>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
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
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
>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"
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
>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
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
Whenever people mention the awful state of the industry, I feel an urge to point out that the only thing that matters in a capitalist society is what the consumer votes for with their wallet
Ubisoft is far from bankrupt. EA is far from bankrupt. All the microtransactions, all the stupid "big open world" bollocks, all mind numbing grind-a-thons, the sheer creative bankruptcy that AAA games often show... they are what people consistently vote for, every year
In the last month, the last Carl On Duty has made more money than Ultrakill ever will. By a few orders of magnitude. And the same will happen for the next one
If gamers wanted quality, they should have spent their money accordingly instead of consistently buying shit
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