First, computers technically include abascuses and calculators, and they don't require electricity to power and thus heat up... (So specify it's an electronic one)

2nd, if a device technically produces a side-effect, unwanted or not, in the future, the maker will either deal with it by:

a. publicly announce that error and patch it up (eg. glitches in game)

b. use that, for a different Purpose (eg. using a bakery good identifier to find cancer)

If it follows the latter reasoning, what it does WILL become its purpose... it will become a feature, not a bug...

Until then, it's up in the air whether its maker intended it or not...

[–] HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

First, computers technically include abascuses and calculators, and they don't require electricity to power and thus heat up... (So specify it's an electronic one)

Its obvious I was talking about an electric one. However, abacuses technically produce heat while being used (from friction) and my electric calculator does too. So maybe you should have specified if you meant an electric calculator... ;)

If it follows the latter reasoning, what it does WILL become its purpose

But the claim was that what it does CURRENTLY IS its purpose. You are just saying that eventually, people will learn to take advantage of the side effects (which may or may not actually happen IMO).

[–] Lemmygradwontallowme@hexbear.net 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Its obvious I was talking about an electric one. However, abacuses technically produce heat while being used (from friction) and my electric calculator does too. So maybe you should have specified if you meant an electric calculator... ;)

Obviously, I should've specified that, though it takes a lot of effort to produce noticeable one...

But the claim was that what it does CURRENTLY IS its purpose. You are just saying that eventually, people will learn to take advantage of the side effects (which may or may not actually happen IMO).

Well, as I said, the intention is up in the air, so as long as the creator would neither deny or confirm it, via updates, we might consider it as its secondary purpose, if it STILL produces those side-effects CLEARLY, according to the creator...

But for the sake of simplicity, I'll just give up the argument for now.

[–] HopFlop@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 8 months ago

Would you say it's not a purpose anymore if the creator clarifies they didn't have any intentions about it? Or would it still be a purpose?