this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
733 points (95.5% liked)

Programmer Humor

18292 readers
2615 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
733
Recursion (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by alphacyberranger to c/[email protected]
102 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 70 points 10 months ago (8 children)

I'd pull the lever to kill one person immediately. Assuming the decision maker at each stage is a different person with different opinions on moral, ethical, religious, and logical questions, then it's a near certainty that someone is going to pull the lever to kill the people at their stage. If you're lucky, it's the very next guy. If you're not, it's the guy killing a million people a couple of iterations later. If I'm the first guy, I'll take the moral hit to save the larger number of people.

[–] aseriesoftubes 24 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If you're not, it's the guy killing a million people a couple of iterations later

I feel like running over all those bodies would make the train come to a stop way before it ran over a million people.

Now I sit back and wait for some morbid soul who is better at math and physics than me to figure out the answer.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Now if we assume the victims tied up are frictionless orbs, and the train is also a frictionless orb, and the two of them are travelling in a frictionless void than I reckon we could kill a few more.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But then would they die if they don't slow the train down? The train would necessarily have to impart some energy in order to effect a change in their bodies.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Maybe the train is an unstoppable force.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rockSlayer 13 points 10 months ago (10 children)

Exactly. If you have the means at hand, you have the responsibility to act. At the risk of taking a shitpost way too seriously, if you were in that situation and actively chose to leave the decision to someone else to kill double the people, then you acted unethically.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (5 children)

I agree with your logic, so far as it goes. However, there are, currently, just over eight billion humans in existence. If my quick, over-tired math is correct, that means only 34 people have to say no, until we run out of people to tie to the tracks. Assuming, at that point, the system collapses and nobody dies, I'd guess 34 people would refuse - might be the better choice.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Would you trust the entirety of human existence to be decided by 34 people? In my experience from watching reality TV, the last one always screws the rest over for their own benefit.

Imagine being the last one. You could singlehandedly wipe out half the global population. This would normally be a bad thing, and it is, but it would also make every surviver twice as rich, solve food scarcity and halve the pollution, perhaps even saving humanity from itself.

If that's not enough, think about everyone now having double the amount of kittens and half the traffic on the roads.

[–] Eylrid 4 points 10 months ago

Society and the economy are not a zero sum game. Killing half the population wouldn't make the survivors twice as rich. It would send society into chaos which would make the remaining people's lives far worse.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey 9 points 10 months ago

On the one hand, the possibility exists that the buck gets passed forever, especially as the kill count numbers grow substantially making the impermissibility of allowing the deaths grow with it. It's not likely the any given person would kill one stranger, let alone millions.

On the other hand, in an infinite series, even something with miniscule odds will still eventually inevitably happen, and some psycho will instantly become the most infamous murderer in history, followed immediately by the person that didn't just kill one person and end the growth before it started.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

I think this is a good metaphor for how humanity has "dealt" with problems like climate change.

If you make a tough decision, it causes hardship now, but prevents hardship in the future. If you don't make a tough decision now, someone in the future has to either kill a lot of people, or just pass the buck to the next guy. People justify not making the tough decisions by saying that maybe eventually down the line someone will have an easy decision and there will be nobody on the side path, even though all observable evidence says that the number of people on that path just keeps growing exponentially.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 43 points 10 months ago (3 children)

If we all collectively agree to just pass it on, then either:

  • It's infinite, and it just passes on forever, or...

  • It's not infinite and somebody at the end has no choice, in which case nobody in charge of a lever has killed anyone

So yeah, I say pass it on.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Except that somewhere down that chain someone is almost certainly going to choose to kill people, so by passing the trolley on down to them you're responsible for killing a lot more than if you ended it right now.

And since every rational person down the line is going to think that, they'll all be itching to pull the "kill" lever first chance they get. So you know that you need to pull the kill lever immediately to minimize the number of deaths.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (10 children)

Only the person pulling the lever is responsible for his/her action though. There is a difference between passively passing on and actively murder someone

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Dentological ethics: you have a duty to not murder people, so you don't pull the lever

Utilitarian ethics: pulling the lever will kill less people

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

I guess then the issue would be: do you ever find out the result of your actions? If no, then I guess it's sort of a "glass half empty/full" kind of thing, because you could just pass it on and assume the best and just go live your life quite happily.

Although if you did find out the result, imagine being first, pulling the lever and then finding out nobody else would have.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 10 months ago

Someone needs to stop tying people to those train tracks or this trolley problem will never go away.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Step in front of the train: Tell your manager this whole project is dumb, provide a list of reasons why it's a bad idea and explain you are prepared to resign rather than enable its further development.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING!! Which also kills the other lever guy, bonus!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Double it and I'll do it myself

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Just keep doubling forever until the number is more than everyone alive, free s-risk emergency button.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This might cause a buffer overload that crashes the programming and we can escape the matrix together once and for all

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Half-pull the lever so that the points get stuck midway between the two tracks. That should derail the trolley. Someone could conceivably still get hurt, but it improves everyone's chances.

(What? You mean it isn't a literal trolley that has to obey the laws of physics? Damn.)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

News next day, 10 dead in derailment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Philosophy problems vs all real world problems

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

Napkin math, from the last time I saw this:

I’ve been thinking about this. I estimate a few people per 1000 would do an atrocity for no reason if they were guaranteed no consequences, and the deaths if the switch is pulled are 2^(n-1) for the nth switch. The expected deaths will cross 1 somewhere in the high single-digits, then (since it’s outcome*chance), so the death minimising strategy is actually to pull yours if the chain is at least that long.

Edit: This assumes the length of the chain is variable but finite, and the trolley stops afterwards. If it's infinite obviously you pull the switch.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

There is one person in danger.

Now I pull the lever.

Now there are two _______

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

person in dangers

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] statues_lasers 9 points 10 months ago

Modern financial system in one picture.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

If we keep doubling, will I eventually be a person on the tracks? There are a finite number of people, so eventually I would be, right? So, passing the buck would be equivalent to handing my fate to a stranger.

OTOH, if there are an infinite number of people, then this thought experiment is creating people out of thin air. Do these imaginary people's rhetorical lives even matter?

Either way, it seems better to kill 1 person at the start.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Creddit 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Just walk away and assume the original engineer put safety measures in place.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If you pull the lever after the trolley's first set of wheels has passed the switch but before its last set of wheels has passed the switch then you'll derail the trolley and everyone lives.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Except the guy in the trolley

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

He should have been wearing his seatbelt. That's on him.

Also, why wasn't he pulling the emergency brake? He deserves it.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] damnthefilibuster 6 points 10 months ago

Damn. That’s the politician way of thinking!!!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Choosing the second option will trap an infinite people for eternity in this problem, because it would never stop

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

„I pull this lever and suddenly it’s not my problem anymore“

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is a screenshot from here https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] over_clox 4 points 10 months ago

Depends on how much I'm getting paid..

[–] Aux 4 points 10 months ago

THE MORE THE MERRIER!!!

load more comments
view more: next ›