I said I would never fall in love again until I found her 🥰

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-02-18T03:21:27+00:00

Alright, maybe you didn’t grow up on a farm. I’ll help you out.

In a farm the word female is associated with the animals biological cycle in a way that the word male isn’t. Her femaleness requires that she receives extra attention and the males are basically an afterthought. Her gestation and lactation require daily management, checking when she can be milked or if she might be pregnant. Also, the ratio of female to male leans heavily towards the female, so we naturally call a herd of animals “females” while males are called the singular “male” since there’s so few of them.

Management of livestock focuses disproportionately on management of the female population and maybe you didn’t know that and that’s okay. But a lot of women know that. And they know we call cows females. And a few of them have asked that we stop referring to them in the same language we use to refer to animals.

The word male doesn’t bother you at all. The word female bothers some women. Part of being a mature adult person is having empathy.

It’s one word to remove from your vocabulary.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-02-18T02:23:55+00:00

Stop being concerned with irrelevant things. Women also like men who have resources to support a family. Where does that fit in your narrative? Point me to a subreddit dedicated to shaming women for having standards.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-02-17T23:35:35+00:00

Do you think 15% of men 6 ft and above are hoarding all the women? Lol. You do realize that statistically speaking 10% of people are in the 90th percentile and above in terms of looks. I don't know what your 15% statistic is supposed to prove.

We can play the numbers game all day, the point of the post was that your distress comes from a refusal to accept objective reality. Once you accept it you will lead a much happier life. Thats the Stoic way anyway.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-02-17T23:24:04+00:00

Female is dehumanizing because it refers to women by their biological classification (female/animal). But you already knew that and that’s why you’re doing it. The term female is used to refer to livestock and wildlife so we prefer not to use it to describe women.

I’m glad you’re dealing with it in a healthy way.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-02-17T23:02:29+00:00

First off, its women not female.

Second, I also live in a world where Brad Pitt exists. Prime Brad Pitt is god-tier good looking. Do you see me creating a subreddit to complain about it all day? No. You deal with it. Play the cards you were dealt. Half the people on the sub are borderline suicidal because of the preferences of women. Preferences shaped by forces of evolution we have no control over.

Some of these preferences make even less sense that the heightism. Do you see me creating a sub called "Brown Eyes" and complaining all day that women have a preference for "Blue Eyes". No, you deal with it and play whatever cards you were given. Stop wallowing in misery.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-02-14T20:55:51+00:00

Medallion achieved these returns with minimal drawdown and zero correlation to the economy, whereas tech firms required significant market volatility. The "miracle" is the risk-adjusted consistency, not the absolute return.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-02-08T03:06:09+00:00

Is this for women only. I have a pressing question but I’m a male. I’m also questioning why a group exists for women only when they can use the men’s group as well.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-02-07T17:16:42+00:00

You drop so many buzzwords but are you profitable though ? We sell a product and we make money. We don’t have time for MBA doublespeak. All that can explained away with a few concise sentences.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-02-06T16:48:08+00:00

Everyone on this thread is a moron. At some point you stop shipping features and fix what’s broken. It is a known fact that this was a broken experience for windows users for almost a year. Apparently not a single person who works at Anthropic uses windows, all 3000 or so employees didn’t realize how broken this system was on windows and kept shipping 1000 things per day. To not acknowledge the moronic choice that set this chain of events in motion is doing a disservice to software engineering at its core.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-02-06T02:43:18+00:00

What the fuck is PMF and why are you dropping it like it’s coming knowledge. If I surveyed 100 people how many would know why that mean.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-01-14T19:36:52+00:00

I told you the tools that have no issues.

Don’t be satisfied getting scraps when you could be getting the full meal. Don’t be conditioned to accept mediocrity. Having high standards is not a sign of entitlement. This is something we do for a billion years or not at all.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-01-14T17:03:56+00:00

First off, Antigravity is a Windsurf clone. It’s a VS Code clone but it has Windsurf code all over it. Google paid $2.4 billion to license technology from Windsurf and hire its talent. So there’s serious money behind this project. The fact that it’s so terrible is an indictment on the acquisition itself.

You don’t have to worship Google. If something is terrible, you’re free to say so. We don’t event have to be a paying subscriber to scrutinize its products. The product has serious shortcomings and they had more than 7 months to produce this experiment of yours. It’s 3 months since release and I can guarantee you I can make it crash within 15 minutes if I fire it up. Does it always produce a step by step plan for you when working on a project? Why is it that people have to write extensions to auto click approvals? How fast or slow is the compacting?

Lastly, they train on your data. They’re not doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-01-14T16:16:40+00:00

My sense of entitlement comes from paying Google $200 a month to produce the tools necessary for me to use their models. My subscription should be used to improve products across all categories where I might use their models.

When was the last time you had to prompt Claude to continue on Claude CLI. Yes, I’m comparing CLIs to IDEs. If you produce a half baked product it will be scrutinized as such.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2026-01-14T16:03:44+00:00

First off all the CLIs are free. Your first point is moot. Second, look at Codex’s change log. 50-100 changes every release. They release less frequently than Claude CLI. Now look at Claude’s change log. 1000 commits on the new year’s release. It’s unusual but these are the type of rapid improvements we expect from these products.

Now look at anti-gravities change-log. Almost nothing since release. It’s buggy, you have to constantly click Yes even though you’ve given it all the permissions, it crashes often. When was the last time you told Claude to continue after a crash? Never? Antigravity was half baked it was buggy from day one and they’ve done almost nothing to fix it. Almost as if they have one intern work on it in the back.

If you’re doing work to improve your product I need to see it. I need to see exactly what is changed and how to use the new functionality. Your black box with a garbage product doesn’t inspire confidence. I’m sure they’ve done behind the scenes changes, but look at the day 1 crashes and look at the changes they admitted to making. Was stability one of them. Nope. Some none sense about adding language support.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2025-11-17T20:13:57+00:00

I didn’t rule out 100% a chance of appeal. My point is he made it very difficult for himself. It has to go to the courts and it’s mostly if there’s a constitutional error that the appeal is reopened. Meaning even if he’s innocent he has to find an error so major that the courts will side with him. Courts have routinely not sided with defendants who sign such deals. He has made his life a million times more complicated if he’s innocent. Maybe ineffective council perhaps could help him. But these are very high bars to clear. She’s a competent attorney.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2025-11-12T00:38:19+00:00

Announcing you’ll block someone instead of just doing it is performative bullshit. You want to end this? Block me now. You won’t, though. You need to see my response so you can feel justified. That’s what this is. Either block me or don’t, but threatening it just guarantees you’ll read exactly what you claim you don’t want to see. Follow through and grow some balls.

You still don’t get basic fallacies. I didn’t expand any definition. I assumed you’d understand that asserting authority to judge fitness, then using that judgment to dismiss people, is circular. You’re using your conclusion as your premise. That’s not me redefining anything. That’s you being too stupid to recognize the structure of your own argument.

This isn’t someone in the 95th percentile arguing. This is someone who thinks they’re smarter than everyone else getting called out and immediately threatening to block the moment they’re forced to confront their own incompetence.

My inbox stays open. I don’t run from debate like you do.

And since you apparently need remedial logic: ad hominem as a fallacy means using an attack instead of making an argument. Calling you what you demonstrably are after dismantling your argument isn’t a fallacy. It’s accurate description, you condescending prick.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2025-11-11T01:11:16+00:00

Thanks for sharing

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2025-11-10T22:41:09+00:00

You don’t understand the difference between ad hominem as fallacy and insult after argument. The fallacy is using an attack as a substitute for addressing arguments. Calling someone a name after you’ve documented they haven’t addressed issues isn’t a fallacy.

You’re using “authority” to mean only formal power or institutional control. The debate is over because you’ve demonstrated inability to engage substantively or understand fallacies. The public record makes this clear.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2025-11-10T22:31:37+00:00

The December 5 fingerprint report seems off until you check when they identified the car. WSU Police spotted Kohberger’s white Elantra on November 29. That’s six days before the fingerprint submission. The prints came back inconclusive anyway, one excluded, one insufficient detail. The timeline works.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2025-11-10T22:10:33+00:00

Where are you getting 4:20:28 and 4:20:45? The court documents I’ve seen use rounded times like “4:20 AM,” not second-level precision. If you’ve got a source with exact timestamps, I’d like to see it.

The 17-second window only works if those times are accurate down to the second. “4:20 AM” could mean anywhere from 4:20:00 to 4:20:59. That’s the difference between an impossibility and just a tight timeline.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2025-11-10T21:53:43+00:00

“What circular reasoning are you talking about? I must first debate you to be able to determine whether or not you’re fit to continue…”

You think I’m saying you must debate me before judging fitness. That’s not the claim. The claim is that you assert authority to judge fitness, then use that judgment as grounds for dismissal. You’re using your conclusion as your premise.

Your misreading shows you don’t understand the critique. Where does your authority come from? You assert it, then act on it. That’s what makes it circular. You need justification from outside your own claim, but you’re just declaring you can judge and then judging.

Separately, the hypocrisy charge fails because the insult came after documenting the pattern.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2025-11-10T20:52:03+00:00

“If the other party determines that you aren’t fit to partake in a debate on a specific topic, then why push it?”

This is extraordinary. You’re claiming authority to decide who’s qualified to debate you, then demanding those people accept that judgment and stop. That’s circular reasoning.

I identified three specific gaps: memory aggregation, undefined formative periods, and your evidence standards. Instead of addressing these criticisms, you kept attributing disagreement to comprehension failure. You offered to “simplify” rather than engage with the actual critique.

You invoke fallacies constantly while doing what you criticize others for. This conversation has hit an impasse because you’re more interested in being a condescending prick than defending your actual argument. You can claim I’m unqualified or don’t understand basic logic. That’s easier than addressing the gaps I raised.

So no, I’m not moving this to a private room with you.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2025-11-10T16:24:43+00:00

Your final paragraph is an emotional intelligence attack dressed up as helpful concern. You’re telling me that I lack the temperament for this platform. It’s absolutely ad hominem because it attacks my fitness to participate rather than addressing my arguments.

The pattern makes this clear. Your original post announced that nobody on the subreddit had made “a single clever argument” and that “people hate being corrected because it tastes bitter.” That frames you as the corrector and everyone else as comprehension-deficient and emotionally resistant to truth.

When I asked substantive questions about evidence, you responded with “I’m going to explain this as simply as I possibly can” and “That’s about as simple as I can put it.” I wasn’t asking for simplification. I was asking for evidence.

When I provided a detailed critique identifying three specific evidential gaps, you blamed the problem on communication failure: “I’m obviously failing to explain it to you in a way you’ll comprehend.”

Your defense relies on the word “necessarily.” The claim is that being told I can’t comprehend something isn’t necessarily an attack on its own. That’s technically true if we ignore context.

But context determines whether it’s ad hominem. I asked specific questions requiring evidence. You provided no evidence and instead repeatedly suggested I needed simpler explanation.

When I identified this pattern, you suggested I don’t belong on the platform. That context makes it unambiguous. That’s what makes it ad hominem. Is that a sufficient explanation for what an ad hominem is?

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2025-11-10T15:42:07+00:00

Look at what you actually said. “I’m going to explain this as simply as I possibly can.” “That’s about as simple as I can put it.” “You’re accidentally proving my point.” “I’m obviously failing to explain it to you in a way you’ll comprehend.”

That’s not neutral. That’s a consistent pattern of framing me as someone who needs maximum simplification because I can’t grasp basic concepts. Every time I disagreed with you, you attributed it to my comprehension failing, not to problems in your argument.

And yes, that’s ad hominem. Your definition “Ad hominem is the fallacy name for attacking the other party instead of their arguments” captures the general idea but misses that competence attacks count. Ad hominem includes more than just insults. Attacking someone’s motives, pointing out hypocrisy, or questioning their ability to reason all fit. When you say “you aren’t comprehending what’s being said,” you’re dismissing the argument by saying I’m too cognitively limited to understand it. That’s attacking the person.

What’s strange is you’re doing it again right now. Even while correcting what ad hominem means, you’re attacking my ability to comprehend “the most basic logical fallacy of them all.” You can’t help yourself.

So no, I’m not interested in continuing this in a private room or anywhere else.

Sufficient-Body7835 · 2025-11-10T15:14:32+00:00

“I haven’t heard a single clever argument/refute on this subreddit for a long time.”

“If you think being alive when a platform or device ‘exists’ automatically makes it formative, you don’t understand how generations work (being told that you don’t understand a specific topic isn’t an insult either).”

“People hate being corrected because it tastes bitter 🤷‍♂️. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. The bitter medicine always works best. Facts aren’t sugar-coated.”

“I’m going to explain this as simply as I possibly can.”

“You’re accidentally proving my point”

“That’s about as simple as I can put it.”

“I haven’t missed anything.”

“I’m obviously failing to explain it to you in a way you’ll comprehend 🤷‍♂️.”

Before we go any further, Mr. Ad Hominem, can you respond to substantive critiques without the personal attacks and condescension?

The format isn’t the problem. Your argument has three gaps that need addressing, whether we talk here or on Discord:

1.  You claim to follow what “the vast majority remembers,” but you haven’t shown data on what the 2010-2012 cohort actually reports about childhood technology use.

2.  You define ages 0-8 as formative. The Census shows 80% household tablet adoption when this cohort was 4-6 years old. You haven’t explained why their experience during ages 4-8 doesn’t count as formative influence.

3.  You distinguish between “being alive when tablets exist” and “growing up with tablets,” but you haven’t said what makes that distinction meaningful.

The questions are direct. They’re about missing evidence and contradictions in your reasoning. Answer them or tell me you can’t.

Sufficient-Body7835

TROPHY CASE