I assume nobody removed it and the revenue is just added to some Google Adsense balance sheet, and reports go to some Gmail account that will expire one day.
Interesting how you seem so sure about what matters to other people, when the reality is that anything matters that people say matters to them. If people care about fonts, they do care about fonts.
If I follow your train of thought to its logical conclusion, nothing matters. Which is correct, but sort of pointless to state. On top of this nothingness, we typically stack personal preferences.
“The package base for Duranium is shared with current versions of postmarketOS, and improvements flow into both. Think of it as a different deployment model on top, not a fork.”
> Because with property rights comes responsibility
Response-ability. The ability to respond. Which you have, if you want it or not, for anything and everything you can respond to.
You see children on the streets getting beat up? Your response-ability. You see someone throwing garbage to the ground? Your response-ability.
What you DO with it, whether you act on it, or you deny to have it, doesn’t matter. It is purely the ability, the capacity to. And not responding is also a response. We typically share response-abilities with others around us who are similarly capable. Ownership doesn’t inherently come with increased response-ability. Power does.
Maybe you are confusing responsibility with (legal) liability?
> "fact or condition of being responsible, accountable, or answerable," from 1780s.
and in the mid 1790s it meant "that for which one is responsible; a trust, duty, etc."
i am not sure where you're getting this "ability to respond" idea from. i understand the ideal, it just won't work with humans, unless we go back to being tribal.
The key point in the etymology is "that for which one is responsible" you have to actually be responsible for some "thing" to have any responsibility.
even "Response" comes from re- + Sponsor, which:
> The general sense of "one who binds himself to answer for another and be responsible for his conduct" is by 1670s.
i am not bound by anyone else on this planet, thanks very much.
> i understand the ideal, it just won't work with humans
I don’t consider it to be something that “works” or not, or an ideal, but as fact of reality. The moment you could act on something totally makes it your own responsibility to do so or not. Your action or inaction will have real world consequences. Whether you can or will be held accountable is independent from that, or what framework you apply to evaluate a “good” response.
We don’t have to agree on definitions of words but that’s not the point I’m making here, which is based on reality/fact/capability to react and respond to an external stimulus. And for those (re)actions you and only you are responsible, as a fact of life, whether you want that or not. Which is how those two definitions relate.
> The moment you could act on something totally makes it your own responsibility to do so or not
have you really, truly, thought this through? There's hundreds if not thousands of things I could act on right now. I'm not responsible for any of them.
is this like a corollary to "being heroic is being selfless and ignoring the consequences" or something? Is it a generalization of "stimulus/response"? "branching multiverses"?
what i am getting at here, is: is this a circular "you have a responsibility because you can act, therefore you can act because there is a responsibility", is it so generalized as to be meaningless? is it just a misrepresentation of "you can only control [are responsible for] your own actions"?
> There's hundreds if not thousands of things I could act on right now. I'm not responsible for any of them.
In my eyes, you are! In the classical definition, you will at least have to answer/be held accountable for all of that by your later self. Other people invoke external judges but the internal one is typically the toughest of all.
I am more afraid of the God in me than the god you pray to nightly. —- Jason Molina
Then again, you seem to see it something negative (guilt/blame perhaps), whereas I see it as something that makes me aware of my power, my total sphere of potential influence on the world, and the inherent value of my actions and my existence. To me it is empowering. And for me it’s not about selflessness either, but the opposite. I am responsible to make the best out of my situation, based purely on my own values. It doesn’t get more selfish than that. And again, this is not some moral preaching to me, but simply stating the obvious: Nobody but me is responsible for how I act and how I set my priorities.
Say, a person dies of hunger in India. I am responsible for his death. As much (or as little) as anyone else that was able/capable to stop it from happening. We have that shared responsibility. And this is not an “ideal” or “tribal thinking”. To me, it’s just fact. Physical reality.
If you see a child drowning in a pool in front of you and you do not act, are you responsible for not saving it? I say yes. Now, what difference does it make it you see it happening, or just know about it, and you had the power to stop it? Would it make a difference if you closed your eyes, deliberately, to not see the child drowning that you know is right there in front of you, or would you still be responsible for not saving it but rather looking away? Does it change your responsibility whether you look, or you don’t look, or is it rather the knowing that makes a difference? If you think distance makes a difference, does this mean you running away from the drowning child makes you less responsible than looking right at it?
this reminds me of, and i mean this unsneeringly, partially of "... the only thing God didn't know, you see, was what it was like to not exist. so, smithereens ... a lot of stuff about probability and religious pennies ... so we're all God's Debris, experiencing."
Where is that quote from? Scott Adams? I admit that I didn’t read any of his philosophy, and Scott Alexander’s eulogy doesn’t really inspire me to do so.
Yeah, a short book by him, when i got it i didn't know it was that Scott Adams. It's not mind-bending or anything; I just thought a parallel when i read your decision matrix.
I just wish there was a game closely resembling the Battle Mode of original Super Mario Kart. None of the later parts come even close and I’m not aware of any clones. (I know there are some mods with more levels but those are kind of lame; sorry.)
Have you looked at super tux kart? I haven't played it, but my kids were obsessed with it for a while. I didn't spend much time watching, but just walking by it gave me major Mario kart vibes. I guess much closer to Mario kart 64 then super Mario kart, but if you haven't tried it out it's definitely worth a check out
It has a battle mode nowadays (and has for several versions now). Somewhat more recently, they added support for network multiplayer in version 1.0. I recommend you take another look and see how much it's improved if you're still interested.
Also, the engine has gotten a lot fancier, and there are new tracks that take advantage of the engine capabilities pretty well.
Super Tux Kart does have battle mode somewhat similar to the Mario Kart balloon fight though not as polished (and many of the arenas are a little too large in my opinion). It also has a unique soccer mode.
> I don't care about other people's children getting groomed.
These other people’s children will be your own children’s bullies tomorrow and narcissistic bosses and politicians or similar gang members the day after.
Fact is, we need to find solutions against child abuse in any shape or form that work given the circumstances and decision making of other people around us. We do not exist in isolation. I don’t think age verification in any way contributes positively to this problem space, and I don’t even think online grooming is near any top spot on the list of child abuse vectors that need addressing, but that doesn’t mean that the problem and our contribution to it (like looking away and doing nothing) should be denied as a whole.
Plenty of historical examples of work environments where sabotage would have been the most ethical thing to do (and often you will only know in hindsight). But yeah in most circumstances a simple disagreement doesn’t warrant the psychological cost of such sabotage.
Your opinion of the situation is not enough to justify this course of action in 99.99% of cases and the residual 0.01% should not be enough to fuel your ego to do anything other than quit decently, and look for an employer that is more aligned with whatever your ideals are.
I repeat the insane statement that we are arguing over here: "Ethically, if you do not agree with the company you work at, the optimal course of action if you can stomach it is to stay and do a bad job rather than get replaced by someone who might do a good job."
This says: ANY company you work for and disagree with over anything: Don't quit! Sabotage [maybe people are confused about what "do a bad job" means, and that this usually leads to other people getting hurt in some way, directly or indirectly, unless your job is entirely inconsequential]. And that's supposed to be ethically optimal.
There's a _big_ continuum between disagreeing over something and an ethical hard line, it feels like a slippery slope to interpete a suggested approach for one end of that line as advocacy for applying that same approach to the other end.
Imagine I am working for a company and I discover they are engaged in capturing and transporting human slaves. Furthermore, the government where they operate in fully aware and supportive of their actions so denouncing them publicly is unlikely to help. This is a real situation that has happened to real people at points in history in my own country.
I believe that one ethical response would be to violate my contract with the company by assisting slaves to escape and even providing them with passage to other places where slavery is illegal.
Now, if you agree with the ethics of the example I gave then you agree in principle that this can be ethical behavior and what remains to be debated is whether xAI's criminal behavior and support from the government rise to this same level. I know many who think that badly aligned AI could lead to the extinction of the human race, so the potential harm is certainly there (at least some believe it is), and I think the government support is strong enough that denouncing xAI for unethical behavior wouldn't cause the government to stop them.
a) I understand the very few and specific examples, that would justify and require disobedience. In those cases just doing a "bad job" seems super lame and inconsequential. I would ask more of anyone, including myself.
b) all other examples, the category that parent opened so broadly, are simply completely silly, is what I take offensive with. If you think simply disagreeing with anyone you have entered a contract with is cause for sabotaging them, and painting that as ethically superior, then, I repeat: what the fuck?
c) If you suspect criminal behavior then alarm the authorities or the press. What are you going to do on the inside? What vigilante spy story are we telling ourselves here?
Some people in this thread seem to come from a place of morality where some “higher truth” exists outside of the sphere of the individual to guide one’s actions, and yet others even seem to weakly disguise their own ethics and beliefs behind a framework of alleged “rationality”, as if there was mathematical precision behind what is the “right” action and which is clearly wrong — and anybody that just doesn’t get it must be either an idiot or clinically insane. By which I completely dismiss not only opinion but also individual circumstances.
In reality, which actions a person considers ethical and in coherence with their own values is highly individual. I can be friends or colleague with somebody who has a different set of ethics and circumstances than me. If I were to turn this into a conflict that needs resolution each time it shows, I would set myself up for eternal (life long) war with my social environment. Some will certainly enjoy that, and get a sense of purpose and orientation from it! I prefer not to, and I can find totally valid and consistent arguments for each side. No need to agree to reach understanding, and respect our differences.
Typically, people value belonging over morality: they adapt to whatever morality guarantees their own survival. The need to belong is a fundamental need; we are social animals not made to survive on our own.
The moment I am puzzled about another persons reasoning I can ask and if they are willing they will teach me why their actions make sense to them. If I come from a place of curiosity and sincere interest, people will be happy to help me get over my confusion. If I approach that conversation from some higher ground, as some kind of missionary, I might succeed sometimes, but fail most times, as I would pose a threat to their coherence, which they will remove one way or another.
Ah, but if there’s no higher truth, then you also can’t say that it’s wrong to sabotage your employer because of an ethical disagreement (or rather, you can say it, but it’s just your personal opinion). By condemning this course of action, the OP presupposes some sort of objective ethical standard.
