Mr. Satan

The economic system is broken. It incentivises infinite growth in a finite environment. That’s just not sustainable and will backfire in one way or another.

What we need as a civilization is a shift in economic values that would push for a more sustainable model. That shift can be seen, but, in my (expert /s) opinion, it’s too little and too late to completely avoid a disaster.

Here, found a Kurzgesagt video for you

Or a page that uses only half the screen width in the center. Just use the damn screen!

He also said there’s no war just a special military operation, but here we are.

Which part is gullible?
That current Russian regime won’t stop? It’s not like it would be a first time for them to invade another country.
Or did you mean NATO involvement? Who knows… I’d like to believe that they would involve, but I’m not guaranteed.

WW3, eventually. The regime won’t stop. The ambition is there to rebuild the USSR. That would mean starting a conflict with NATO and, if I’m lucky, NATO will actually involve.

It’s cool and all, but this feels more like a toy than a tool. I can make dead simple web site in minutes with current stack. Nothing, but plain static pages.

Heck, if I looked for it, I bet I could set up markdown to HTML converter as this is already a widely used functionality throughout the web.

Yeah, a one to one conversion might not be possible. Although this example also approximates the image by making it two tone and using simple shapes to compose more complex ones.

It still feels as a non-trivial task tho.

This feels a lot like vector graphics. I would imagine one could automate SVG to CSS translation.

2 monitors plus laptop. One is mainly used for IDE and git, other one for anything else that’s relevant: browser, Jira, notes, second editor to reference stuff. Laptop screen is to the side and mainly used for chats.

Wouldn’t mind a third big screen, often notes, DB, RDC or brower have to be juggled around.

Monitors – hell yes! RGB – can’t stand it. My keyborad has a plain white backlight and that’s it. It’s purely functional.

They can prohibit whatever they want, but how enforceable is it? Does Nvidia intend to play whack a mole by checking for translation layers?

If I die today, as in stop existing completely, I wouldn’t have any questions. When I die I will no longer be, there will be no conscience, no memories, nothing. That is the death I desire.

If I exist after death, even for a moment, that means death is not the end. Who am asking questions? Why can I ask one last question? How can I get one question / request fulfilled this one last time? I can’t really separate these things that easily.

Let’s not involve physics terminology into a philosophical discussion. It confuses more than clarifies. Especially (with my limited understanding) when the claims might not be correct at all.
I would expect multiple observers to have the same result no matter the distance between them. Such setup entangles the observers and the collapse has one real outcome.

I would not dare to go deeper into the subject as this is the extent of my knowledge. To be convinced otherwise I should see a credible proof, experimental or theoretical.

So even if you have friends and loved ones on the other side in your relative paradise, from an ‘identity’ perspective they won’t be exactly the same as the ones on this side.

We might be arguing different things then. A relative paradise for me involves my loved ones. If they would not be there as they are now in my life, then it’s no paradise. But that would contradict our initial condition of ideal afterlife.

This seems to be an inherent issue with this condition. It’s rather easy to construct contradictions in this framework. Moreover, as a moral framework it’s way too complicated for no aparent reason at all. Accepting unconditional relative afterlife idea either nulifies any moral argument at one point or another or requires to arbitrary ignore and contradict certain aspects of it.

If I get to pick and choose things I accept in a theory, then it’s a bad theory.

Because (a) most people don’t actually want to do that, and (b) there’s social consequences for eating babies in this world.

My point exactly. However, what I was ilustrating is how easy it is to devolve into this kind of reasoning. What moral foundation is there to back up the descision? Most people don’t want to? That’s not a reason, that’s an observation. Whatever morals I construct on a social basis become irrelevant. That’s why religions have gods and sins.

We are going into a what if terirory here and I don’t think there is any good argument to be had there.

So I’m gonna end on this:

A copy is not an original. I am me, nothing more nothing less. There is no consent I can give prior to my existence. Going further into the analogy is pointless, life is not a surgery.

But no belief system I’m aware of that has endorsed a similar model has also endorsed an omnipotent creator,

Umm, Christianity? Just to name at least one major religion.

I misread that so ignore it.

If I’m happy being me in the present, why rush being a happier me in the future if there is no time limit?

Same question but inverse, why not? There is nothing to loose and something to gain. So why would anyone bother building life now when there is guaranteed happiness with simple and easy path.

Saying I’m content with my situation and don’t want to change isn’t really an argument for either position. What existential gains are there for continuing? That would be an argument for your position.

If one’s only concern is maximizing one’s own happiness in the short term regardless of impacts on loved ones, then yes, those people probably would be better off accelerating paradise.

But that’s the thing, there is no impact. Why shouldn’t everyone else just go into eternal paradise? The whole issue with this hypothetical scenario is that it removes any need to live. At least Christianity has hell and sins to ballance it out. But in your case there are no existencial consequences, I can be as evil (which I have no desire for) or as good as I can and end up just the same.

And yes, that does come close to a question Why not be evil then and eat babies or something? The difference here is that we are social creatures among other social creatures (except some outliers), we feel empathy and generally don’t want others to suffer. However even this argument breaks down somewhat when I keep unconditional paradise for everyone in the afterlife.

What if the afterlife was universally accessible like a participation prize and relative to each individual such that there wasn’t a single idealized version of happiness?

Ok, if afterlife is universally accessible and is perfect for me and my concept of happiness, then it would make the most sense to seek this afterlife as much as I possibly can. Because we are talking about afterlife the only way to get there is to die. The most reasonable conclusion then is that there’s no point in living and it’s much more beneficial to just die and go to infinine paradise.

That’s why afterlife with no rules makes no sense to me.

That’s true. Unless you are the copy of an original, in which case the copy is you.

In which case I’m not the original, my point exactly.

Is it just to perform a painful surgery on a sick child in order to save their life?

The analogy breaks down rather quickly when you start to expand the definition of a surgery. Dying because of war is not surgery and if it is who and how decides on the goal of the surgery?

What if I don’t want the surgery and want to live out the rest of my days in comfort?

Agree to disagree. The notion of cosmic justice for souls whose behavior in life is significantly dictated by the terms of their embodiment and environment is, to me, insane.

I actually agree with you. However my point is about a subjective morality rather than a cosmic one. Any definition of morality and meaning of life will ultimately break if this life is not the one and only. As soon as you try to fit afterlife into this you have to have some omnipotent power to define the rules of it. Otherwise none of your actions matter, you’ll still get afterlife, be it heaven or hell.

Having life be finite and bound to physical conditions: being a social creature in an imperfect world. Is enough to have a robust and consistent moral rules and meaning. That’s where my Occam’s razor kicks.

In the end no matter what framework of thought you choose there is gonna be good and bad things and people doing them, hence not everyone will deserve happiness.

Maybe the point of life isn’t absolute and is up to each person to find and define individually.

If there is any degree of intelligence in the design of the universe, the fact that there’s no absolute frame of reference for macro observations and relative measurements of micro details might just be relevant.

And that’s where my anger would stem from. If there is no knowable and proovable absolute truth. Than the simplest subjective frame of reference that makes sense is that there is no meaning or reason. Life is finite, make the best of it and enjoy it to the fullest because that’s all there is.

I’m not going into the aspects of life that are not individual and affect others. There are law based, moral and social-utalitarian reasons why I would want to live in a society and bring as little suffering as I possibly can.

A couple of problems: a copy of me is not me, no amount of post-life paradise justifies injustice in life, not everyone deserve hapiness (no matter what moral framework you use), what is the point of life if there is an eternal paradice for everyone.

From the moment I introduce afterlife some sort of God becomes necessary for any morality to work.
Having no God works if I assume that life is finite. If life is finite then I must make myself as happy as possible. Living around and with people I can’t just be as selfish as possible, I must conform to society if I want to be in society, otherwise I will make my life so much more difficult.

Why bother living then? What is the point of existence if no matter what you do you end up the same?