This is pure nonsense. The moral distance between a good deed and the level of bad deed that receives a meaningful penalty, socially (e.g. felonies) is enormous and there is plenty of fungibility of good vs. bad actions in that space.
That said, it is strange to even consider being good, which is generally a rather easy thing to be, to be some kind of task you should be paid for even virtually. Being basically good is the trivial cost to avoid becoming anti-social. Why should a social group even tolerate you otherwise? With that in mind, as mentioned before, I think you'll find that social groups are highly tolerant of many misdeeds.
No? I don't see how you arrived at that, it seems entirely non-sequitur. I guess you deeply misunderstood what I meant by "moral distance." I'm simply trying to give a name to the idea that there isn't just a binary good vs. bad, and that some things are vastly worse than others. You might choose to represent it on a simple scale where bad is in the negative and good in the positive. In such a case, moral distance would be the distance between the two points on that scale. That's all. This representation would have no impact on whether a single individual can do things that exist on polar opposites of such a scale.
In the context of my comment the point is more about the distance between saying something rude and killing someone, it would be a large distance despite both being negative, and the tolerance levels would likely start somewhere in the negative side of the scale, though in reality you're going to be dealing with much more complex perceptions of good vs. bad behavior and social tolerance of it. But when you compare to the law that's going to have more of a concrete boundary. But it's still not 0 on this scale.
It depends on if your question is about legality, morality, social stability, privilege of some sort, or perhaps something else.
If someone offered to cure cancer, but only if you permitted them to commit a single specific murder, is that a reasonable trade? All you've got there is yet another trolley problem.
I think it's different to the trolley problem in terms of trying to measure the outcome.
If we make decisions based on what will have the best outcome, well the trolley problem is trivial; minimise the negative outcome.
In the scenario of murder for the cancer cure, you're still left with someone who was murdered. My take is that this isn't any less bad than someone who was murdered for something other than the cure for cancer, which in turn means I would stop this murder even if it meant not curing cancer.
You've lost me. Isn't that also the case in any trolley problem? The trolley is a sort of satirical analogy. The thing actually being considered is "I get this good thing but I'm also left with this bad thing as a direct result".
I guess a key difference is before versus after the fact. Agreeing to the outcome to "pay" for what you want is different than deliberating over an act committed by the same person after the fact in the absence of any prior agreement. But if the only issue is the lack of an agreement then it's less a matter of "murder non-fungible" and more a matter of enforcing legal procedure for the sake of social stability. The state needs to maintain its monopoly on violence I guess.
It would be a pretty classic ethical dilemma if they couldn't develop a cure for cancer if you deny them murdering anyone. In the other case it would only be correct to try them for murder since it would be an independent act.
Being a purely good being is impossible for any human and this fact should be clear by reading entry level literature by those that put a few more thoughts into it. Babies have narcissistic tendencies until they develop morality. But even in the case of ethics in contrast to personal morals there is ample literature that a purely reasonable and logical approach to ethics is insufficient.
Demanding people being pure and good, denying their egoistical sides can lead to quite terrible outcomes. The art is to deal with these character sides as well.
I don't have a huge group of friends but all of them have flaws like me. If you can forgive yourself, people start to believe that you can forgive others too and maybe you would make friends. Generally people that only point the finger at the smallest flaws are called self-righteous for a reason. And no, they often do not have many friends.
It's dark because OLED are not bright at all. Anything brighter than the filmmaker mode is modifying the source image to achieve it, or alternatively driving the pixels in a way that loses color accuracy.
If you care about film and getting the closest result to what the actual thing is supposed to look like you're going to need to couple correct settings with a light controlled room for best results. Or don't use OLED, because, it simply can't achieve the brightness of cinema projection, not even close.
Personally I like the results of a 120hz OLED so much better than other options that I strongly favor a light controlled space for movie watching. For lower grade junk it's usually easy enough to swap to another viewing preset that is brighter.
They're pretty good but when it comes to things like color, that can vary from panel to panel so you might actually end up with something worse. That said, I'd start there and if there's any question about the result you should just buy or rent a calibration tool.
It's rare but some source material is created with the assumption of overscan, whether that affects on-screen graphics or even some cases just total garbage is produced into the overscan areas... it all varies, but from the TV maker's perspective, doing what you're describing means this garbage never appears and they never get calls from confused angry customers who think their TV is broken because some broadcaster has some garbage at the edge of the feed.
Seriously. Imagine people going out and proudly buying a shiny new MiniLED TV only to have their half-educated HN jockey of a child come in and disable the entire point of that technological advancement.
Even normal LED backed LCDs can have FALD (Full Array Local Dimming for those who don't pay attention to this field) and that's not especially new, though, hit or miss in effectiveness on earlier TVs.
Eh, depending on the size of the dimming zones, the halo can be much worse than the shitty LCD contrast it is trying to improve. At the extreme you have edge-lit displays which is just 100% useless at improving the contrast in any realistic scene while introducing very noticeable giant halos for mostly-black screens. You can get used to global shittiness but local and temporal artifacts will always stand out.
It's all just an ugly hack compared to real emissive display technology where each pixel can be set to any value on the full brightness range individually.
For quite some time you could do this manually without much trouble, but you did need to know a few obscure steps to do it right. Basically a matter of finding the ID of the game so you can copy a certain metadata file along with the actual game data.
I used the trick to copy some games to my Steam Deck back in the Fall. I speculated then that they might make this a genuine feature since it's so simple. I'm glad to see it happened.
Steam has had a dedicated feature for this for a decade now. Except it didn't do it over the network, just files which you had to provide transport for yourself
This is different than the backup feature, behaves extremely differently. The backup feature is so insanely slow that restoring from a typical USB media a 120GB game takes longer than downloading that same game on 100mbps internet connection.
This method I'm referring to (and probably what they will codify) is much, much faster.
Apple ships an app THEMSELVES that enables this (for iPad anyway) https://apps.apple.com/us/app/swift-playgrounds/id908519492 and there are third party apps for general programming as well. I have one for Python (Pythonista) and one for C# and F# (Continuous) on my iPhone right now. There is a HUGE selection of similar apps for general purpose computing on iOS.
These are unique platforms with unique properties in their design. You value them or you don't. Nobody's forcing you to use them for general purpose computing and there are thousands upon thousands of BRAND NEW general purpose computing products with zero restrictions produced every year. People in this thread are being drama queens.
Fearmongering or maybe you just haven't been watching? Apple has already been doing advertising for years now. They make it quite easy to disable any tracking you might be concerned about. There's zero reason to think they'll change that.
I had several experiences with Nintendo customer service from the NES timeframe through the GameCube timeframe and every single one was amazing, legendary even.
I don't know if they're still like that, but, the past, apparent "severity" of their mandate to please customers who had issues leads me to find this story plausible.
That said, it is strange to even consider being good, which is generally a rather easy thing to be, to be some kind of task you should be paid for even virtually. Being basically good is the trivial cost to avoid becoming anti-social. Why should a social group even tolerate you otherwise? With that in mind, as mentioned before, I think you'll find that social groups are highly tolerant of many misdeeds.
reply