U know ur doing a good job when the left and right are getting equally upset with you over the same opinion.

It is a thing it is being done. I can’t remember the repo link but u can do it.

U sure this person is who they claim to be?

A year is actually quite a short time (in terms of deorbiting).

As for your previous question yes a collision at starlink orbit could send some shrapnel to higher orbit planes however a majority would be in highly eccentric orbits that would decay quickly on the low end.

The issue would be a starlink collision then hitting something in a higher orbit causing Kessler syndrome in that orbit. The odds of this are still next to zero but never zero.

Its called separation of the artist from the art. It used to be one of the fundamental pillars of art however it has been lost in recent times due to cancellations etc.

What is the perfect steak tho? And can it come with chips?

Empathy can be weaponised. For instance u can weaponise empathy for the few to prevent good for the majority.

Time for tin foil hats

https://comfyui.org/en/hand-repair-workflow-boosting-ai-image-quality

Use logic and statistics in arguments not emotional appeals.

Whatever dev came up with that was probably very proud.

Comfyui is where u wanna be. Their are lots of examples of workflows that fix hands etc etc

“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - Mark Twain

I give up I have been thoroughly beaten by experience

That’s why its a hypothetical.

One if the most amazing powers of the human brain is the ability to displace ourselves in time and space and imagine what we would do in such a situation.

My argument is that you should have said choice. I simply think you should be allowed to make said choice without retribution. If completely leaving the profession is the only other option then all soldiers will be war criminals and all doctors will be without personal morality.

your ultimatum was impossible to answer

Yes that’s the point. U cannot hold any 2 beliefs without running into at least one contradiction. Do u compromise on one belief or do u continue living pracricing literal doublethink.

and absurd

All hypotheticals are, that’s why they are a hypothetical

, so no.

I guess u have chosen doublethink. I wouldn’t want to be on the side of the absolute authoritarian big brother but that’s just me I guess.

I mean they didn’t. “Do your job or do something else” and “I’m just following orders” are worlds apart.

They are both an appeal to a moral framework higher than themselves.

One is expressing the opinion that if a person freely chooses a profession but then refuses to practice it for asinine reasons they should choose a different profession because they are incapable of doing the job correctly.

If I’m a bricklayer I can refuse services for any asinine reason I want that’s just liberty, personal autonomy, and free will. Why is any other progression any different.

The other is an excuse Nazi’s used to justify the shit they did.

Yep an excuse of I could not refuse “service” because I was told I had to because i had no liberty to do otherwise. The service of medics is healthcare the service of a soldier is death.

Not the same.

The parallels similar enough to raise real concerns.

The real problem here is that allowing medical professionals to pick and choose like you describe based on their personal values will lead to people dying. That’s the entire reason for the Hippocratic oath, to provide an unbiased framework of ethics under which physicians practice.

Which Hippocratic oath? Cos the original forbids prescribing death, allowing abortion, or c sections, it also says “”. The newer one “” still says “”. And the only one that does not is the “” which is the only one with explicit statements of neutrality but doesn’t really provide much ethical framework beyond that. And yeah people die every day should I be forced to donate all my money to stop that? U have internet and a phone that decision has killed a countable number of people that you could have prevented.

Hypothetically, say you’re straight, have a one night stand with your preferred gender and get AIDS. You feel sick go to a doctor and they refuse to treat you because AIDS is the “gay” disease and since you have AIDS, you must be gay and this Doctor doesn’t “agree with that lifestyle.” So you ask for one who does, turns out you’re in a Catholic hospital and no one “agrees with that lifestyle” here. Sorry, you’re fucked and maybe have to drive a few hours for treatment now because of some judgmental assholes. Or you die from AIDS because you live in America, in a red state, where you have no other options.

If its a government hospital they cannot refuse service for that reason and must find someone willing to service you because the state services are bound by anti discrimination laws. An individual should have the right to refuse to service an individual if servicing them is against their religion etc. Its the equivalent of forcing a Muslim chef to make pork because if they refuse it could cause harm to the person who wants to eat pork.

That phrase btw? The one about lifestyles? That’s a fucking dog whistle.

The term dog whistle has been so overused to the point it just means something said by people I disagree with. Language is an ever changing thing its simply a set of sounds with an agreed upon meaning. People then attempt to prevent people from conveying particular meaning they do this by restricting the sounds that convey this meaning. So people come up with a new set of sounds that mean they same thing. Hence u have a dig whistle. Winnie the pooh is a dog whistle for fuck Xi Jinping because the CCP banned the original words that means that. A dog whistle is what u get when u censor and silence opinions. A dog whistle is not inherently a bad thing its simply an adaptation to censorship.

I swapped the word for one profession with the word of another. In ancient Greek the word technē often used in philosophical discussion such as this was used for both interchangeably.

Why is it utterly bogus and broken. Ur opinion does not negate mine lest u have an argument to back your claim.

Prior to the Nuremberg trials individual responsibility for disobeying unlawful orders was an implicit judgement and not explicitly stated.

And if we look at examples of people using the defence of I was disobeying orders due to them being in violation of international law they got arrested and locked up for the rest of their life (see David McBride).

Answer the ultimatum. That’s all I ask.