moonlight

Absolutely, these corporate types are so clueless when it comes to public messaging.

They realized that it's obvious that they're the bad guys, and the interview response wasn't convincing. But then to try to bully the interviewer into deleting it? That just seems stupid.

I wouldn't want to get defenestrated from nine miles high either.

HOA has banned solar How is that legal???

Regardless of pain perception: Assuming someone is okay with killing a fruit fly but not a human, they have to draw the line somewhere. And a pig for example is WAY closer to human than to a fruit fly. It's a sentient being with a brain that's not really so far from human, compared to the fruit fly which is essentially a tiny biological robot.

In fact, it's kinda weird to draw the line at humans, especially when there's such a big overlap between other animals and human children in terms of cognitive capabilities.

I think it's very reasonable to draw the line after insects, where we can be reasonably certain that there's no complex thought or sentience. The value and subjective experience of an insect versus a farm animal are hardly comparable.

Examples?

I would say most anticheat works (although some games specifically choose to not allow Linux). It's just kernel level anticheat that flat out doesn't work (which is malware anyway)

I'll assume you're commenting in good faith.

I actually didn't claim nurture was more important than nature as a sweeping statement. It clearly isn't in cases like eye color for example. I haven't done a deep dive on this, but research seems to show that genetics play a significant role in predicting personality in general, but less than 50%.

Regardless, whether or not people are 'fundamentally good' or not is a moral statement, not a quantifiable one, as is "being shitty to other humans". It's a different question than personality, which is the closest topic that there seems to be any science on. Is there any specific research that actually makes a claim like this? (also, take a step back and remember what post this is on)

Also as a sidenote, while believing in the good in humanity probably makes someone more likely to be leftist, I don't think Marxism actually relies on people being 'fundamentally good' at all.

I do however take objection when science is instrumentalized in the service of political ideology.

I didn't bring up politics at all, and I don't think that really applies here. It feels like you have an agenda to push...

Maybe I phrased this badly, but I definitely don't think it's 100% on parents, society and life experience play a huge role as well.

There will always be a very small percentage of people who just turn out cruel, but I believe 99.9% of people are fundamentally good. It's just fear or pain in their past or present that causes some to be bad to others.

Also I think this is pretty firmly in the realm of philosophy, at least for now. I'm not aware of any research that can really answer this, although more broadly nurture seems to matter more than nature.

Hayao Miyazaki, who directed most of the Studio Ghibli films

I definitely do. Those who act the worst towards others were usually raised that way, or encountered some kind of struggle that made them bitter.

I strongly believe that if everyone was raised with compassion, and if everyone was supported and had their needs met, then we would see very little evil in the world.

Our society seems structured to bring out the worst in us, and rewards those who behave unethically. A better world is possible though.

I think it makes way more sense for airships to be anchored down while loading and unloading, so the buoyancy doesnt need to be constantly balanced.