AeonFelis @ AeonFelis @lemmy.world

帖子

5

评论

1,364

加入于

2 yr. ago

No need for scanning. I have a binder where I neatly organize them, and currently they are all shoved under the binder so that the cats won't play with them.

You should strive to be me because I'm better than you.

There is no hell

Sure there is. Just look around you!

Science is totally right here, I have no doubt. It's just... that I have zero regard for my own health.

I don't remember where exactly, but I've encountered an hybrid approach that balances utilitarianism with deontology. It goes something like this:

1. Generally do what brings the most utility. But...
2. People have "deontological protections" - basic human rights that you are not allowed to infringe upon even if it is for the greater good. But...
3. One's deontological protections can be bypassed if said "greater good" is solving a mess they are responsible for.

Take, for example, the case of a mass shooter. Utilitarianism says you are allowed to take them down if that's the only way to save their victims. Naive deontology says you are not allowed to kill whatsoever. The approach I've just presented says that we can go with utilitarianism in this case - but only because the shooter is one responsible for this mess so it's okay to harm them for the greater good.

Note that it does not say it's okay to kill them otherwise. If you manage to capture them, an other lives are no longer in risk, both deontology and utilitarianism will agree you are not allowed to kill them.

Let's go back to the classic Trolley Problem. Is the person tied to the second track responsible for the situation? No - they are a victim. They are not stripped from their deontological protection, and therefore you are not allowed to sacrifice them in order to save the other five.

Back to the case in hand. We need to ask the following questions:

• Does the suffering of the employees outweigh the life of the CEO?
• Does the death of the CEO stop the suffering of the employees?
• Is the CEO responsible for the suffering of the employees?

If the answer to all three questions is "yes" - then what's the problem?

Wouldn't they still be disappointed that you are an engineer and not a doctor?

Almost everyone is Johnny. Spike and Timmy are caricature types - the uncompromising extremes. If Johnny was on the list you'd have to choose if you are more similar to Spike to more similar to Timmy, but since he is there - representing the entire range between the other two - you, a complex real-life (I hope?) person and not a shallow 1D character, are bound to meaninglessly identify as a Johnny.

First, that is not your child. It is a fucking elephant.

Finally someone addresses the elephant in the room!

Worst she can do is say "no"

That officer is a named character. Her importance will be revealed during the big twist of this arc.

What would you even need that for?

Overworked peasants have neither the time nor the energy to revolt.

If this ever happens, the manufacturer will remotely brick it. Not because they are afraid of AI taking over - they just want to force you to buy a new one from them.

a fridge to me is a cool place

Yes, that is indeed its primary function.

Does ACAB include police dogs?

I would want to make sure that everyone has to go through with it, regardless of financial or social status. No “senator’s son” deferments, ya know?

That's the most delusional idea I've seen in this post - and that's a very high bar to cross. Even if you disregard the fact that said senators are going to be the one fine-tuning the rules (and other rich and powerful people "assisting" them) - keep in mind that the people of the Elite class:

• Have access to lawyers and consultants that can find ways to game the system.
• Have connections with the people in charge inside the system's hierarchy, allowing them to arrange better treatment for their children.
• Have connections with the people supervising the system.

Their children's conclusionary service will be more pleasant then your children's. Trying to make them suffer won't really work, and you'll only end up making an already atrocious ordeal worse for everyone else.

Regarding the complaints, I hope you understand that:

• Darker skinned people will get disproportionately more complains. The darker the skin, the more complains you get. You said "verified" complains - but the managers in charge of "verifying" the complains will be more inclined to approving complaints against them.
• Neurodivergent people - depending on the way their neuro diverges - will also get more complains. In this case this increase in complains may even be justified, but... congratulation - you are now punishing them for being neurodivergent. This means, of course, you'll want a to give them accommodations. Good thing neurodivergent people are all the same, and that the managers in this system will be understanding, so these accommodations will go to who they need to go to and won't be taken advantage of.
• The people of the Elite class have connections with the people in charge of verifying complaints. Disproportionate amount of the complaints against Elites will be rejected.

This will be good for the ruling class. Rebellious individuals from the lower classes will be punished, shaping them into easier-to-rule-over subjects.

1. What would happen if you reach 25 without hitting the quota of compulsory service hours?
2. What would happen if you get too many "verified complaints"?

If you can't hold your excitement for more than 250 milliseconds - maybe snails are not a very good choice as a fascination target.

Of course not! She's not a couch.

I think they really meant it at the time - but needed Windows 11 in order to really shove AI down people's throats.