Ersei, the developer behind this so-called Cloud Native Computer, says the project was primarily a “silly” pursuit. There is also a problem with booting from Google Drive currently being very slow. However, the dev also boasts that “the possibilities are endless” and would welcome any companies or individuals who wish to get in contact and discuss commercializing this project or something related to it.
Because the cloud is not one single “computer” to call it a PC would be incorrect, hence my distinction. It’s not even a full computer, it’s usually a bank of particular components.
Why do you need this explained to you…?
There is no joke here, just morons like you who don’t comprehend the difference between a personal computer which is a self contained entity, and the cloud, which is a conglomeration of components.
The joke here is you and your lack of understanding apparently…
No one is arguing against its redundancy. We are saying you still need your own physical device to access the cloud. Whether its a computer, phone, or anything else. That was the joke.
Yes a device… why did you need to clarify a device instead of a PC…? Maybe your joke isn’t actually that funny and you apparently needed to change the definition to make it work…?
The joke is the intelligence on the topic here apparently, your explanation killed the stupid joke that was apparently attempted here. Lmfao.
Traditional computing involves a computer on a desk. If everything is in the cloud, and there is no physical computer, then there is nothing on the desk. How do you access the cloud with a bare desk? That is the joke. Presumably you meant that there is no singular server, and a deliberate misinterpretation like the other commenter’s is a form of humor (Brône, 2008).
The fact that another user said you needed a “device” instead of a PC shows how stupid the joke was…. I used different terms to differentiate the two. Yet pedants apparently still need to make idiots of themselves….
So which is it…? A PC…? Computer…? Device…? I used two different terms to differentiate between the two to have conversation, fuck off with your stupid “jokes”. Thats what trolls do, are you adding conversation? Or are you derailing it because you have nothing better to do…?
Sometimes deliberate misinterpretation can be used as a linguistic device (Wang, 2008). Perhaps you consider that trolling or derailing, but regardless of whether or not you appreciate the joke, to continue in the thread does not contribute to a productive discussion.
One study found that troll-like responses “deviate from expectations” and “easily capture unsuspecting users’ attention and manage to prolong futile conversations interminably” (Paakki, 2021). Perhaps it is your comments that deviate from community expectations and are prolonging futile conversations? Does it count as trolling if it’s not intentional? Appendix 1 shares the author’s criteria, so I suppose you can try applying them yourself.
Personally, I’m finding this interaction positively fascinating. I’m a little disappointed I couldn’t easily find a more relevant analysis on linguistic humor, but that article by Henna Paakki actually looks really interesting. I highly recommend reading it, I’m only halfway through the introduction and I’m already hooked. For me, it’s absolutely been productive. I’m going to print that paper out and make it some night reading. Thanks!
I specified in my original comment about a full secondary computer being a requirement already. So no, your joke is moronic considered the established context of the conversation. Using the clue doesn’t require a full secondary computer. Did you miss this key detail in my original comment or something……?
Jokes can be appreciated in conversation, but not when they miss the original context…. I was clear in my original comment, so yeah fuck off with this “joke” bullshit, I was trying to have a conversation. All you are doing is being a troll here, especially when the joke just actually doesn’t fucking work…
How is it a joke when you clearly misunderstood my original comment?