@[email protected] to [email protected] • 2 years agoDon't recall ever having this explained to me...lemmy.worldimagemessage-square50fedilinkarrow-up1309arrow-down183
arrow-up1226arrow-down1imageDon't recall ever having this explained to me...lemmy.world@[email protected] to [email protected] • 2 years agomessage-square50fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•2 years 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•2 years 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.