why_at

Have you had any success using that site (vegancheese.co)?

I want to try them but a lot are only available in very specific regions. I found one that was supposedly available at a farmers' market near me (bay area) but when I went there I couldn't find it.

Do any of them deliver?

> Basically, this boils down to a simple means versus ends debate; "preventative" punishment cares only about results, while the author only cares that the "means" (the act) punishment is morally right.

Yeah, after thinking about it some more I edited my comment slightly to emphasize the "means versus ends" idea that I think the author is getting at.

The part that still bugs me is that the author seems to be taking a middle ground where punishing the innocent is okay in arbitrarily extreme cases, but they don't accept that a consequentialist could just use the same trick to say that punishing family members is wrong.

I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem for consequentialists any more than it is a problem for the author's own position.

The basic idea seems to be: In some cases it might prevent more harm to punish innocent people i.e. family members of criminals, therefore consequentialists should endorse punishing family members in those cases.

The author seems to think this logic doesn't apply to their own position because they believe that the reason to punish wrongdoers isn't to prevent further harm, but because the punishment of wrongdoers is justice which is good. The opposite side of this would be punishing innocent people, which would be injustice. This contrasts with pure consequentialism which doesn't care about justice vs. injustice, it only cares about the end result.

The key part is from the definition from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which says:

> 3. that it is morally impermissible intentionally to punish the innocent or to inflict disproportionately large punishments on wrongdoers.

But then, the author then goes on to say:

> What if harming Hitler’s baby was the only way to save the world? As a moderate deontologist, I reluctantly endorse this implication. But only in dire hypotheticals with little real-world relevance.

So it seems like the author also endorse harming the family members of wrongdoers, but for them it's ok because it's only in "dire hypotheticals". This feels like a bit of a cop out to me. It seems like you could just as easily call yourself a "moderate consequentialist" and say that punishing people is only good as a deterrent, but also punishing innocent people is wrong.

Interesting site, but it's not clear to me what they count as a failed launch. My guess is some of the Starship tests since I don't think there has been a failed Falcon 9 launch is a few years.

Also, unrelated: This site is the worst case of hijacking the browser back button I've ever seen

I usually lean towards consumer rights on this type of thing, and the idea of paying a subscription for something like heated seats is annoying to me.

That said I am trying to play devil's advocate here. Other people have mentioned the analogy of locking out some CPUs on a die for a cheaper version of hardware, and I think that kind of applies here, at least for a one time payment.

If I'm willing to accept that, is it so unreasonable that they could rent this feature to me, even if it's only a software switch? After all, the idea of renting physical property isn't very controversial.

Again, I don't like the idea and would never want to rent the heated seats software switch, but I'm having a hard time justifying why it shouldn't be allowed.

Nice. I guess I should have tried googling it but I was convinced it was some kind of code.

Does anybody understand the ad that is just a long string of numbers? They give a translation but it still doesn't make sense to me.

>9781529035698

>1

>12*

>*We placed this ad here for you to start practicing private communication in a public setting. This could be good to know if the European Commission's chat control law becomes reality.

What's even weirder is the numbers in the translation are different from the original.