crapwittyname
@crapwittyname@feddit.uk
- Comment on Shout out to my engineering homies. 5 days ago:
Yes, I agree, it really isn’t.
- Comment on Shout out to my engineering homies. 1 week ago:
Oh do fuck off. That’s the gist of what you said. I didn’t put it in quotes because I was paraphrasing.
- Comment on Shout out to my engineering homies. 1 week ago:
Meh, your guess is as good as mine.
- Comment on Shout out to my engineering homies. 1 week ago:
Science grad with 10 years engineering experience. I had to turn down a lot of jobs before I found one that didn’t involve killing people. It took two years. I’m paid about half of what I could get if I sold my morals. Totally worth it.
- Comment on Shout out to my engineering homies. 1 week ago:
For what it’s worth, I believe at the moment of death, people can no longer lie to themselves and have to face what they’ve done through the eyes of their inner child. Some people have these realisations at some earlier point, too. But I don’t believe anyone gets away with it.
That’s what “live each day like it’s going to be your last” means to me. Face up to the decisions you made as if you’re your own jury, because eventually you will be. - Comment on Shout out to my engineering homies. 1 week ago:
Did you intend this to be paradoxical?
A bit, yes. There an inherent paradox in the argument about necessity. Put it another way, if the next technology turns all of your enemies into steam, but as a side effect, also does the same to their families, are you forced to develop it, because the people on the other side of the world will just get there first if you don’t? What if the one after that is super low resource yet it also kills anyone who has ever shaken hands with your enemy? I would argue that creating a new weapon, or developing existing ones further is not made more or less moral on the basis that your enemy might be doing it, because if you know your enemy’s mind that well, you could easily defeat them using a slingshot.
This is likely wrong…Some of us would brutally murder each other with sticks and stones if they had nothing better.
Not sure I follow, this seems to be what I was saying. Read it back. The difference is that now we have technology capable of remotely erasing huge populations, and no means to keep it out of the hands of the freaks that take power. It’s therefore immoral to develop weapons because if you are clever enough to know how to do that, you should be clever enough to know how the resulting products will end up being used.
most defense work is not creating the atomic bomb. Most of it is incremental improvements
So the difference between them then is just one of scale. Oppenheimer probably never got a good night’s sleep again in his life, but it’s easy to persuade a thousand people to each do a thousandth of what he did. Then each person is only a thousandth as responsible as Oppenheimer. But each increment is still an evil deed, just a smaller one.
“Concern for man himself and his fate must always constitute the chief objective of all technological endeavors…in order that the creations of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.” People working on weapons are ignoring, forgetting or equivocating over this simple fact. Good people don’t make bombs and sleep well at night. Find another job, where you can look back at your life’s work and honestly believe you made the world a better place.Anyway, we agree that psychopathic megalomaniacs are a feature of the human creature. And whether or not they are flying drones, driving tanks, or a leading a hoard of mounted Visigoths at your village, I think most of us would rather remove them as a threat from a safe distance… Like with a missile.
Most of us would prefer our enemies killed at range, without having to look then in the eye, sure. But look at what you’re mixing up here: the psychopathic megalomaniacs who are sitting barking orders a world away from the lethality radii, and the grunts and (invariably) innocent collateral who are atomised inside them.
- Comment on Shout out to my engineering homies. 1 week ago:
No, what you said was that it didn’t matter whether it not you took the job, because it would get done anyway. And that is a flawed argument.
- Comment on Shout out to my engineering homies. 1 week ago:
Yet psychopathic megalomaniacal leaders are a feature of the human race further back than recorded history, where remote mass destruction of estranged populations is a very recent development. Therefore it is immoral to develop, create and deploy weaponry like this and, “we will be the victims of it if we do not”, is a similarly weak moral argument to the one above. Just because we expect someone else to do the immoral thing does not render us any more moral for having done it. I don’t think. Yes, you can argue necessity, but how far does that go? If a pacifist somehow held in their hands a button which would kill every non-pacifist in the world, should they push it? And, in creating any new technology, we do need to ask, “is introducing this worth the risk of it falling into the wrong hands?” . Similar to how anti privacy laws creep in. If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear, until the next government gets in and you need to hide being gay, or brown, or a woman. It’s not a question of whether or not “the good guys” get the weapon, it’s a question of what happens when the bad guys do, because they certainly will, because that’s what bad guys do.
- Comment on Shout out to my engineering homies. 1 week ago:
The flaw is explained in what I just said.
- If you turn them down, that reduces their talent pool.
- If you trimmed them down you are no longer responsible for the suffering caused by their products.
- If enough people turn them down they will have to reassess their approach.
Ultimately, doing something evil just because you decide someone else would do it if you didn’t, so you might as well benefit doesn’t make it any less evil of you to do that thing. In fact, it makes it worse.
- Comment on Shout out to my engineering homies. 1 week ago:
This argument is deeply flawed, and I’ve heard engineers working on arms projects using it to justify what they’re doing. That, and the “I just build it, it’s not me pulling the trigger” are trotted out to soothe dying moral consciences all the time. There are far too many bright minds being used to create death and suffering.
The fact that by partaking in this industry, you form a critical part of the decision and event chain that leads to bad people killing innocent people is important, morally, and completely unchanged by whether it not someone else will do it. So it does matter if you turn that job down, and not just for your own conscience. If enough people turn down these jobs then that will change politics. And those that do choose to take them need to face up to their responsibility in enabling and perpetuating horror. - Comment on This Minecraft map that recreates, [Kowloon Walled City], one of history's most notorious slums made me reconsider what's important in 3D level design 1 week ago:
For me, it didn’t trigger my clickbait alarm. Yes there’s a hook there but I’m already interested in Kowloon City, Minecraft and 3D design so I was happy to read it.
Maybe if the title had put “: people”, at the end then it would have been completely above board, but it’s still a far cry from something like “The New Minecraft Map That Recreates a A Demolished 90’s Era Enclave Has One Super Important Thing Missing!”, followed by pages of ads. - Comment on This Minecraft map that recreates, [Kowloon Walled City], one of history's most notorious slums made me reconsider what's important in 3D level design 1 week ago:
That’s a decent little article which makes a fair point well. Which criteria are you using to define it as clickbait?
- Comment on Do you cheat in video games? 1 week ago:
Masochistic children
- Comment on Do you cheat in video games? 1 week ago:
Yep, I bounced off Don’t Starve so many times after losing everything on a good run. It’s too involved, too long, and there’s too much endgame content to be happy to start again after making a tiny mistake dozens/hundreds of hours in. It’s not like Hades or Balatro where a top tier run lasts like half an hour. If life was as ruthless as Don’t Starve, there would be no time to play Don’t Starve, because we would all be dead.
- Comment on Do you cheat in video games? 1 week ago:
Looking up a guide isn’t cheating.
Would you consider using a mod to get infinite money in Warhammer Total War, thus bypassing the need to build production buildings and allowing you to focus entirely on military infrastructure and creating huge armies all over the map, therefore creating a global Wood Elf hegemony, which would otherwise be completely impossible cheating? So would I. But I’m doing it anyway because it’s fun and I paid for the game. - Comment on This would be terrible for my ad revenue 2 weeks ago:
There is plenty of evidence of people being demonitized for using certain words or phrases
No, I don’t think this is true. I think that the context is what leads to demonetisation. I am not arguing that this is acceptable, but I don’t see any evidence that words alone will cause demonetisation. Even the most offensive racial slurs are allowed in the context of e.g. a linguist educating about their origins, or an uncensored music video.
they definitely stop giving you ad revenue if you violate the rules
Yep, and that’s fair enough. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to get paid for speaking.
Youtube specifically has a list of words and phrases that may lead to being demonitized.
I don’t think there is such a list, at least not one published by YouTube. Can you find it? I can’t.
- Comment on This would be terrible for my ad revenue 2 weeks ago:
Except that there’s no evidence that saying “killed” or “murdered” for example, actually does push you down the algorithm. And if it did, surely saying “unalived” would have the same effect by now, since the algorithm could easily be extended to this term, and it’s been in use for ages.
People censoring themselves in this way, preemptively, with no certainty that it is making a difference is like late-stage Orwellian batshit insanity.
It’s enough of a reason on its own to avoid those platforms. When even the creators are disingenuous enough to self-censor inoffensive words in an effort to appease an opaque algorithm, the content cannot possibly be meaningful. - Comment on She is making a GREAT point 5 weeks ago:
Oh, yeah that’s if you filter for the hot ones. My search included lukewarm to tepid ladies.
- Comment on She is making a GREAT point 5 weeks ago:
I saw on Google that there are this many in your local area waiting to meet you.
- Comment on Just up the production quality and they'll love it, Trust me bro 👍 1 month ago:
Thoughts like “Free market capitalism has its place!”?
- Comment on Just up the production quality and they'll love it, Trust me bro 👍 1 month ago:
Reported for offensive language/hate speech
- Comment on hows keto working out for you 1 month ago:
Source?
- Comment on What would happen to the Earth if it got booped by a giant asteroid going super slowly? 2 months ago:
- Comment on Can you think of any now? 2 months ago:
Facts.
- Comment on Can you think of any now? 2 months ago:
I guess so, but similar to how a lot of taste is actually perceived via smell? I suppose linear and angular acceleration could be two separate senses which encompass the sense of balance.
- Comment on Can you think of any now? 2 months ago:
Five senses; taste, touch, smell, sight, hearing, acceleration, temperature, body configuration, pain, balance, time, hunger…
- Comment on The Epstein Scandal Finally Takes Down a Politician 2 months ago:
The beeb is already captured. Their reporting on Gaza is amongst the worst, and the chairman is Tory who uses “impartiality” as an excuse to suppress common sense and compassion
- Comment on UK Cops 'Ashamed and Sick' of Enforcing Ban on Anti-Genocide Group Palestine Action 2 months ago:
There are tons of lines I wouldn’t cross at work, but those lines would be different in another job. If arresting people is generally part of your job description, then I would expect you to have different red lines.
- Comment on UK Cops 'Ashamed and Sick' of Enforcing Ban on Anti-Genocide Group Palestine Action 2 months ago:
Seems a bit daft. The answer then is to have either no police, or to have police who will mindlessly follow any order?
No police would be great, but in the absence of that ideal, I’d rather have people who question the morality if what they’re doing in the role. Compare this response with ICE in the US who kidnap people off the streets and send them to concentration camps and don’t complain that they disagree with what they are doing - Comment on UK Cops 'Ashamed and Sick' of Enforcing Ban on Anti-Genocide Group Palestine Action 2 months ago:
Principles can be in conflict though. The promise to provide stability for your family, for example, is often more urgent than more lofty political principles. In this situation, looking actively for another job whilst continuing to perform the tasks you disagree with at a level of bare minimum compliance might be an ethically acceptable compromise.