Dudeman112

>Also, you are calling something out without providing what -you- would do in the situation?

If someone uses 1+1=3 as an argument you don't need to figure out an actual answer to point out their argument is bollocks

>What you're implying is just letting criminals out as the only alternative

I'm implying no such thing. I'm saying that specific moral argument is bullshit if they find the current punishment ceiling acceptable

>If the death penalty had been applied, there's no "undo" button.

There's no "undo" button for wasting away for 40 years in prison either

To me it looks like a glitch of the human cognition to think that losing almost/everyone you love, being dropped into a vastly different world than you knew, having your financial and social prospects thrown in the trash, living in shitty conditions for decades, is oh so much better and moral than killing them

I think you're underestimating just how many True Believers generations of omnipresent Jingoism can create

Absolutely bonkers algorithms that no one can make sense of unless they dedicate time to study and debug it

Also, it will have to be scrapped when anyone wants to tweak it a little. Sure monkeys randomly typing on a typewriter will eventually write the greatest novel in existence... but most of it will be shit

May $entity have mercy on your soul if the business starts bleeding tons of money due to an issue with the code, because the codebase won't

>It is what those words mean. It is literal.

>I'm not sure these were needed

The original wording I was gonna use before deciding to be more considerate was "small children and autists"

If you can think of another short descriptor for "people who obtusely take things literally and are unable or refuse to account for other people's state of mind", I'm happy to use those instead

>I hope you got a nice slither of dopamine out of namecalling though in any case

In fact, it was far more than a sliver!

Upon further reflection, I think I got a lot of repressed anger for never having smacked people who can't behave unless they are explicitly told to do so, who actually need the "within reason" clause everywhere, and who are happy to play with technicalities when it comes to justifying their behaviour

>What does this sentence even mean lmao

>if you say something is unlimited I'm going to take your word for it

The sentence refers to people like you. It doesn't make you incredibly clever to consider those sentences literally, like small children or those with under-developed empathy and theory of mind often do

It just makes you an inconsiderate numpty

>Hacker News would be on the complete opposite

Yes, there are lots of people on the tech scene that just don't get ideas like "don't abuse it", or "considering the consequences for other people"

There's always an individual with autism-level consideration for what one says, isn't there?

No, effectively DDOS-ing a service just because it says it's free and unlimited is a dick move

People like those are a big reason for why we can't have nice things

>There's really no data on that

I find it extremely unlikely that there's no data on how being an outcast affects one's mental health

No, I stand by it

Right now you are already forced to pick 'no'. It's a button that lets things go the way so many people claim to be necessary and proper. They can own up to deliberately choosing our current reality if they think our current reality is so much better

In a world where immortality is a given, being able to off yourself is one of the most important things an individual should have a right to do

You can always say "no" when it asks if you want to continue life, unlike in Lena as some other commenter mentioned

Better than current reality, where "no" is shoved on your throat and most people insist you better be grateful about it

>I don't want to see people die, but on the other hand I fully understand that we must die

Those are not mutually compatible

Well, unless you take some esoteric interpretation where one can be absolved from the immediate implications of what they think are the most desirable states for the universe

If one considers it necessary for people to die, one wants people to die. It's part of the whole considering death necessary

What do you mean?

Looks to me like you are reacting to the title instead of the article

I expected the standard anti-medicine fare from the title, but got neat biological investigation/hacking instead. That was an interesting read

Which cycle of self pity?

I'm a sadistic fuck that's been made to have the caring range of a rock due to childhood abuse

I'm fine being that way, it's just not conductive to maintaining relationships. Been there, done the whole 'be yourself bollocks' - the results were shit. Pretending to care far more than I do, and constantly suppressing the sardonic and vindictive tendencies has been far more pleasant

'just tweak core aspects of your personality' is exactly the opposite of being yourself

The "be the real you" crowd never quite has a good answer for "what if the real you is an unlovable, broken piece of shit?", do they?

>If it can't even do an NGINX config, what use is it for anything else?

Turn it around. I'm sure there are lots of people around who couldn't do it either, even with a ridiculously high amount of time to do it