Does it really matter that much? I figure either way they’re going to get you if they want and the media will treat it like a suicide regardless of how much you publicly telegraph what’s going to happen ahead of time.

Didn’t work for McAfee

Oh, the way I read it it seemed like they were saying perceptual hashes used to be easier to calculate

Why “no longer”?

What does this mean practically? Are they not allowed to sell it some places anymore if it’s 18+?

Imagine owning this and then someone visits your house and becomes aware that you own it

It’s nice to fantasize about but realistically we’re never getting back to a world without a working global internet of computers.

They have a point, but ultimately it’s still a biased rationalization. The idea that life is impermanent and you can’t defer doing what you care about with it is true, but it does bug me when this is posted that it’s also an imagined, hostile caricature from the perspective of a character who sees people (in particular people who have found themselves in debt slavery to his organized crime group) as just worthless losers. That’s its focus, as a putdown from that perspective; portraying a man who works a low paying job, can’t get women, commits the sins of gambling and drinking. Unstated but implied is that this is about a failure of achievement that is at its core financial, that positions himself above them both by being rich and doing fucked up things that are by his logic “meaningful”.

The OP comic is kind of an interesting contrast to that, making a similar point, but about a woman with a successful career, where that success might not hold much meaning.

Wasn’t this a villain speech? I don’t fully remember it but I feel like it might mean something different with the context

There reaches a point with vaporware projects where it’s like, actually release something or I don’t care anymore, it doesn’t deserve to keep getting press

honoring the wishes of what is currently my last surviving relative (who I still remain in contact with and love dearly). Not to mention whatever might be a part of any legal stuff pertaining to her will. (which I know hardly anything about and still makes me panicked just typing about)

Regardless of what you decide about the ethics of it, consider that ultimately it is your life, your decision, and there are other ways to invest money. It’s really unlikely that the will is going to effectively prohibit you from doing something with it other than becoming a landlord, not sure that’s even possible. If you really want to prioritize honoring their wishes you can, but in the end you are the one who is going to have to actually live the life you build for yourself, not them, and no one has a right to make that kind of decision except you. Use your own judgment about what future you want and don’t feel guilty for acting on it.

I upvoted because I’m generally excited by the idea of software that lets you interact with different social media via one interface. Idk if the project itself is good but it seems like a neat idea.

No, because “caring about commoners” and “shitting on the rich” are not actually the same objective. People are happy about it because it feels good to get revenge or for people who treat others unfairly to be punished, but sating popular bloodthirst isn’t necessarily aligned with actually making society a better place. “Kill the bad people and the problems will be fixed” is historically very much a famous last words kind of sentiment.

I have a userscript that sets display = ‘none’ for urls matching reddit to remind myself to stay off reddit for a while. I adjusted it a little to support blocking only specific subreddits like you seem to want to do, maybe it will be useful to someone: https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/520007-disableredditbysub

Isn’t something like this why the price of oil futures went negative that one time? One guy booked all of the oil tankers so it was impossible to collect physically, and so people had to pay money for the oil to be taken off their hands

Sounds right, but again with the caveat, what are they being caught for? Being a healthcare executive at all? Some vaguely defined moral threshhold? What is it they are being taught to fear, and how disconnected is that from any actual intention? Like beating a dog to try to get it to stop destroying your furniture. And then consider that certain punishment for them isn’t actually realistic unless it’s the government imposing it. Vigilantes can’t get them all or probably even many of them.

The idea that punishment works is the concept behind our entire justice system

It’s one of the concepts, and that’s a big part of why we have so much evidence against it.

I’m pointing out that the usual and straightforward result of threatening punishment is that people stop doing the activity (or at least rethink it).

The idea that punishment works is for the most part an authoritarian fantasy, not reality, and this is backed by both research into individual behavior and collective behavior.

I wonder why insurance companies in the rest of the world can survive without fucking their customers over?

Probably because the insurance companies they compete with are bound by the same (specific, predictable, law-based) rules prohibiting that behavior. Probably not because they are afraid of angry customers with guns.

so I don’t see any downside if they decide to start sacrificing their safety and wellbeing.

It’s not that it’s necessarily a downside (though it probably is because people like that are potentially even worse to be ruled by), but you said there’s a mechanism for coercion by assassination to work here. This is why there won’t be; you will just get harder corpos.

That’s not strictly necessary, as long as there’s a general trend of risk increasing along with harm done.

It’s necessary because what if the risk factor is simply working in that industry at all, because of all the people fucked over by it? If regardless of their actual efforts to improve the humanitarian situation, executives are judged shallowly, there is no incentive to do anything except to quit and be replaced by someone who has more of a gangsterish disposition.

If enough CEOs were eliminated for the same reason, the rest might start remembering they have a duty to society.

…Or they could go the way of prison gang status, where the system selects its leaders based on their willingness to not only do violence to others but also sacrifice their own safety and wellbeing for power. That seems way more likely to me than CEOs suddenly growing a fear based conscience and throwing profits/shareholders under the bus and somehow still being allowed to remain in their positions.

And all that is assuming that would-be assassins are in general coherent and reactive to the relative badness of corporate leaders and credibly applying danger relative to harm caused, which doesn’t seem likely either; rationality and being a killer tend to not usually go together, even if this incident seems like an outlier just from its most obvious narrative.