With a little effort, one can write bad code in any language.

Not really. If that service costs x2 in compute, it also means it causes x2 pollution.

Most jobs are a pointless waste of time

His journey, on the other hand, is a pointful waste of time.

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!

Except… I really didn’t say that “both sides are the same”. This claim - in the context of politics, at least - usually mean one of two (quite similar) propositions:

1. Party A, which is now in power, enacted a questionable policy - but if Party B was in power instead in a similar situation it’d do a similar thing.
   • Variation - this can also be claimed about something the party not in power does as an opposition.
2. Party A used some questionable methods to increase its power - but Party B is also using some similarly questionable methods to gain power.

Since the topic here is shifts in the political views of various demographics - the second proposition is the more relevant one.

Both sides are very much not the same here. One side is pushing while the other is pulling. Pushing and pulling is not the same thing - they are opposite things. I hope you understand that, and that you are not struggling with operating doors. I did not say that both conservatives and progressives are using similar methods to gain influence here, because that’s not true. It’s not true even if you remove the word “similar” because progressives are not using methods to gain influence - they are using methods to lose influence.

Also, when I said that the Left - and not just the Right - is also contributing to this trend, I was not doing it to imply that both sides share the blame for this trend. I reject that proposition. The blame here goes 100% to the Left^[1]! The winning side does not need to reflect on why it is winning^[2] - and when the losing side reflects on why it is losing, making its conclusion about the wining side’s tactics is not very helpful unless its for coming up with ways to counter these methods - which I’m not seeing done here.

These men feel rejected by the Left, and the Right is taking advantage of these feelings. Both sides are not the same here - only one side is competent.

Kindly screenshot my comment^[1] and underline the part where I said “the same”.

It’s both, really. One side pulling, the other side is pushing.

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

The comments here on this Lemmy post can serve as a perfect demonstration for the reason behind men turning right-wing. Any comment trying to point out some specific aspect of life where men are experiencing more hardships is immediately shut off and getting told these experiences and concerns are invalid.

There is a limit to how much “fuck you” one can hear before going “well, fuck you too”.

This makes no sense. Since when do countries other than the US exist?

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.

The concept of autopen is ridiculous, but so is unpardoning turkeys. Then again - so is pardoning turkeys.

This whole country is ridiculous.

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

Shit, cats do that. Do they also pray to god?

Yes, and even God can’t understand what is it that they want this time.