Let’s count the problems:

1. Up front cost
2. Maintenance cost
3. Varied problems like different types of stairs, tripping hazards, etc.
4. People attacking or stealing robots and their packages.
5. Safety issues with 100+ pound metal robots falling on pets and children

Any others?

Let’s be real - we always assumed that we could hear our parents walking in but there’s no way they didn’t sneak up and check what we were watching once in a while

Yup I was going to treat it like eating cubes of tofu

Someone could make an app that detects a slam and hangs up the phone, then also sell a padded slam-receiver to replicate the experience. Or just use a pillow.

Edit: Found one. Unfortunately it no longer seems to be installable, probably because Google keeps fucking over independent app devs with new requirements. Source is here in case someone wants to see if they can build it.

I’d imagine lemmy has among the lowest has-sucked-dick ratios of any potentially mixed-gender community.

In most cases, it’s wrong to violate the social contract, especially while benefiting from it. However: the harm done by violating the social contract should be weighed against the harm of not violating it.

In this case, the harm of violating the social contract is pretty minimal, as copyright law is not a fundamental part of the fabric of society. One can even argue it’s kind of dubious, as something that moneyed interests favor very heavily with no similar moneyed interests favoring a strong public domain.

The harm of not violating it is not only do you give money to a holocaust denier, you’re giving it to him for denying the holocaust. Even worse, you’re giving him money for being wrong, and so effective at deception that you are compelled to spend money disproving him.

The whole point of copyright is to encourage useful works and spreading of knowledge and art. In this case the work is not spreading knowledge, but un-knowledge. Irving is exploiting a loophole in copyright law that allows him to work against its very purpose.

Thus I’d say violating the law is ethical as the benefits far outweigh the costs.

There’s a lot of assumptions in saying it’s just meaningless chemicals

• That chemicals are meaningless and lacking intriniic value. Seen from the outside they may appear that way, but evidently from the inside it seems quite different.
• “We” are not some other unseen brain behavior (not a crazy idea since we’ve never seen consciousness working in the brain)
• We are within the brain
• The brain exists at all
• Any knowledge exists at all (dubious as Mickey points out)

Consciousness