Although possibly not for everyone, there is a modular smartwatch that may be able to alleviate some issues in this regard: http://www.chooseblocks.com/#m...
I'm not sure whether this is something that will stick, but the general idea appeals to me, especially as the developers have said that the intent is to open it up to development of parts/modules by third parties. OTOH, given that third parties will also develop the exterior, having modules from different manufacturers might leave the band looking like shit.
Headline: "British spaceplane will revolutionize space travel" Intro: Some obviously biased guy somewhere said his spaceplane will revolutionize space travel.
Translation: we're terrible 'journalists' who lack the competence, fortitude and integrity to come up with a headline we actually stand by. If not, we'd have written a headline like: British company developing spaceplane.
We need more than Betteridge's law. We need Betteridge's law book.
you've made a reasonable argument in a reasonable tone
He didn't. His 'reasonable argument' consisted of ad hominems ('their leader is politically young'), general poisoning the well tactics ('his father is bad, thus he must be bad'), FUD and generally baseless statements ('civil liberties are walking dead', 'mark my words' and pretty much everything else in the post). It adds nothing of substance to the discussion and does so in an alarmist and offensive way. It deserves a solid -1.
If you disagree, please point out the well-reasoned bits I've overlooked. Either that or accept that you were ever so gently sucking his dick (I take it you have no issue with this 'reasonable tone').
This makes much more sense. If the prevalence of 'autistic' people is what determines the number of codes of conduct, one would expect fewer codes of conduct when the fraction of 'autistic' people in the population drops (which it has done).
If you are not willing to be civil, face the consequences.
The discussion is about the consequences, not whether people are ready to face them.
I've seen first hand that telling somebody things in a 'professional' way allows them to dismiss it and fuck up almost identically the next time. Get angry at them and they sure as hell will remember. Now if you get angry without good reason, they will remember you for being an unreasonable asshole. If you get angry with good reason, they tend to get their shit together because they will try to prevent people from being angry at them when it is demonstrably their fault and something they can reasonably change.
Anger and strong wording conveys importance very primitively and directly. It is up to the speaker to decide what amount of power should be put into his/her message. I believe this is the thing that most often goes wrong. Things that aren't that important are too often brought as if they are, with the associated amount of verbal and emotional power. In addition to that, the speaker and listener have different associations of how powerful certain words and phrasings are. Fuck is a word that means little to me (dare I say fuck-all), but some people get really offended by it. This is more of a shared responsibility, as both speaker and listener need to garner an understanding of what certain words mean for the other.
Alternatively, you could approach this from the 'real men' (I prefer 'confident adults') side: in my experience, the people who don't throw a hissyfit about being talked to strongly are definitely the most reliable and capable people, willing to change their ways. These are people who care about the reasoning, not the words. About the function and not the form. The extreme ones are almost completely impervious to and unmoved by any swearing whatsoever. I see that as a huge asset.
That would actually be useful, but considering that one of the screenshots shows 'Follow AMD' with the mandatory shitload of social media icons in the main overview of the settings interface of a fucking driver makes me think that this has marketing department vomit sauce all over it. You know: "We need to raise the profile of AMD and generate buzz on social media' or whatever the fuck it is they say.
I'm betting that in the overview where you can change clock settings there's going to be a share button which automatically posts a Twitter message and Facebook status update saying: "Just overclocked my AMD Radeon 1234XX to 1000Mhz, bitches! #AMDrulez #overclockingBoss #beastmode #caturday"
Where are all the people who voted for this submission? The comment section is pretty much unanimously opposed to both the message and the form of TFA.
His 'argument' there pretty much boils down to: "it was going to be invented anyway"
To most people, the argument for public funding of science rests on a list of the discoveries made with public funds, from the Internet (defense science in the U.S.) to the Higgs boson (particle physics at CERN in Switzerland). But that is highly misleading. Given that government has funded science munificently from its huge tax take, it would be odd if it had not found out something. This tells us nothing about what would have been discovered by alternative funding arrangements.
There is some merit to the idea that all useful inventions will inevitably be done (the concept of technological determinism / technological imperative has been around for decades), but it is still idiotic to use that as an argument against government funding, as that line of thinking says nothing about when the inevitable will happen. A world in which the internet was invented 10 years later is not equivalent (and dare I say unpreferable) to ours.
There are too many other ways in which the reasoning in TFA is obviously flawed. Considering that you have to ask yourself the question: Why the hell is this low quality shit even on Slashdot?
Was it before this report came out? Or are you only jumping on the bandwagon now and post hoc claiming the validity of your decision?
No. I made the decision for the reason I mentioned. My experience with most manufacturers doing things that are outside of their core business is that those things tend to suck (badly).
Prior to this report you'd think that it was a reasonable assumption that a company with a $17B market cap could hire as many cryptography experts as they wanted to work on their products rather than pass it off to the current intern. But no, your decision was not based on any facts but rather an emotional response to your beliefs of the relative merits of each product.
It is irrelevant how many experts they could hire. It is relevant how many experts they probably would hire. They know fuck-all about cryptography and security and are very probably not going to understand how much time and effort is required to do them right. I also don't believe they care enough about doing it right. It's more of an us-too feature than a USP.
But no, your decision was not based on any facts but rather an emotional response to your beliefs of the relative merits of each product. That you made a decision that coincidentally bears out your emotional bias against WD does not negate the fact that an assumption is an unknown and you can't know an unknown, and you did trade one unknown for another.
Fuck you and your strawmen. I already told you that assumptions are not interchangeable (as you imply) and why in this case one assumption specifically is not the other. If you don't have the decency to respond to that, then fuck you.
If you have such faith in TrueCrypt, why do you feel the need to qualify it? Or are you unconsciously admitting that your knowledge about the quality of TrueCrypt is incomplete and you are making an assumption of its fitness of use?
And fuck you again. I never said that I have 'such faith in TrueCrypt' and have clearly and repeatedly indicated from the start that I am aware that it is not perfectly trustworthy. So no, I am not 'unconsciously' admitting shit.
Just accept that you were unjustly talking shit and go away. You're trying to hold on to a very weak and worthless position.
Your logic is flawed. Just because something is an assumption doesn't mean it is as unreliable as any other assumption.
Honestly, do you not see the stupidity of trying to lecture me on a decision that has already proven to be the right one and the irony of doing so in the comments on an article that actually provides that proof? WD's products have proven to suck at cryptography and security. TC has not (yet). WD makes harddisks. TCs is a product aimed 100% at cryptography and security.
Lumping them both together and implying they are equally unreliable because I haven't done an audit of the code of TC is retarded. Don't force your point of 'nothing is ever completely secure' into this. We know it isn't, yet we still have to try to choose the best of the imperfect options.
Last time I checked, it was a product of just one French guy who may not even have a very, very solid understanding of cryptography. Even if he's not malicious, his well-intended changes might be making the product worse rather than better.
I'll reevaluate it at some point in the near future, however.
I bought one of the WD Passport drives, but I immediately decided that I didn't want to rely on a harddisk manufacturer for security and encryption (or deal with potentially very crappy software).
So I just created a TrueCrypt partition and now sometimes deal with the very slight inconvenience of having to mount it (and with the risk that TC has actually become less safe than the alternatives, of course).
Interestingly, the place to look for UHD content is YouTube (and recently Vimeo, as well). The flexibility of the 'amateur' video producer and that of the internet as a distribution platform really show in this area.
1. [...] Such a thing does not exist, at least not in a way to suit common people. Entertainment is usually science fiction.
Bullshit. Most entertainment is actually scientifically accurate, as it generally portrays very everyday things. Source: pretty much every sitcom ever. Entertainment is actually usually just simple fiction.
2. Not a strawman at all. The parent specifically was calling out on where the facts are wrong.
So calling out the inaccuracy of some facts means stating that everything has to be fact? Answer: No. Not in general and specifically not here. Conclusion: Strawman. Simple as fuck.
Calling the actions of a person strange is also irrelevant. The times are different.
Internal consistency. Learn what it means. If you portray someone as the head of a highly scientific organization that deals with space travel and let him take in space travel 101 as something new, you've failed at providing internal consistency. Fuck 'the times are different'. Unless you are making Idiocracy it's just bullshit.
Why attack him for stating his opinion?
3. I'm not, I'm attacking you for your stance that a science fictiony movie needs to be scientifically honest, and for supporting "that guy" who whinges about the lack of scientific accuracy in a science fiction movie.
Look at the emphasis. You completely discredited your own statement within that statement. Also: "The guy who tries to ruin a fictional story because he can't differentiate the idea of science fiction from science fact." You acted like a dick. Own it.
4. For implying that everything is shit or less shit in a thread discussing a movie that is widely considered "not shit", I'm going to call you "that other guy".
Argumentum ad populum. There are a lot of things 'widely considered' as 'not shit'. To imply that that somehow objectively makes them not shit is a fallacy. But perhaps the terminology is needlessly confusing. Let's not call it shit. Let's just call it mediocre. The Martian is slightly less mediocre than all the other shit out there, but only a little. Better?
1. False dichotomy. There is a huge area between a 'university lecture' and 'internally consistent and scientifically accurate entertainment'.
2. Strawman. Nobody said that science fiction has to be science fact. You can make up all kinds of stuff as long as it makes sense in the world you've created. If your movie has inconsistencies that makes it objectively weaker than if it did not have those inconsistencies. Apologism and attacking the messenger do not change that.
3. Nobody is trying to 'ruin a fictional story'. You don't give a crap that the movie is inconsistent. That is perfectly fine. So why care when somebody points that out? Why attack him for stating his opinion? Are you afraid that it will become harder to ignore the inconsistencies if people keep doing that? Is that what you mean by 'ruining it'?
4. Talking about ruining things and the state of everyday media: it is exactly because so few people care about quality that all we end up with is shit and slightly less shittier shit. But please, keep on advocating a low standard. Just don't complain about the movie 'Ass' being popular: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Instead of bitching that it's not 100%, we should be grateful [...] suck it up, and enjoy the damned flick.
No, fuck you and fuck your mediocrity-inducing opinion-denying apologism.
If I see shit, I call it out. I am not (and GP isn't) telling anyone they are not allowed to like the movie. You on the other hand are telling me I should. Do you understand the difference?
Some guy gives his honest and well-founded opinion on something and 'you guys' (I'm generalizing here) tell him that he can't have it, should shut up and that he should like -- nay, be grateful for! -- what he thinks is shit. Stalin would be so proud.
So again: fuck you and fuck your mediocrity-inducing opinion-denying apologism.
Re:I hate to be THAT GUY...
on
Review: The Martian
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I want to sincerely thank you for being that guy. Your honesty and critical view is what this world is sorely lacking.
The amount of apologism for shit in ridiculous-budget movies that could easily have been done right is insane. Bullshit replies like 'you must be fun at parties' or "it's just a movie" really piss me off. They pretty much translate to "Shut up, nerd. Don't talk shit about stuff I like." Given that this is a site with 'news for nerds', we're talking about a 'sciency' movie, and that the entire fucking point of science is to be absolutely honest, objective, thorough and accurate make it extra sad that that is what your objectivity gets you.
So again: thank you and don't let all the Hollywood-apologists ever deter you. Keep calling it like you see it! Maybe then someday, actually well and attentively written scripts will become the norm instead of the rare exception.
- "No, I'm sorry, I really can't tell you who it is." = "Aww, at least give me a hint." - "Alright. He's 54 and he's President of the United States of America."
I'd like to add that the link in TFA should be replaced with the Album-based view, which is more informative and logically separated: https://www.flickr.com/photos/...
I salute your act of retraction. It is praiseworthy.
I'm just pointing out that all that plastic lying around isn't as innocuous as everyone thinks.
I agree that putting time and effort into preventing plastic from entering our oceans is wise. I do believe we should do so in a rational way and choose the most efficient solutions for the problems. Research into bacteria that mitigate the issues is definitely one of the roads to efficient solutions. You may find this interesting: http://news.discovery.com/eart...
- "The obvious answer is leave it buried in the ground." = "Except that it doesn't stay in the ground."... = "I was more referring to the waste that never makes it into the ground."
That is a pretty silly sequence of sentences, don't you think? The solution is simple: just retract your initial statement and say that it's better to leave plastic buried in landfills than convert it to CO2 until we have a better way of dealing with it. Trying to inject the effects of buried plastic on geological time scales into the discussion is also just very very silly.
Slashdot Mirror
Although possibly not for everyone, there is a modular smartwatch that may be able to alleviate some issues in this regard:
http://www.chooseblocks.com/#m...
I'm not sure whether this is something that will stick, but the general idea appeals to me, especially as the developers have said that the intent is to open it up to development of parts/modules by third parties.
OTOH, given that third parties will also develop the exterior, having modules from different manufacturers might leave the band looking like shit.
And quotation marks:
Headline: "British spaceplane will revolutionize space travel"
Intro: Some obviously biased guy somewhere said his spaceplane will revolutionize space travel.
Translation: we're terrible 'journalists' who lack the competence, fortitude and integrity to come up with a headline we actually stand by. If not, we'd have written a headline like: British company developing spaceplane.
We need more than Betteridge's law. We need Betteridge's law book.
you've made a reasonable argument in a reasonable tone
He didn't. His 'reasonable argument' consisted of ad hominems ('their leader is politically young'), general poisoning the well tactics ('his father is bad, thus he must be bad'), FUD and generally baseless statements ('civil liberties are walking dead', 'mark my words' and pretty much everything else in the post).
It adds nothing of substance to the discussion and does so in an alarmist and offensive way. It deserves a solid -1.
If you disagree, please point out the well-reasoned bits I've overlooked. Either that or accept that you were ever so gently sucking his dick (I take it you have no issue with this 'reasonable tone').
This makes much more sense. If the prevalence of 'autistic' people is what determines the number of codes of conduct, one would expect fewer codes of conduct when the fraction of 'autistic' people in the population drops (which it has done).
If you are not willing to be civil, face the consequences.
The discussion is about the consequences, not whether people are ready to face them.
I've seen first hand that telling somebody things in a 'professional' way allows them to dismiss it and fuck up almost identically the next time. Get angry at them and they sure as hell will remember. Now if you get angry without good reason, they will remember you for being an unreasonable asshole. If you get angry with good reason, they tend to get their shit together because they will try to prevent people from being angry at them when it is demonstrably their fault and something they can reasonably change.
Anger and strong wording conveys importance very primitively and directly. It is up to the speaker to decide what amount of power should be put into his/her message. I believe this is the thing that most often goes wrong. Things that aren't that important are too often brought as if they are, with the associated amount of verbal and emotional power. In addition to that, the speaker and listener have different associations of how powerful certain words and phrasings are. Fuck is a word that means little to me (dare I say fuck-all), but some people get really offended by it. This is more of a shared responsibility, as both speaker and listener need to garner an understanding of what certain words mean for the other.
Alternatively, you could approach this from the 'real men' (I prefer 'confident adults') side: in my experience, the people who don't throw a hissyfit about being talked to strongly are definitely the most reliable and capable people, willing to change their ways. These are people who care about the reasoning, not the words. About the function and not the form. The extreme ones are almost completely impervious to and unmoved by any swearing whatsoever. I see that as a huge asset.
That would actually be useful, but considering that one of the screenshots shows 'Follow AMD' with the mandatory shitload of social media icons in the main overview of the settings interface of a fucking driver makes me think that this has marketing department vomit sauce all over it.
You know: "We need to raise the profile of AMD and generate buzz on social media' or whatever the fuck it is they say.
I'm betting that in the overview where you can change clock settings there's going to be a share button which automatically posts a Twitter message and Facebook status update saying: "Just overclocked my AMD Radeon 1234XX to 1000Mhz, bitches! #AMDrulez #overclockingBoss #beastmode #caturday"
Undoing misclick mod.
Where are all the people who voted for this submission? The comment section is pretty much unanimously opposed to both the message and the form of TFA.
His 'argument' there pretty much boils down to: "it was going to be invented anyway"
To most people, the argument for public funding of science rests on a list of the discoveries made with public funds, from the Internet (defense science in the U.S.) to the Higgs boson (particle physics at CERN in Switzerland). But that is highly misleading. Given that government has funded science munificently from its huge tax take, it would be odd if it had not found out something. This tells us nothing about what would have been discovered by alternative funding arrangements.
There is some merit to the idea that all useful inventions will inevitably be done (the concept of technological determinism / technological imperative has been around for decades), but it is still idiotic to use that as an argument against government funding, as that line of thinking says nothing about when the inevitable will happen. A world in which the internet was invented 10 years later is not equivalent (and dare I say unpreferable) to ours.
There are too many other ways in which the reasoning in TFA is obviously flawed. Considering that you have to ask yourself the question:
Why the hell is this low quality shit even on Slashdot?
Was it before this report came out? Or are you only jumping on the bandwagon now and post hoc claiming the validity of your decision?
No. I made the decision for the reason I mentioned. My experience with most manufacturers doing things that are outside of their core business is that those things tend to suck (badly).
Prior to this report you'd think that it was a reasonable assumption that a company with a $17B market cap could hire as many cryptography experts as they wanted to work on their products rather than pass it off to the current intern. But no, your decision was not based on any facts but rather an emotional response to your beliefs of the relative merits of each product.
It is irrelevant how many experts they could hire. It is relevant how many experts they probably would hire. They know fuck-all about cryptography and security and are very probably not going to understand how much time and effort is required to do them right. I also don't believe they care enough about doing it right. It's more of an us-too feature than a USP.
But no, your decision was not based on any facts but rather an emotional response to your beliefs of the relative merits of each product. That you made a decision that coincidentally bears out your emotional bias against WD does not negate the fact that an assumption is an unknown and you can't know an unknown, and you did trade one unknown for another.
Fuck you and your strawmen. I already told you that assumptions are not interchangeable (as you imply) and why in this case one assumption specifically is not the other. If you don't have the decency to respond to that, then fuck you.
If you have such faith in TrueCrypt, why do you feel the need to qualify it? Or are you unconsciously admitting that your knowledge about the quality of TrueCrypt is incomplete and you are making an assumption of its fitness of use?
And fuck you again. I never said that I have 'such faith in TrueCrypt' and have clearly and repeatedly indicated from the start that I am aware that it is not perfectly trustworthy. So no, I am not 'unconsciously' admitting shit.
Just accept that you were unjustly talking shit and go away. You're trying to hold on to a very weak and worthless position.
Your logic is flawed. Just because something is an assumption doesn't mean it is as unreliable as any other assumption.
Honestly, do you not see the stupidity of trying to lecture me on a decision that has already proven to be the right one and the irony of doing so in the comments on an article that actually provides that proof?
WD's products have proven to suck at cryptography and security. TC has not (yet).
WD makes harddisks. TCs is a product aimed 100% at cryptography and security.
Lumping them both together and implying they are equally unreliable because I haven't done an audit of the code of TC is retarded. Don't force your point of 'nothing is ever completely secure' into this. We know it isn't, yet we still have to try to choose the best of the imperfect options.
I don't really trust VeraCrypt yet.
Last time I checked, it was a product of just one French guy who may not even have a very, very solid understanding of cryptography. Even if he's not malicious, his well-intended changes might be making the product worse rather than better.
I'll reevaluate it at some point in the near future, however.
I bought one of the WD Passport drives, but I immediately decided that I didn't want to rely on a harddisk manufacturer for security and encryption (or deal with potentially very crappy software).
So I just created a TrueCrypt partition and now sometimes deal with the very slight inconvenience of having to mount it (and with the risk that TC has actually become less safe than the alternatives, of course).
Boo. Get off the stage.
You could have made a joke of there being a defensive tactical snuke in her open 'port', but noo.
Interestingly, the place to look for UHD content is YouTube (and recently Vimeo, as well). The flexibility of the 'amateur' video producer and that of the internet as a distribution platform really show in this area.
There is some beautiful and awesome stuff out there:
https://vimeo.com/115541651
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Given that the high-end smartphones are outputting UHD movies now as well, there is going to be an onslaught of UHD content.
1. [...] Such a thing does not exist, at least not in a way to suit common people. Entertainment is usually science fiction.
Bullshit. Most entertainment is actually scientifically accurate, as it generally portrays very everyday things. Source: pretty much every sitcom ever. Entertainment is actually usually just simple fiction.
2. Not a strawman at all. The parent specifically was calling out on where the facts are wrong.
So calling out the inaccuracy of some facts means stating that everything has to be fact?
Answer: No. Not in general and specifically not here.
Conclusion: Strawman. Simple as fuck.
Calling the actions of a person strange is also irrelevant. The times are different.
Internal consistency. Learn what it means. If you portray someone as the head of a highly scientific organization that deals with space travel and let him take in space travel 101 as something new, you've failed at providing internal consistency. Fuck 'the times are different'. Unless you are making Idiocracy it's just bullshit.
Why attack him for stating his opinion?
3. I'm not, I'm attacking you for your stance that a science fictiony movie needs to be scientifically honest, and for supporting "that guy" who whinges about the lack of scientific accuracy in a science fiction movie.
Look at the emphasis. You completely discredited your own statement within that statement. Also: "The guy who tries to ruin a fictional story because he can't differentiate the idea of science fiction from science fact."
You acted like a dick. Own it.
4. For implying that everything is shit or less shit in a thread discussing a movie that is widely considered "not shit", I'm going to call you "that other guy".
Argumentum ad populum. There are a lot of things 'widely considered' as 'not shit'. To imply that that somehow objectively makes them not shit is a fallacy. But perhaps the terminology is needlessly confusing. Let's not call it shit. Let's just call it mediocre. The Martian is slightly less mediocre than all the other shit out there, but only a little.
Better?
1. False dichotomy. There is a huge area between a 'university lecture' and 'internally consistent and scientifically accurate entertainment'.
2. Strawman. Nobody said that science fiction has to be science fact. You can make up all kinds of stuff as long as it makes sense in the world you've created. If your movie has inconsistencies that makes it objectively weaker than if it did not have those inconsistencies. Apologism and attacking the messenger do not change that.
3. Nobody is trying to 'ruin a fictional story'. You don't give a crap that the movie is inconsistent. That is perfectly fine. So why care when somebody points that out? Why attack him for stating his opinion? Are you afraid that it will become harder to ignore the inconsistencies if people keep doing that? Is that what you mean by 'ruining it'?
4. Talking about ruining things and the state of everyday media: it is exactly because so few people care about quality that all we end up with is shit and slightly less shittier shit. But please, keep on advocating a low standard. Just don't complain about the movie 'Ass' being popular: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Instead of bitching that it's not 100%, we should be grateful [...] suck it up, and enjoy the damned flick.
No, fuck you and fuck your mediocrity-inducing opinion-denying apologism.
If I see shit, I call it out. I am not (and GP isn't) telling anyone they are not allowed to like the movie. You on the other hand are telling me I should.
Do you understand the difference?
Some guy gives his honest and well-founded opinion on something and 'you guys' (I'm generalizing here) tell him that he can't have it, should shut up and that he should like -- nay, be grateful for! -- what he thinks is shit. Stalin would be so proud.
So again: fuck you and fuck your mediocrity-inducing opinion-denying apologism.
I want to sincerely thank you for being that guy. Your honesty and critical view is what this world is sorely lacking.
The amount of apologism for shit in ridiculous-budget movies that could easily have been done right is insane. Bullshit replies like 'you must be fun at parties' or "it's just a movie" really piss me off. They pretty much translate to "Shut up, nerd. Don't talk shit about stuff I like."
Given that this is a site with 'news for nerds', we're talking about a 'sciency' movie, and that the entire fucking point of science is to be absolutely honest, objective, thorough and accurate make it extra sad that that is what your objectivity gets you.
So again: thank you and don't let all the Hollywood-apologists ever deter you. Keep calling it like you see it! Maybe then someday, actually well and attentively written scripts will become the norm instead of the rare exception.
I'd actually really appreciate a 'regular' news site that had a high-quality community and an effective moderating system like Slashdot has.
I don't think one of those exists, does it?
- "No, I'm sorry, I really can't tell you who it is."
= "Aww, at least give me a hint."
- "Alright. He's 54 and he's President of the United States of America."
I'd like to add that the link in TFA should be replaced with the Album-based view, which is more informative and logically separated:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/...
I'd adopt the shit out of that.
I salute your act of retraction. It is praiseworthy.
I'm just pointing out that all that plastic lying around isn't as innocuous as everyone thinks.
I agree that putting time and effort into preventing plastic from entering our oceans is wise. I do believe we should do so in a rational way and choose the most efficient solutions for the problems. Research into bacteria that mitigate the issues is definitely one of the roads to efficient solutions. You may find this interesting:
http://news.discovery.com/eart...
Nature is a very versatile thing.
- "The obvious answer is leave it buried in the ground." ...
= "Except that it doesn't stay in the ground."
= "I was more referring to the waste that never makes it into the ground."
That is a pretty silly sequence of sentences, don't you think?
The solution is simple: just retract your initial statement and say that it's better to leave plastic buried in landfills than convert it to CO2 until we have a better way of dealing with it. Trying to inject the effects of buried plastic on geological time scales into the discussion is also just very very silly.