Massdriver

Agreed.

I still lean consequentialist, especially when thinking about population ethics or macro policies. But when it comes to daily living and decisions, I think there’s a lot to be said for the idea of developing character and upholding certain virtues such as justice, courage, and temperance.

If my very limited knowledge of biology is somewhat correct, certain types of adult cells have all the genetic information necessary to make a clone. It’s possible to then remove all the generic material of an egg and make a person out of just some adult cells, such as skin cells from you. Does that mean that when I shave I’m killing lots of potential people? All the generic material is there to make a potential person. If genetic material deserves that much moral significance, it creates a lot of problems.

Incredible. When I first read about EA, I was reading Singer and its focus was helping the global poor. Now they’ve become some kind of techno cult. Thanks for the lesson. This explains a lot of Musk’s thinking. Consequentialism as a normative ethical theory is very robust, but can be easily misapplied. I’ve recently come to be more of a pluralist with respect to ethical theory, and specifically have sympathies to virtue ethics.

As opposed to the highly subjective perception of the individual observing the individual? I'm willing to take people at their word rather than assuming I know better than they do on existential matters. Whether their contentment is mostly the result of fear is conjecture and probably would vary a lot per individual. Antinatalism has a lot to overcome. It doesn't match with most of our moral intuitions which is probably its biggest issue. The dice rolling reasoning doesn't work either. If we used the possibility of something bad happening as a result of an action that most of the time doesn't as justification for inaction, we would be paralyzed to act at all. Why would it be immoral putting someone in a position where they have to make a choice about their existence? I don't see why it would be. Intent should matter some here too. If the intent is to bring a child into this world and care for the child, and one is responsible and has the resources to do so, then I don't see the problem. The intent isn't to bring someone into existence so that they are miserable. If you drive at all, your intent is to use the car to get from point A to point B (presumably), but it's a dice roll every time, that is something really bad may happen as a result of one driving. You may put another driver in a terrible moral dilemma. It doesn't follow that driving with the 'A to B intent' is unethical. I'm in a hurry so this driving example may not do my thoughts justice. I would need more time to refine the analogy, but I hope that gets my point somewhat across.

And it's implicit that he can stop it. Musk should stop this non sense and get back to space exploration and batteries.

I'm not sure what these means. Can you elaborate a bit?

I think there are dangers to looking at the morality of existence in a rigid net suffering vs net positive framework. I would be willing to wager that there are quite a few people that you or others would think would prefer not to have existed due to their life being filled with suffering, but upon speaking with many of them would find that they are content in some way that is more nuanced than a rigid suffering calculus. Maybe you need to add a big net positive number that's intrinsic to existence that people strongly prefer and weigh. There's nothing immoral about bringing people into this world if one is responsible and cares for their well being. If someone does not care for existence, they have the agency and ability to leave at any time once they're adults. We consent everyday to exist. Granted, children do not, and perhaps that's the argument you would make, but they eventually do, and children that are well cared for are mostly happy with existing from what I can tell. Older children have quite a bit of agency of their own too.

I don't care for the way abortion is debated. Terms like 'rights' are thrown around, to which everyone interprets differently. Terms like 'life' are thrown around, when really life isn't the issue. I believe the fetus is most definitely alive and would qualify as life and I think almost everyone would agree that is qualifies as some form of life. That's not the issue. The issue is more about the characteristics of the fetus and its moral status. Sentience, personhood, reasoning abilities are more relevant characteristics than life. Potential person is sometimes thrown around, but this is actually useful because it helps people debating it determine whether potential persons should have moral status. In my humble opinion, potential persons may have some sort of moral status, but it's far lower than pro life people make it out to be, and persons further out would deserve less consideration than persons that exist now or that could exist soon. Pro-choice and pro-life plays into the binary way Americans like to approach politics. Is someone that favors some abortion restrictions on later term abortions pro choice or pro life? I guess it depends on who you ask. And like I said, the word life just doesn't belong in the debate. Maybe it should be pro-potential person. That just doesn't have a nice political ring though.

I'm not familiar with their more abstract ideas aside from every dollar donated doing the most good possible to reduce suffering, which in general seems like a decent principle in charity to couple with ethical obligations to our own community. Sounds like they're nuts.

The effective altruist charity organizations seem to be good though. For instance GiveWell has a good list of charities in my opinion, focused on malaria, deworming, and giving cash to the poor.

I used to think that your ideas on this were too radical and wouldn’t work, but I’m 100% on board now. This is the way and it needs to happen somehow.

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but here are some interesting benchmarks on cpu sensitive games like Factorio and Stellaris. Since I play a lot of RTS and strategy games, it seems like this would be a very solid upgrade for my 3800x and my 1800x. After Zen 4 comes out and hopefully there are some sales for it, I may pick it up hopefully for $300ish. Vermeer/Guide.md at main · xxEzri/Vermeer GITHUB.COM Contribute to xxEzri/Vermeer development by creating an account on GitHub.

I think Amd’s goal is to make developer support widespread so nvidia doesn’t push them out of the gpu market with closed dlss. If AMD succeeds, then the logic to always purchase nvidia because of dlss goes out the window. Competition is good. I hope Intel gets their act together to give us a third option soon too.

Yes if it was truly just. I believe what I would consider a just war, especially civil, is extremely unlikely though. So in most of these war scenarios, I’m leaving with my family.

AMD FSR 2.0 Quality & Performance Review - The DLSS Killer WWW.TECHPOWERUP.COM We're reviewing AMD's new FSR 2.0 upscaling technology, which offers amazing image quality improvements that are able to match the visual finesse of NVIDIA's DLSS. The great thing is...

It will likely seem really great 10-20 years from now, probably much sooner than that. I'm going to keep buying all the way down. It has never failed me to continue buying when the market is selling off like this.

GOP still favored in midterms, despite possible overturning of Roe v. Wade - CNNPolitics AMP.CNN.COM The recent leak of a draft US Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade seemed to give Democrats a winning issue to rally base and swing voters in the midterm elections. But... The early evidence seems to indicate that there won’t be a polling bump from this for Democrats. I think it’s plausible that this will improve turnout and fundraising over the next few years.

Then the question is do you have to go to confession to properly repent a mortal sin. I believe the RCC would say yes unless it’s not physically or mentally possible for one to get to confession. Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 2 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 4 WWW.SCBORROMEO.ORG

I guess I was taught catechism incorrectly. I was taught purgatory was for purification, not for repentance. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 1033 WWW.SCBORROMEO.ORG Can you point me to a source from the RCC that states you can go to purgatory with a mortal sin without repenting?

Where am I going wrong? It must be a grave sin and two other conditions must be met, that is full knowledge and complete consent. Once a sin is mortal, the only way to repent is through confessing. Venial sins do not require confession.

If I understand and remember Roman Catholicism, contraception and masturbation are on the same list of grave sins as abortion and murder. Not going to mass on a day of obligation is also on there. Keep in mind being on this list coupled with another two conditions makes such acts a mortal sin, as in if you don’t get to confession before you die, you’re going to hell, not purgatory. Not many people in the pews believe this stuff but it’s there.

Beto has to be embarrassed with the poll numbers right now.

A justice could still change their mind. Roberts is probably looking for a middle path and is trying to convince one conservative. It’s not likely but there are still a couple of months. I think the ACA survived at the last minute if I remember correctly.

That’s plausible that they cancel more from genres we like and may be supported by the rest of the article. Netflix shows generally last 2-3 seasons according the article. I’m not sure what the case is for other streamers, but that seems short. The full FT article ties that into their binge strategy which fits in with what some others have been feeling here.