News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Oh My Gosh, It’s Covered in Rule 30s by firethief on Friday June 02, 2017 @02:30PM (#14472268)
When did "legally can" and "should" become equivalent? I don't mean to focus on this particular instance of using them interchangeably; I feel like Reagan gave an executive order that I missed.
Re:Oh My Gosh, It’s Covered in Rule 30s by mmirate on Friday June 02, 2017 @04:08PM (#14472919)
> When did "legally can" and "should" become equivalent?

They didn't; e.g. playing the lottery as an adult is both legal and insanely idiotic. (Don't misunderstand me; I do like it that the insanely idiotic are able to self-select themselves away from their money with such ease.)

But on the other hand, "legally can and causes more utility gain per unit time than any other course of action" ... does indeed imply "should".

(And unless you're really silly, "utility gain" simplifies to "monetary gain".)

Of course, I'm not trying to imply that sabotage-of-beliefs is that powerful an action; indeed, my ultimate conclusion is that neither tire-slashing nor sabotage-of-beliefs present a compelling benefit-per-cost.

Re:Oh My Gosh, It’s Covered in Rule 30s by dllthomas on Friday June 02, 2017 @04:14PM (#14472952)
> And unless you're really silly, "utility gain" simplifies to "monetary gain".

Yeah, that's why I always turn down my friends when they ask if I want to go see a movie. Monetarily, it's nothing but a loss, and I would have to be "really silly" to value an entertaining experience.