IDK, not really a fan of redefining computer to make a rhetorical point.

It seems counter-productive to tell people the computing device they think as a computer isn’t really a computer. It’s like saying my car isn’t really a car because I can’t adjust spark timing. Someone could make that semantic argument but it’s hard to imagine anyone would care.

▲

trashb a day ago | parent | next [-]

Adjusting the spark timing is more a right to repair issue. If you replace the screen of your phone with one of a working phone do you expect it to work or do you need the approval from a licensed apple technician?

A taxi is still a car but we use a different word to differentiate the mode of operation. The difference in language infers different usage of the same machine.

Therefore going by car is understood as something different then going by taxi. In relation to this issue, it's like you rented a car but you get a taxi instead (selected operator controls the vehicle instead of you). Most people would not be pleased.

The problem being that phone or tablet is understood to be similar to computer while really they are not. So perhaps a different term to highlight this difference is not strange or counter-productive. Do you call your "smart tv" a computer in daily conversation?

▲

modo_mario a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>It’s like saying my car isn’t really a car because I can’t adjust spark timing.

What if it only drives along select predetermined monetised routes?

▲

brookst a day ago | parent | next [-]

What if my aunt had three wheels?

I don’t see the value in hypotheticals like that. If the claim is that a computer is not really a computer unless every user can do any low level operations they want, is it also true that a car is not really a car unless every user can do any low level operations they want?

	▲	gosub100 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Manufacturers are taking away right to repair too! I think you picked a bad example. Back in the 60s you absolutely could change every low level component on a car.

▲

kuboble a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even a car that you are not allowed to drive at all is still a car. It just isn't your car.

	▲	modo_mario 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Sure. But a taxi is a car yet it doesn't quite take up the same mental spots. People will say they came by taxi instead of by car. People won't say they don't see the value in selfdriving capabilities or repairability because they can just get a taxi. Etc
	▲	falcor84 a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Exactly! Our argument shouldn't be about the device's capabilities, but about its ownership. And increasingly, as this enshittification progresses, the person buying the device is becoming less and less its owner.

▲

sudb a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think we call those buses, usually!

	▲	PurpleRamen a day ago \| parent [-]
		No, a Bus is a big car with more space for passengers. The Route has no relation to the naming.

▲

dpark 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s still a car.

You could own a race car that cannot legally be driven on any public roads and it’s still a car.

I agree with brookst that this sort of redefinition is a poor rhetorical tool.

	▲	modo_mario 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well it's still a vehicle but once something sufficiently deviates in form or function or the like it will no longer primarily be called that. People usually say they took a taxi for example rather saying they came by car even when every taxi is a car. Once that happens they start taking up different mental spots and comparisons between them start to make less and less sense. (saying you don't see the value of self driving capabilities because you can just get a taxi for example.)

▲

pcthrowaway 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Then it's a streetcar

▲

Steltek a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How about instead: is an e-bike a bicycle? Is it a motorcycle?

The apparent user experience between a computer and a mobile are markedly different - especially if you were a Windows user circa 10 years ago. If you were a Windows user in the 90's to 00's, it's nearly unrecognizable in how much ownership you feel over your own device.

▲

ulrikrasmussen a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Point taken. But I think we can say that smartphones and tablets are definitely not "general-purpose computers" because they are not programmable, at least not freely so.

▲

PurpleRamen a day ago | parent [-]

But they are programmable, very freely even. Whether you can start any desired program on the device is the crucial point. Having gates, doesn't influence what's inside the gates.

	▲	falcor84 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I'm reminded of Zed Shaw's argument about how python3 should not be considered Turing-complete if it can't run python2 code. It was a fun rhetorical exaggeration that I felt helped clarify that it isn't unable to run python2 code, but rather that the people in charge decided that it shouldn't.

▲

ekjhgkejhgk a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> IDK, not really a fan of redefining computer to make a rhetorical point.

Yes! This reminds me of Stallman who is in my opinion a visionary decades ahead of his time, but in terms of marketing he did that a lot and it ended up just distracting from the conversation. All of a sudden instead of discussing the actual issue, we're disussing rhetoric.

▲

exe34 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Is it still a "car" if it only takes you to the train station and forces you to use public transport? "shuttle" might be more appropriate? Is it still your car if it leaves during the day and carries other people?

The meaning of words drifts when the situation changes.