Buffalox

I don't get the relevance of that link, it talks about logical falacies like:

A: "All rodents are mammals, but a weasel isn't a rodent, so it can't be a mammal."

I don't see how that's relevant, there is no way that can be seen as an ad hominem. The entire piece seems to be like that. And obviously ad hominem is not a logical fallacy as in flawed use of actual logic like boolean logic. And obviously explaining how and argument is wrong, is not an ad hominem. That's normal discourse to progress on the issue.

But this part:

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem.

I believe I have CLEARLY shown that the comment "you are hurt and angry" is exactly that. If it's not an argument based on his (wrong) interpretation of my person, then what is it?

From wikipedia which is way more concise, and actually talks about what an ad hominem is instead of what it is not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument.

In this case me being emotional.
If he writes, you are wrong because you have a big nose. That's an obvious ad hominem. You are wrong because you are being emotional is an equally obvious ad hominem. They are the exact same fallacy as writing you are wrong because you are an idiot.

your fallacious claim that the person committed an ad hominem

I'm surprised you still consider it fallacious?

THIS PART IS THE PERSON’S ARGUMENT,

Yes I know, it's the way the argument is put with "You have to understand", as if I wasn't aware of a very obvious fact.
Put together with the bubble comment, he argues like a camouflaged MAGA, using "you too" arguments.

Ok buddy, you only quoted part of what I said.

I took the part that was essential. Your claim about the below is essentially the same argument.

Your argument is wrong because you’re an idiot

That's the same as your argument is wrong, because you are angry and hurt, (and therefore not rational). Both are attacks on the person and not the argument. Although one is more polite than the other.

And oh he also claimed i was living in a bubble, so he actually made 3 comments that were ill camouflaged personal attacks, first on my emotional state, 2nd on my rationality, and finally claiming I'm uninformed from living in a bubble.

Yet I'm the one downvoted for calling his ad hominem out.
The fact that X is used outside USA is obvious, thinking he needs to "explain" that is ridiculous, and I live in EU, so I think I'm aware of that. And Xitter definitely also has a fascist agenda outside USA, but maybe he isn't aware of that?

None of the 3 attacks (non arguments) were ever qualified any further, probably because he can't.

But I understand why you are hurt and angry, but you must understand you are wrong, because "obvious fact", and you live in a Bubble.

So do you think that's an OK comment to our discussion? Because that's EXACTLY what the comment by NoiseColor to me boils down to. It's an even bigger ad hominem when put together.

A statement is only an ad hominem if 1) it’s attempting to refute an argument 2) by attacking the character/motive of the person

Which is EXACTLY what he did. And I even explained that in my previous post.

He/She doesn't understand anything, he/she doesn't know me.

If the comment was along the lines of: I understand IF you are hurt and angry, it would be different and not presumptuous. But that he continues with: "But you have to understand..." Like he is talking to a child, confirms the interpretation of an ad hominem IMO."

But thanks for pointing out a possibly poorly worded good intention. But the way he wrote it, it looks like an ad hominem to me.

Probably the same for pregnant women. I wonder what could be the cause for this?

we don’t have an explanation.

Wow really? Are they really that far gone in denial about sexual education and abortion rights?
I guess it won't get better soon then.

Trump, however, has called this spending wasteful and vowed to erase it.

The reasoning of Trump for this:
I'm 78 years old, spending money on the safety of climate and the earth in the future, will not benefit me, a sociopathic malignant narcissist, in any way.

USA is polluting 4 times the global average per capita, meaning about 5% of the global population is producing about 20% of the world pollution.
If USA decide to do nothing, it's a huge setback for the world, and very irresponsible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

I don't see them being blamed for it, but they will make fun of it.

Good job American voters. /s

And which are those? There is no technology all major tech companies have invested in like AI AFAIK.
Maybe the dot com wave way back, but are you arguing the Internet came to nothing?

AI is already VERY successful in some areas, when you take a photo, it is treated with AI features to improve the image, and when editing photos on your phone, the more sophisticated options are powered by AI. Almost all new cars have AI features.
These are practical everyday uses, you don't even have to think about when using them.
But it's completely irrelevant if I can see use cases that are sustainable or not. The fact is that major tech companies are investing billions in this.
Of course all the biggest tech companies could all be wrong, but I bet they researched the issue more than me before investing.
Show me by what logic you believe to know better.

The claim that it needs to be strong AI to be useful is ridiculous.