Counterpoint: If you’re an IT guy, you’re probably making enough money that you can donate mosquito nets and save tons of lives, and it’s not worth risking all that to save one more.
You now have a single point of failure, where you had redundancy before.
On the plus side, someone else gets to continue existing.
Or from the IT perspective: I have two important servers, one has a single drive, the other has RAID mirroring. The drive in the first server fails. I could take a drive out of the server with RAID and have two functional servers or I could keep the second one running on its RAID and have a server with redundancy (that hopefully/might not be needed).
(I’m not going out and donating a kidney though, guess we can say it’s because I’m selfish.)
Archpawn@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
But as OP points out, someone will get that kidney eventually anyway. So the difference is that a different someone else gets to continue existing.
Kerfuffle@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
OP erroneously thought that but it’s not actually correct. The conditions where someone dies but their kidney is viable for a transplant are rare.