@[email protected] to [email protected] • 7 months agoDon't recall ever having this explained to me...lemmy.worldimagemessage-square46fedilinkarrow-up1307arrow-down184
arrow-up1223arrow-down1imageDon't recall ever having this explained to me...lemmy.world@[email protected] to [email protected] • 7 months agomessage-square46fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•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-square@[email protected]linkfedilink-4•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.
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.