I got “little miss naughty”. I am a man in my mid 30s, I never do pranks, I don’t go out of my way to cause trouble.
How can it see parts of my soul that I thought were lost?
I always liked the extended version:
*removed externally hosted image*
Hay-fever and melanomas: no, the beauty is not for you
Fire the idiot, he clearly isn’t suitable for making decisions
The answer is dependent on context I think.
In a universe where the whole future of the world is laid out before you and you can choose 1 death or many deaths, then sure, pick the greater good.
The weakness of simplistic “greater good” automatic arguments is that in a real universe it opens you up to manipulation.
In the end, there’s no avoiding thinking through the incentives from all perspectives. And that indeed suggests not giving in to the rioters, to protect the integrity of the entire legal system and reduce the risk that every trial becomes a show trial dictated by whoever has the biggest mob.
Seems like even amongst willing criminals, you’d have to be particularly stupid to join in a massive Snapchat planned robbery, more cameras recording the crime than brain cells involved in planning it.
Hi.
Firstly, you seem to be wanting to get an answer to your programming question, that’s not what you should be doing, it’s bad practice.
Instead, let me make some assumptions about what you’re trying to do, and suggest that isn’t a worthy cause. Instead you should enjoy this totally useless reply.
Remember to accept this answer and close your question or I shall return to berate you again!
We’ve already lucked into a solution to the population boom, the numbers will level off around 10 billion. Given how intractable population control is, we’re very lucky we’ve found this without some dystopian shitshow.
In the developed world we are approaching the opposite problem, we’re currently dependant on immigration to maintain our societies, but as the rest of the world stops growing we’ll have more trouble getting that immigration and won’t have the local young population to care for our elderly.
Given that we should be trying to figure out how to encourage a sustainable population whilst we still have time to do so. If we can choose between 1.9->2.2 children per couple as needed then we’ll be in a healthy position to slowly reduce the population to a comfortable level.
Right now our natural population decline in the developed world is too fast, probably because our society has made being a parent quite an individual burden. Of course, totally moving the costs to a societal model would be a disaster, but presumably there’s a middle ground where people are comfortable keeping the society going at a healthy rate.