okamiueru

joined 2 years ago
[–] okamiueru 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I'd agree, if it wasn't for you having an obligation as a voting citizen to be somewhat informed of your decision. Anyone who votes for Trump has either failed to meet that basic requirement, or they're a shitty person. The latter is actually fine, the former is not.

[–] okamiueru 17 points 1 month ago

It isn't hate. It's leaving the evil, cruel, and/or misinformed alone.

[–] okamiueru 20 points 1 month ago

It'll keep getting worse until heads suddenly start rolling.

[–] okamiueru 35 points 1 month ago

That is indeed the joke.

[–] okamiueru 5 points 1 month ago

"Install Linux", is usually a hurdle for most people. We should be willing to help with that part.

[–] okamiueru 1 points 2 months ago

But that's what I'm saying, that choice is axiomatic. I think most people would agree, but it's a belief, not an unquestionable truth. You're choosing something to optimize and defining that to be good.

I'm not really arguing against this tho (perhaps the choosing part, but I'll get to it). I'm saying that a goal post of "axiomaric universal good" isn't all that interesting, because, as you say, there is likely no such thing. The goal shouldn't therefore be to find the global maximum, but to have a heuristic that is "universal enough". That's what I tried to make a point of, in that the golden rule would, at face value, suggests that a masochistic should go around and inflict pain onto others.

It shouldn't be any particular person's understanding, but a collectively agreed understanding. Which is in a way how it works, as this understanding is a part of culture, and differs from one to the other. Some things considered polite in the US is rude in Scandinavia, and vice versa. But, regardless, there will be some fundamentals that are universal enough, and we can consider that the criteria for what to maximise.

[–] okamiueru 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

I think it is easy enough to argue without making it circular. As for "good", I don't think an objective absolute and universal definition is necessary.

The argument would be to consider it an optimization problem, and the interesting part, what the fitness function is. If we want to maximise happiness and freedom, any pair of people is transient. If it matters that they be kind to you, it is the exact same reasoning for why you should be to kind to them. Kinda like the "do unto others", except less prone to a masochist going around hurting people.

[–] okamiueru 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

There is a different side to this equation too. Locally sourcing production. There is no surplus stock that needs to be thrown unopened. No shipping of some part that solves some particular problem. Replacement parts can be made for things that would otherwise be cheaper to buy new and dump the old one, etc.

[–] okamiueru 4 points 2 months ago
[–] okamiueru 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Maybe this was an intentional leak. Now the Nintendo lawyers can claim they've used stolen proprietary code?

[–] okamiueru 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If so, what are you complaining about?

I believe their argument was something along the lines of: 1. Over-funded police. 2. Underfunded child care.

Your argument seems to be, and correct me if I'm wrong: It's always been shit, and you [sic] can bring your own lunch.

[–] okamiueru 1 points 2 months ago

I suppose. If you are doing things against TOS and you suspect just might happen, by all means.

view more: ‹ prev next ›