I linked an article with commentary, yes. When I read the original comment myself I was very put off by the tone/apparent attitude toward the subject. I still think it was an innocuous change they could have merged – I would’ve. I think the author of Ladybird is probably not a misogynist, but to be so blunt and dismissive on that PR was a questionable look IMO.

He’s probably a nice guy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The founder of Ladybird said some questionable stuff that he walked back. You be the judge: https://text.tchncs.de/latenightblog/ladybird-browser-and-drama

[Brendan Eich, founder of Brave made a] 2008 donation of $1,000 to California Proposition 8, which called for the banning of same-sex marriage in California,[18]and donations in the amount of $2,100 to Proposition 8 supporter Tom McClintockbetween 2008 and 2010.

It also has optional ads to pay you in crypto. I view 99% of crypto as a scam btw

This is hilarious

asyncio.run(easy_peasy())

That’s fair! Takes time to get used to. Modern editors make this easier by highlighting the current indent level, or can even make the top X lines of the current closure “stick” to the top of the editor for those really long blocks.

Correct, I linked the source of the quote. My implication is the general idea is applicable here. Is python one of these languages where it is idiomatic to nest code deeply?

The Zen of Python:

Flat is better than nested.

From the python I have seen and written, deep nesting is avoided.

Just curious, what about spaces made it hard? What language would have been easier? In curly brace languages, 99% of the time, a curly brace is followed by a line break and an indent. Python is similar except it’s typically a colon, line break, then indent.

What I have learned is: If the code is indented too deeply, it’s a code problem, not the language.

Torvalds infamously wrote:

“… if you need more than 3 levels of indentation, you’re screwed anyway, and should fix your program.”

You are already (fat and fluffy) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hold down j and lmk how smooth it is 😅

I mean, it should be clear. Smooth and fast and snappy. If you don’t want that, use neovim like me :)

I think that you have a well-reasoned and valid view. It’s not that I regret my birth, but that I didn’t consent to being a living, conscious thing – the consent portion of which you can reasonably view as an impossibility.

Suffering is a necessity of living, and therefore bringing a person into the world means they will suffer. You’re right that I generally take a utilitarian view of things, upon reflection. Though, taking it to its most extreme conclusion, I could never be asked to choose between saving 5 million people if it meant killing 4,999,999. Such thought experiments leave me confounded.

Maybe it’s the case we’re faced with infinite impossible choices because the universe doesn’t care and tends towards entropy. There is likely no perfect answer. All I can do as a person is try to beget as little pain into world as possible, but I recognize that my view isn’t without flaw or applicable to everyone everywhere all the time.

This is also why I don’t simply despise people who have children, like my own parents.

I appreciate you taking the time to explore this with me! Genuinely much food for thought.

I say that it’s actually impossible to answer, except in the most extreme cases.

It’s certainly impossible to answer in a single broad stroke for everyone, but that doesn’t mean it’s not useful or relevant to think about.

That is because the question was about rights, not consent.

If that’s so, then we’re talking past one another. My point is that in my ethical framework, having a child is wrong. They are incapable of consenting as you point out, which is part of why I view it as wrong.

Existence is a presupposition to consent.

Why? The child surely exists before, during, and after its birth. Can’t it be that the unborn human is incapable of consent rather than creating a paradox? I understand the chicken-and-egg problem you are describing, but I think it’s incomplete. As a fully functioning human being now, if I look back at my birth, did I consent? Did I exist yet? I think I can say simply, “No, I did not consent to being born.” Whether you ascribe a negative, positive, or neutral value to this is up to you. In my opinion, it’s immoral.

In what way is that different to negotiation?

It isn’t. I don’t think we disagree on this

But birth is a natural result of conception.

Yes, however isn’t this logic used to argue against abortion? I’d argue that a person becomes a full “person” at birth, which is perhaps arbitrary, but we have to define that point somewhere. Regardless of when we say a person “exists”, they still cannot consent regardless.

That all said, is anti-natalism completely correct for everyone? I don’t know. I’m sure our species going extinct would create lots of suffering for the dwindling population. Maybe on average, humans do not regret their existence. Does that mean it’s moral to make more conscious beings who are capable of feeling that regret?

How is there a ranking of “goodness” at all, be it “bad, because suffering”, or “good, because joy”? That’s like demanding a serious answer for: “how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle?”

The question was “is the joy worth the pain?” That’s a fairly simple question – not nonsense. Is there a point at which suffering outweighs joy? Are you to make that determination for a “hypothetical” person? The question is perhaps abstract and difficult to answer, but it’s perfectly valid.

Rights aren’t given. They’re negotiated. I negotiate the right with the person that conceives the child with me.

This is the transactional portion. I meant no ad hominem, it just sounds funny to me to put it this way. My point is that the child at no point enters into the question of consent. You’re saying there is no violation of consent because the person doesn’t exist yet, but what about when they do? I.e. when they are born? Did they consent to that? Does it matter to you?

Who “gives” any rights from your point of view? God?

Other humans. The only way to have a “right” is for the people around you to agree that you have them. Perhaps it’s more complicated than that if you want to get extra philosophical, because I do believe that all conscious beings deserve the least amount of suffering possible purely by virtue of them being aware – be they birds, pigs, cows, whatever. I think maybe that’s more morality than “rights,” but I’m not sure how clear the distinction is between them.

You’re claiming by conceiving a child, you’re violating its’ consent. At that point, nothing exists, yet. It’s only a being whose consent can be violated in the hypothetical future.

This isn’t what I am claiming. I am claiming that birth is a violation of consent. Conception is meaningless to me unless it comes to fruition and bears a conscious being.

That only happens, because the whole anti-natalist reasons are paradoxical from the start.

Can you describe the paradox? I found a paradox using your own words. If they were in jest or you were “meeting [my] non-sensical argument where it’s at” then please help me understand better.

I think I have a fairly cynical view that reproduction is primarily a selfish act based solely on our biological drive to continue our species. I’ve pondered for a long time, and I fail to see a more logical conclusion than that.

Life is tough and there are no guarantees. Rolling the dice by having a kid seems like a messed up thing to do imo.

That said, I would adopt a child or children. That’s a better way to ensure you are putting kindness and hope into the world where it’s needed, rather than creating another vessel for pain from whole cloth.

You yourself said they are not yet existent, so really is joy being “withheld”? That doesn’t work in your framework, I think.

Just because a human exists does not mean they fall neatly into a category where they innately love “contributing to a community”. We’re not apes, well most of us :p

rights are negotiated

You only mentioned the rights of the parents (in a strangely cold and transactional way btw lol). What of the child’s rights? They must negotiate with you for them after their nonconsensual birth?

Consent doesn’t matter for hypothetical futures

It’s not hypothetical–a child is born. They live and experience. You’re in a paradoxical state where consent doesn’t matter because the kid doesn’t exist, yet they necessarily must exist to experience the joy you mention

Is the joy worth the pain? What if they don’t want to contribute to a community? Can you guarantee the joy will outweigh the pain? What gives you the right to will another being into existence?

If the being will become conscious and self aware, why doesn’t their consent matter?

The only way to experience suffering is to be alive. The only way to be born is without consent

Modern OSes handle memory management and background tasks. Unless you have something truly malicious running, you’re just getting in your own way by force quitting apps.

https://qz.com/stop-closing-your-iphone-s-background-apps-1851269132

opens htop threateningly