Harm was going to happen no matter what you do in the trolley problem. There is no situation where harm does not happen, but there is a situation where you directly are causing harm.

Yes, exactly. By taking no action some amount of harm occurs, had you taken action that harm would not have occurred but other harm would have. Ultimately, this is analyzing the extent to which a person is willing to allow harm via inaction versus cause harm through direct action.

Almost none of them actually having a real world application…

Like many thought experiments, the Trolley Problem is an artificial situation intended to isolate certain decision making points so that they can be analyzed. Yes, reality is messy and we often have more than two options. But having this sort of analysis ahead of time can make the real problems less complex to consider. It is also useful for looking at our philosophical frameworks and where they break down.

Personally, if I could go the rest of my life without hearing about the trolley problem that’d be great actually.

The Trolley Problem is a tool for examining our beliefs. Throwing it away because it is imperfect and uncomfortable only leads to a blindness of self.

One of the issues the Trolley Problem explores is people’s differing willingness to allow harm versus cause it. And that can hold even when the level of harm caused by inaction is significantly higher than what is caused by taking action. E.g. If your personal philosophy dictates that killing someone is always wrong, does it hold if your inaction causes 5 deaths, 10, 50? What if we start tinkering with the people dying? Would you kill a 90 year old man to save a train full of children? The Trolley Problem is really just a starting point to examine that dichotomy between causing harm and allowing harm and just how permeable the line between them can be when you start changing the conditions. Attaching other moral choices to the problem is one way to use the problem to explore a set of beliefs.

Choosing not to act is still making a choice and may still result in a negative outcome. It’s the classic trolley problem. While you may not cause harm through an active choice, your inaction can still lead directly to a negative outcome.

Mexican, because life is just better with spices.
American, given that American “culture” is really just cultural appropriation with added sugar and calories, I’ll get to try something close to every other cuisine.

Well, to me, it seems pretty paradoxical, almost in the same Rousseauesque line of “I’m forced to be free”.

That’s fair, but it’s either we force all people to exist or no one ever has the opportunity to make a choice. An unfortunate fact of life is that a lot of things will happen to you, without you having a choice. Some of that will suck, some of it will be fantastic, much of it will be somewhere in between. You will never get to choose everything which happens to you, all you can choose is how you react to it. Pain and suffering is valid, but so is joy. If you choose to focus on pain and suffering, that’s up to you. But ya, that’s kinda the response of the angsty teenager.

Sorry but you distorted my words. In no moment I said “everyone needs to die”, and I challenge anyone accusing me of that to point out where I said this.

Fair enough, that was me getting absurd.

What I’ve been saying throughout this Lemmy thread is how humans are inherently evil (as per Hobbesian philosophy, not out of hatred misanthropy)

This one would be fun to expand one. Though, fair warning, I tend to dive into moral relativism and will put Hobbe’s philosophy up as an appeal to authority and his idea of some “state of nature” as just a “noble savage myth” wrapped in fancy language. Speaking of “noble savage” style myths…

No other lifeforms developed nuclear warheads, no other lifeforms shrug off when children starve.

Ok ya, we have fancier ways to kill each other, but the idea that animals don’t is complete bullshit. Wild animals which have too many young will kill or abandon the extra young to conserve resources. If you’re an old enough fart, you might recall people quoting Planet of the Apes (the one without CGI), “ape don’t kill ape”. Except, that ya, they do. Primates are known to kill and eat other groups of primates, even within the same species. Competition for resources and all the brutality that entails predates modern humans and it predates cities and agriculture by a long way. Sure, we have absolutely raised it a to terrifying scale. But, we really aren’t that different from our stick wielding forebearers.

Even Earth herself isn’t eternal, for the Sun will engulf the Earth as part of its transformation to Giant Red.

Speaking of things we have no choice about, this is one of them. Given the vast expanses of interstellar space, there’s a good chance that this really will spell the end for humanity. On the upshot, we’ve got a few million years (maybe a billion or two) before the Sun gets hot enough to make Earth uninhabitable (assuming we don’t speed that one up ourselves). If we figure nothing out in that time, we’ll be long dead before the Sun goes Red Giant. At the same time, humanity went from the first powered flight at Kittyhawk to humans walking on the Moon in the span of a single human life. We’re a clever bunch and might just sort something out. I like our chances and would love to give us a shot.

Yes. Then, Science was hijacked by capitalism, becoming something sponsored by capital goals, one which sees people as cogs in the machine because “profit must go up”.

Science has always been beholden to economics and war. Capitalism didn’t change that. Again, you’ve latched on to a mythical past. It didn’t exist. Leonardo Da Vinci invented a lot of stuff, much of it was designing better ways for one idiot with an upgraded stick to kill another idiot with a less upgraded stick. Even early hominids were working on better ways to gather resources and kill each other. It’d be great if we can ever change this, but until we sort out some sort of technological singularity (probably itself just a utopian myth), scientific work will take resources which means it’s part of whatever economic theory is currently being used. Economics is always trying to find a way to distribute finite resources in a world of infinite wants. Every economic system has advantages and disadvantages. Capitalism is just getting its opportunity to display its disadvantages at the moment.

Yes. And, on one hand, this improved quality of life (= less physical suffering). On the other hand, it empowered capitalism so people became increasingly reliant on a system that seeks to perpetuate their slavery (= ontological, invisible suffering).

Given what came before (feudalism), I’ll take capitalism and it’s “slavery” (so edgy) any day of the week. Seriously, for anyone in a first world country, sit back and look at the embarrassment of choices and riches you have available to you today. Go to a grocery store, buy a pineapple and eat it. You have now done something that would have been considered the height of indulgence in the 18th Century. Go to your bathroom, take a shit, flush. This would have blown the minds of most of humanity prior to the 19th Century (some really rich Romans wouldn’t have been all that impressed). To me, this exemplifies the weakness in your philosophy, you are quick to validate suffering but refuse to validate progress, joy or anything positive about existence. There are many, many good things in life but you refuse to recognize them, or seek to minimize them. The philosophy is so caught up in the negative, it fails to recognize the good, only calling it “less physical suffering”. And I call that bullshit. The good things in life are good, not a reduction in suffering. The default state is not suffering, you only see it that way because you choose to.

Improving human condition also means avoiding suffering from future generations: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7422788/

I’ll have to apologize, I’ve only made it to the end of Section 4 of the linked paper. It’s getting late and I’m getting pretty deep in my cups (one of humanity’s best, early inventions, booze). I do plan to pick it up in the morning, it’s an interesting read. But this is starting to sound suspiciously like the eugenicist movement of the early 20th Century. The authors also seem to recognize this and are doing a lot of “no really, we’re not those people”:

More troublesome is the realization that, as mentioned, many folks view any efforts to contain population growth as homicide, etc.

Ya, let’s have a critical look at China’s One Child Policy and then come back and tell me how great your policy is. Or, you know, what Eugenicists got up to in the early 20th Century. It might just be that the reason “many folks view any efforts to contain population growth as homicide” is because it always seems to turn out that way. But who knows, maybe the authors really do have A Brave New World planned and I just haven’t read that far yet.

Population growth is already slowing (something the paper mentions). Access to education and birth control already started bending that curve. In fact, most first world countries are already facing shrinking populations. No fancy “don’t have kids” push needed. The economic consequences of this are going to be a “fun” ride and may lead to the sort of suffering the authors are hoping to avoid. Or not, managing a shrinking population may not be an insurmountable economic problem. Japan is kinda doing OK, after all. But, so far is seems that the most effective method for long term population control is less eugenics and more first world development.

To try and sum this all up, I’d note that you seem to be arguing less about anti-natalism and more about the harms of unconstrained capitalism. I’m all on board with the latter, less so the former. We need more socialism (at least in the US). Modern capitalism is broken and that’s only going to be solved via higher taxes and greater wealth redistribution. Even people who believe wholeheartedly in capitalism should recognize that the level of wealth accumulation, rent seeking and regulatory capture have created distortions in the market which are not healthy for capitalism. We’ve entered a new Guilded Age and it’s time to break out the monopoly busting hammer. But, let’s leave the Eugenics in the dustbin of history, it wasn’t good the last time, it won’t be good this time.

Before I was born, there’s this… nothingness. No fleeting happiness, but also no suffering. There was no pain, no angst, nothing but the nothingness. Then I was pulled, without the ability to choose positively or negatively… now the blame is on me: “you really feel that existence is that horrible, there’s a solution for that at your nearest tall bridge”. Why should a person have to go through the painful to opt-out, risking failure?

Because there is no other way to determine what that choice would be. If you don’t exist, you cannot opt-in. So, the only way to give people any choice is to force them into life and let them opt out. Sure, it’s not a perfect solution, but it’s the only one which provides a choice.

Were/Are David Benatar, Philipp Mainländer, among other thinkers who extensively wrote about this subject, eternal “teenagers”?

Yup, I’m willing to stand behind that statement. It’s entirely possible to be well educated and still be stuck in teenage angst.

Are the scientists who’ve been tirelessly reporting on how human activity is endangering all lifeforms, and/or those who reported about microplastics everywhere, and/or those who tried to report about the consequences of Industrial Revolution, driven by “teenager angst”?

Ah going for the absurd now? Pointing out problems is very different from the edgy “everyone needs to die” philosophy. Quite the opposite, really. Fixing problems requires identifying them. If the goal is complete human eradication, identifying problems and putting forward solutions is counter productive. Scientific advancement is the reason we have so many people on the planet. Prior to the late 19th Century, diseases like small pox and bacterial infections were doing a bang up job of suppressing the human population. And then we came up with the germ theory of diseases and vaccines. So no, I won’t put scientists down as full of “teenager angst”. Maybe some of them are, I certainly don’t know them all. But, working hard to improve the human condition seems a pretty far cry from “why don’t we all just die?”

Oh, found the nerve. You’re sitting around dressed in black on black listening to some “edgy” band I’ve never heard of, right?

And yes I’m ignoring the folks who commit suicide. They aren’t the people arguing for others to not have children or for the end of all humanity. They are completely beside the argument about anti-natalism. We’re talking about your philosophy here, do keep up. If you’re arguing that humanity should be ended, then you really have two logic options:

1. Go on a mass murder spree, reducing the population as fast and as much as possible.
2. Go find that bridge. At least your suffering will be over and you will have reduce the human population by one.

Hanging about for some misguided sense of “I need to convert the masses” is just the same sort of messianic bullshit every cult leader engages in. Convince the dupes to follow your bullshit, while never actually following it yourself. And much like the crap from cult leaders, the philosophy is bullshit. There may be some nuggets of truth and useful ideas buried inside it, but it’s wrapped up in enough shit to render the whole worthless. Its a philosophy which has latched on to the same thinking as the guy on the corner with “The End is Nigh!” written in large, dark letters on a sign, ranting about whatever form of doom is en vogue. Those guys have been hanging about for millennia, none of them have been right. But hey, maybe the next one will be the ticket.

Yup, the world’s got problems. If your solution is “give up” then you’re part of the problem. The world gets better when people choose to fix it. But that’s hard, usually slow (including moving backwards on occasion) and requires effort. Giving up is easy. The hardest part is maintaining the flexibility in your shoulders to keep patting yourself on the back. And that’s all this philosophy is, it’s giving up with excuses to justify it to yourself. it’s a short-sighted view of the world, hyper-focused on the things which are bad.

If you really feel that things are that bad, instead of giving up or killing yourself (seriously, don’t do that. It improves nothing), find a small corner of the world which you can make better and go do it. Plant a tree, at least the world has one more tree now. Help troubled children, the fact that you are able to waste time arguing on the internet with idiots like me proves that you live an absolutely charmed life compared to many, many people, go make one of their lives a bit better. Go create something, the world needs more art. The time you just wasted on my trolling could have been far better spent on learning to paint or just rubbing one out. I mean, I get it, arguing with idiots on the internet is like masturbation, it’s fun at first but really you’re just screwing yourself. At least with real masturbation you get a refractory period to go do something useful with a clear mind. Give up on giving up, and make the hard choice to make the world better. Sure, you’ll fail a lot. That’s part of what makes it hard. But the successes are worth the effort.

you have a bit of teenage angst of your own left unresolved.

Seriously? You can do better than that. At least try to put more effort into the insult than “no, you”. Something like “brain-washed” or “child-pilled”. Or is that “natal-pilled”, what is the appropriate “-pilled” insult here? Even “neo-lib sheep” would have shown some imagination. Also, I’ve pretty much set you up for a whole host of insults over my masturbatory habits and things being “hard”, let’s see you really pound something out here.

I see the whole thing as what happens when people fail to move beyond teenage angst. Having children or not is a a very big, very personal choice. And I fully respect someone who chooses not to, whether their reasons are personal, economic, religious or whatever. You do you. Turning that outward to the argument that humans are horrible, life is suffering and no one should ever have children is taking that sort of thing to the point of hypocritical religious zealotry. No, you didn’t get to consent to being born. Until you were born, you didn’t have the capacity. But, once you are an adult you have your full faculties and can make choices for yourself. If you really feel that existence is that horrible, there’s a solution for that at your nearest tall bridge. Except, these folks never actually follow through. They want the attention that suicide brings, without that whole dying bit.

So ya, I fully understand that someone may choose not to have children. There are many valid reasons for making that choice. The whole argument that life is so terrible that we should work to off ourselves as a species, isn’t valid. It’s a cry for attention and the folks feeling that way should seek professional help.

a Bambu Labs compatible heat sink, an E3D V6 ring heater, and a heat break assembly are required
a fan was sacrificed to mount a Big Tree Tech control board. Most everything ended up connecting to the new board without issue, except for the extruder.
made a custom mount for the ubiquitous Orbiter extruder.
The whole project was nicely tied up with a custom-made screen mount.

So, other than the enclosure and print bed, what’s actually left of the original printer? It seems like the way to get a Bambu printer to run FOSS is to open the box from Bambu Labs, toss everything inside the box in the trash, drop a custom built printer in the box, and then proceed with your unboxing.

The few imitation meat products I have tried have been ok, I guess. Impossible burgers aren’t terrible and I could probably make do with them, if meat were removed from the market completely. I have yet to taste any non-pork bacon which didn’t taste bad (meat or no meat). And I doubt I’m going to find anything to replace a good rack of pork ribs. Really, the best place I’ve found for imitation meats is in dishes where ground meat is used as a protein and is so heavily spiced that you’d have a hard time identifying the type of meat anyway. Once the flavors are all mixed up, the meat is mostly about protein and texture.

Lab grown meat could be a complete game changer, if it’s ever more than a novelty product. A lab grown hamburger, which costs significantly more than one sourced from a cow isn’t it. Sure, you might get a bunch of rich, privileged yuppies eating them, just to show off their smug superiority. It will never have mass market appeal. I do think we’re seeing some interesting advancement in higher end meats though. Lab grown steaks seem like a place where the cost could be competitive and, if they are close enough to, or indistinguishable from cow sourced steaks, then that would be great. I’d be perfectly happy to slap a lab grown rib eye on the grill. I’m not squeamish about raw meat or it’s sourcing from dead animals, but I do recognize the impact that ranching has on the environment and that needs to be reduced.

Overall, I see lab grown meat as a net positive, assuming the costs can be brought in line with other options. This may require subsidies or taxes to skew the market in that direction. But, the government using its power to deal with large, complex problem is kinda the point of government. Stopping more climate change isn’t profitable in a way which will favor it in the market, but it does have a negative impact on society. So, the only real solution is going to be government action to reduce the harm, before the tragedy of the commons comes for us all. Lab grown meat can be one part of a broader solution. And hey, if it means more rib eye, without all the climate harm those bring to the table, that’s fantastic. Though, I’d probably still keep lab grown red meat to a sometimes food, just for health reasons.

I use virt-manager for my lab VMs. Though, don’t discount the power of containers (podman/docker) to isolate and run applications. And lastly, python environments via Conda or venv can create isolated enough environments when doing different things in Python.

Too complicated. It would be a gold and diamond encrusted cartridge.
And we’d have enough holy relic fragments of the bullet which killed Jesus to supply an entire army’s ammunition needs.

Ad Blockers must be working. Marketers are now just straight up asking people to spy on themselves.

I have to agree with @paf@jlai.lu on this. I’d much rather have those models as part of the ecosystem than not. I do think part of the 3d printing hobby is learning to look at a model and recognize what can be printed on what type of printer, where supports are needed and where modifications may need to be made. For example, I recently purchased a model through TitanCraft. And the models they create are clearly designed with a resin printer in mind. they have some small features which are difficult or impossible to print on an FDM printer. While I knew that mini-figure models can be challenging on FDM, I went ahead with the purchase anyway. And the resulting min-fig’s staff was so thin my printer just couldn’t print it cleanly. I had to load the STL into Blender and spend an hour or two separating the staff out from the rest of the model and then I thickened it considerably. Sure, the haft of the shaft is a bit thick for the proportions of the model, but not too bad.

I make a similar evaluation of stuff I see on the various model sharing sites, before I try to print it. Does it need supports? Are some of the details going to be very hard or impossible for my printer to make? Should I split the model? And, while I am pretty crap at Blender, I may consider doing some simple edits to make a model easier to print and/or make changes I want. For example, I liked these ghosts but didn’t care for the spring and just wanted them hollow so I could stuff a UV LED inside them. With glow in the dark PLA, these look neat at night. So, I beat my head against Blender until I had them how I wanted them.

So, I wouldn’t want to stifle other peoples’ creativity. Let them create and enjoy the fact that people are willing to create and release this stuff for you to print. If it doesn’t work out, fix it and re-release it.

Given WINE’s focus on gaming, the execution of the malware could run into issues with system calls which the malware relies on not being fully implemented or acting in unexpected ways. That said, if the if the execution works, the malware may run to completion and have some impact, depending on what the malware was designed to do.

• Infostealers - On a Windows system, this class of malware pulls credentials from browsers (never, ever save your passwords in a browser. Use a password vault. e.g. KeePass, BitWarden). In the ones I have analyzed, they pull the passwords from the browser storage files directly and rely on known file paths. I think this would ultimately fail, as the files in those known paths won’t actually be your browser profile. Under the same logic, stealing cookies won’t work out either. They are just files in a known location, which won’t actually be the right location when running under WINE. Similarly, stealing credentials from Windows Credential Manager will fail, as that won’t have anything useful there. There is other stuff they can go after, but I think you get the point. The stuff it tries to steal won’t actually be in the locations it’s expected to be in. So, I’d think this class of malware would ultimately fail. Of course, attackers could always rewrite the malware to detect the WINE environment and then have it pivot to the the right locations for all this stuff. So, all of this analysis could become wrong.
• Ransomware - On a Windows system, this class of malware will search through the filesystem and encrypt files with specific extensions (.docx, .pdf, .png, and so on). Given that the Linux filesystem is reachable from the WINE environment, I kind think this has a chance of working. One interesting question would be if the encryption routines in the malware would actually work. Again, I think they would. The malware is likely to leverage cryptographic libraries built into Windows and I’d think that WINE would mostly handle those due to DRM/Anti-Cheat in games. It would just be down to how gracefully the malware deals with Unix file paths. My guess would be that the WINE translation layer would make it work. That just leaves the communications back to the attacker’s server for delivery of the keys. I’d guess this would work as WINE is setup to allow communications out to the internet.
• Remote Access Tool (RAT) - I’d guess that some of these would work though they may act funny for the attacker. As with ransomware, the communications back to the attacker’s server should work. This isn’t going to be terribly different from communicating with a game server. There might be some issues around the local agent working correctly though. The attacker may be relying on cmd.exe or powershell to run their commands. So, that might run into issues. At the same time, the malware could implement any commands directly via system and API calls. I’d think most of those would work. So, the attacker may have enough capability to fully compromise the Linux system, if they are willing to put the time into it.

That’s just three possible classes of malware, though it’s most of what I run into professionally (I work in Incident Response). Overall, I’d recommend not relying on Linux to keep you safe from malware bundled into pirated games. While I don’t expect that the infostealer parts of the malware would work correctly (for now), a lot of malware does more than one thing. The attacker may not get your credentials with the initial infection, but you could be opening yourself up to other malware. And, if the attacker includes a RAT, he could come back later and ruin your day.

So ya, be very, very careful about running stuff which you don’t know is safe.

The US Government hasn’t given a shit about harmful monopolistic practices in a long time. They only pretend to care from time to time to force large companies to start donating to politicians.

I’m just short of 50 and can probably give some answers to those questions. I’m sure there are folks even older who can go deeper.

before computers, how did you learn to do something?

Books and other people. My father taught me a lot of basics around home improvement. I spent several years in auto-shop in high-school. I used to read a lot of things, just to satisfy my curiosity. Honestly though, the internet has made this sort of thing much easier. You’re far more likely to find information on what you want to learn. However, you’re also able to find a lot of bad information. And most of social media was a bad idea.

Did access to knowledge change your life, was a constraint lifted when you no longer depended on having found the right books or people to learn tips on how to cook a new dish, or how to fix a plumbing problem, or how to plant a garden?

Can’t say it “changed my life”, but it’s certainly a much better situation. Though I will say that the internet and easy access to information is still no substitute to having someone on hand to teach you for many subjects. Just the ability to ask questions and get immediate feedback is invaluable. Especially when analyzing your screw-ups. Having someone there to talk though what you did right and what you did wrong and how to avoid those mistakes in the future just can’t (currently) be replicated by Youtube videos. Still, I’d much rather have the internet than not.

Was life more simple, did you have fewer problems to solve without technology in your life, or did technology make life easier?

It’s a mixed bag. Part of the “life was simpler” is just the rose colored glasses of nostalgia. There wasn’t the constant barrage of information and distractions. However, if your local library didn’t have the books you were looking for, you were up a creek. At the same time, I think there was more opportunity to fix things and tinker. When toys, bicycles and cars aren’t 90% semiconductors, you can actually pull out a set of hand tools and fix a lot of stuff yourself. On the down side, being a nerd or just being different led to a lot of bullying, with most authority figures basically telling you to “suck it up”. Not that I’d condone it, but I sort of understand why some kids turned to violence. So, as I said, a mixed bag.

Oh and adjacent to the access to information, the access to stuff is still kinda amazing. Sure, it’s easy to hate Bezos and Amazon. But, the fact that I can click on an item on the internet and it shows up at my door a couple days later is fucking amazing! I would ride my bicycle to the hobby store and hope they had any interesting D&D books. One time, I even got the owner to special order a book for me, which was a bit of a disaster. It’s really hard to explain how fantastic it is to just pick a random item out of millions and it just fucking shows up in days. Like, what even is this magic?

TV watching is also so, so much better. While I do sorta miss the Saturday Morning Cartoons ritual, I like not having to time my life around network schedules or setup a VCR timer and hope it works correctly this time.

So ya, overall I think things are better now. I’m just waiting for all that really cool tech like cybernetics and flying cars which is supposed to show up in the distant future of 2020.

I remember the Great Digg Exodus. One of the common reasons was the shit UI which was the new Digg. Looking at the screenshots in the article, it looks like they made it even worse. And the descriptions they give makes it sound like a cut-rate Twitter clone.

What’s next, is Fark going to do a major re-brand and attempt to launch as a Twitter clone as well?

I’d suggest looking into some sort of auto bed leveling upgrade. My previous printer (Monoprice MP10 Mini) had the bed leveling sensor fail and be non-replaceable. The amount of futzing with first layer setting was a nightmare, even with a glass bed. My new printer (Creality K1C) does automatic bed leveling with a load sensor and the difference has been night and day. Most prints, I can hit start and not have to fight anything (except TPU, holy hell TPU has been a fight). The sensor won’t guarantee perfect first layers, but goddamn it’s a lot easier to get something reasonable.

No need to add water to perfectly good apple juice.