourself, not for something or someone else.

Thank me later. Or don’t. Just as long as you try. There is no shame in making a mistake. Even less so in admitting it and apologising (quite the opposite actually). But there is a lot of shame in knowingly doubling down. It’s clear what happened. Just own up to it. With time, you will discover it’s almost like a super power. Your anxiety levels are also bound to go down.

Now go have a cold one and try and contemplate on the message without spewing vitriol toward the messengers.

I think reading comprehension mihht be a prerequisite for being an “enemy of the panoptic surveillance state”. You should look into that.

From the way the image is described, there is no obvious reason to think the driver was distracted or otherwise impaired while driving. Moreover, the decision as to whether the driver was distracted by a phone wasn’t made by a law enforcement official. We most definitely don’t want to make this out to be “normal”.

Did you even read the article? Even the title gives some of this away…

While I agree with your overall sentiment, I also think that calling the article “useless and stupid” kind of ignores that the author explicitly states in the very first sentence that they can only present the perpesective of a long-time exclusive Linux user. Undoubtedly, had the author been a longtime user of both Linux and Windows, as is your case, then surely they would have had a different experience and conslusions all together.

I’m not saying the author isn’t biased in favour of Linux - all I am saying is that they seem to be pretty upfront about it from the very get go. Had they pretended to supposedly be writing an objective, scientifically valid comparison, then I would concede there is an element of stupidity. But that’s not the case - they’re pretty transparent as to who they are and what perspective they are describing their experience from.

Tldr: arguably its more like some sort of guilty-pleasure entertainment for Linux users rather than “stupid”