Nevoic

I love that I offended your delicate aesthetic sensibilities so much that you can't even fathom what the point was.

I didn't think it would work on me either then it did. You have to actually let time pass to see if you grow. Maybe you'll be a piece of shit your whole life, we'll see.

It is torture there's no argument there. Genocide is always a weird one, people argue that what's happening to Palestinians isn't genocide etc.

There are definitions of genocide that it fits, and there are ones that it won't. If you think systemic mass killing for pleasure doesn't fall under the definition of genocide, cool. It's still systemic mass killing for pleasure.

I understand the reasons why people aren't vegan. I also understand the reason why slaughterhouse workers have far higher rates of violence (domestic and non-domestic). I understand why people do terrible things, people aren't born evil. Even Nazis weren't born with some disposition to be evil. It's not like literally millions of Germans just had some natural predisposition to be unbelievably evil and that went away once they lost WW2.

These are learned behaviors. I understand the reasons. They're still not an excuse. You're failing to do what you need to do, and just because I understand why you're failing doesn't mean you're not failing.

Maybe you don't care, maybe you like animal abuse, maybe you know you're doing something wrong and see yourself as a failure. No matter your own views, the mass torture/genocide is still happening, and you're supporting it. Hopefully one day you grow enough as a person to stop.

I went vegan on a random Thursday a few years ago after learning about the ethical reality here, that harming animals for pleasure or convenience is unjustified.

It didn't happen all in one day (the learning that is), but I didn't do any meal planning. Didn't even order vegan food before I decided to go vegan. Next time I went to the store I only bought vegan things. Since then anytime I have the ability to buy vegan goods, I do (which has been 100% of the time because I live in the west in the 21st century).

If you're homeless in the middle of Palestine being bombed relentlessly by a genocidal state, yeah I'm not going to complain about you eating eggs that were given to you from a homeless shelter. If you're rich enough to drive to the store and buy groceries yourself in the U.S or Europe, you have no excuse.

Yes, but not because the goal of having exceptions in types is bad, rather Java's type system isn't advanced enough to support the ideal solution here.

Scala 3 is working on experimental capture checking capabilities, which allows functions to express certain capabilities (file access, networking, db, etc.), and CanThrow capabilities (e.g exceptions at the type level) are one reification of this.

The CanThrow docs I linked have a good introduction into why Java checked exceptions are bad, and how Scala's alternative is far better. Essentially it comes down to a lack of polymorphism in checked exceptions. In practice this means they're incredibly verbose outside of simple usecases, and with a very easy escape hatch (RuntimeException), you don't even get the guarantee of knowing a function without checked exceptions doesn't throw.

Python will also have this latter issue. Python's "typing" in general has this issue actually. Types aren't validated unless you use an external tool, and even then Any is a leaky abstraction that can hide any level of typing errors, unlike in properly typed languages where it's not leaky. You need it to be leaky in gradually typed environments, or you wouldn't be able to use a ton of the Python ecosystem, but this vastly reduces the effectiveness of the typing solution.

I don't know if Python's solution here will address the lack of polymorphism that Java's solution has, I'll have to look into it more.

I support creatives with direct donations. When you buy Netflix, you're supporting extraordinarily wealthy capitalists.

If you actually care about supporting creatives, end all your subscriptions, pirate all your media, and give 100% of your previous subscription costs directly to the creatives you want to support.

If you're not a vegan this is a super weird take. Hell, as a vegan myself, I don't have a massive issue with trading pig lives for human lives. Yes it'd be ideal if we did it in other ways, but there's an actually decent argument that it's permissible and even good to save humans by killing animals.

Killing pigs because "mmm bacon" though? Yeah that's a bad reason. Pleasure doesn't permit suffering, most humans understand that unlees it's their own pleasure they're talking about.

No way could this clusterfuck of IP (owning thoughts), the worry of AI "taking jobs" (e.g doing work that would otherwise be done by humans), and selling of the work on a marketplace at all be tied to the idea of capitalism.

In other economic systems, having work automated would be a good thing, not an existential threat to the functioning of our entire global economy. I'm blown away that people don't understand that.

I'm glad you brought this up, because yeah we're all selling our bodies and time. I wouldn't say this means we consent, though. We don't need to change what consent means to make capitalism sound better than it is.

If you're "incentivized" (e.g will be starved and punished otherwise) by a system to do something you hate, you can't call that consent.

If you had a system where women were raised and then presented with the option of either having sex with you & being allowed to participate in modern society, or being discarded in the wilderness, not being allowed to even build anywhere/make it on your own because all the land is owned by either private individuals or the government, then those women aren't free.

As we agree, just by changing the demand from "have sex" to "do manual labor" or "rent out your mind so someone else can own the product of your thoughts (IP)" doesn't change whether or not it's consensual.

What's actually being punished? Would she have been sentenced to 8.5 years in prison if she pushed an 87 year old who was slightly less frail and instead of dying sustained major injuries? Would she have been sentenced if she pushed an extraordinarily healthy 87 year old who knew how to gracefully fall and sustained no serious injuries?

It seems that the act of pushing alone isn't enough to sentence a person to nearly a decade in prison. There was likely no intention to kill, though that was the outcome. What if she sneezed on the 87 year old, and in a fit of panic the 87 year old fell over and died? Again, no intention to kill, though that would still be the outcome.

I think it's clear this should be punished more intensely than sneezing, pushing an old person would very commonly result in serious injury, so this is definitely assault.