You gave the word the negative definition, so no not 2 ways to interpret.
Is this a strawman-fallacy ?
Are you asking yourself?
Else you might want to read again
So you clearly defined the malicious intention from the beginning and you still do.
A fact would come with evidence, this thesis you phrased is just
Edit: you brought this up, so stand to it, and dont try to tell us something different was meant. You have this opinion, thats fine, you get feedback, think about it and decide if you change your mind or want to go with your thesis. No need to try to get an agreement.
I stand to it, but I can’t see your point. Where are two ways to interpret this?
I clearly stated from the beginning
"Planned obsolesence can be “malicious/by intention” or “careless”. At least the last point is true, because this update has not been tested if it works for the FP3 smoothly. "
And if you read the whole context I state several times, that this doesn’t mean “accidental”, but continuuos carelessness towards a certain product.
This is nonsense.
If it’s careless it’s not planned.
past tense: planned; past participle: planned
- decide on and make arrangements for in advance.
“they were planning a trip to Egypt”
- not giving sufficient attention or thought to avoiding harm or errors.
“she had been careless and had left the window unlocked”
I semantic discussions!
It’s obvious what I’m talking about in this context. You can plan to abandon support for a device f.e., to not test updates anymore etc… This can be a form of planned obsolescence, but it’s not the same like maliciously break a part of a program.
Please don’t waste our time with picking single words out of context.
“don’t waste our time”… lol