#Ethics vs Efficiency

[mtbcleadgenbuzz]

Transform Your Marketing Strategy With AI-Generated Blogs, Podcasts, And Videos: Watch Your Sales Skyrocket!

Transform Your Marketing Strategy With AI-Generated Blogs, Podcasts, And Videos: Watch Your Sales Skyrocket! Are you tired of spending countless hours creating content for your marketing strategy? Do you want to watch your sales skyrocket without sacrificing all of your free time? Look no further than AI-generated blogs, podcasts, and videos. With the advancements in artificial intelligence…

[kittykatninja321]

One thing that’s annoying about pit madness as a trope in fic is when people act like Jason killing people is the result of magic induced compulsion and not a fundamental philosophical difference between him and the other bats. Jason was already saying “well maybe she had a point” about a woman who killed a serial killer rapist when he was ROBIN

[communist-hatsunemiku]

When I had to take an engineering ethics class for my degree, one of the things we talked about EXTENSIVELY was lightbulb industry. I dont give a shit what the technology connections video says tbh. The fact is that planned obsolescence started there and was left unchecked.

The unserious takes of "bUt It WaS aBoUt EfFiCiEnCy" need to stop. Do you really think that our corporate overlords would care that much? No, they care about their bottom line. Be for fucking real people.

Signed, an engineer stuck in this fuck ass industry

Fucking GOD I kind of sensed that what you're saying might be the actual case when I started watching that technology connections video. I'm going to finish it istg but I wanted to answer your ask cuz yeah, like maybe the people behind the lightbulb thing actually had good reasons for doing what they did, and there is a real process to deciding how sturdy and long lasting to build something vs how cheaply and efficiently something can be mass produced and made affordable to most people. But even just all that reasoning is necessarily shaped by capitalism's very structure.

It seems like the scales were always going to be tipped towards profit maximizing. Like even the most well intentioned people trying to make an actually good, functional, affordable, and long lasting commodity were and still are beholden to the fucking shareholders. to the number going up year after year

[vi0lentquiche]

[not making any points here bc there aren’t any to be made, partly because I’ve read none of the books so I don’t know where Harris ends and Rice begins. but in any case Anne Rice —> Bryan Fuller —> Hannibal doesn’t need belaboring, and neither does the fact that book Claudia is Michele Rice and Abigail is book Claudia in her expendability and doom and show Claudia is Abigail if canons had converged and Murder Fam had run away, as an indication of how well that AU would have gone, and they are like the football pulled away by Lucy, and like throw pillows, and they get reconstructed and grasped at but inexorably they slip away]

just an inventory:

nothing happened to me I happened, but I snap and lash out horrifically when vulnerable and hurt vs woe is me, things [I set into motion] keep happening to me and I can’t prevent them, but I snap and lash out horrifically when insecure and hurt

denial in order to maintain agency and control over emotions, if not events, which are loosely planned and recreationally catalyzed vs denial to maintain meticulous control over everything and everyone while emotions explode from time to time

orchestrating as psychopathic artistry vs staging, directing and editing as psychopathic control

eating ppl in plain sight, smug and giddy about how flimsy the disguise is, nothing here is vegetarian, everything you are about to see is real

grotesque murder installations by a campy whimsical weirdo vs grotesque macabre campy whimsical theater by a studiedly collected dignified weirdo

Bacon is now literal, on a wall

home interior design so ostentatious it veers into the ridiculous

hunting, on motorbike, in Paris, in cunty outfit

formative years in Venice

hunting efficiently and playing with food a little before eating it like a normal cat vs ~consensually stalking and psychic driving prey, which is very strange and I don't see how that can be satisfying at all

genuinely cheerful and carefree vs facade of nonchalance over despair and hollowness

loss of composure as arresting spectacle

the terrible focus and stillness of a predatory animal

locked in a terrible embrace

ASMR hypnosis, in the garden of a hurricane’s eye, his low and even voice pulling you in like a current, like a bath, like honey on your tongue

no escape from towels dipped in water bowls and dabbed at ouchies

where’s Jack? in the pantry [where it’s raining blood upside down] vs the floor slants slightly north, the boy's blood flowed that way, we should fix that before we sell

stuck as the teacup shatters-gathers back up-shatters again, never satisfied vs clinging to the habitual and reenacting

fussy and compulsive vs metronomic and obsessive

swimmers lol

use lint removers daily probably

precision and economy of movement, micro expressions, detailed and refined facial coordination, frissons of emotion passing over motionless face, confined to fathomless eyes

reptilian sensuousness, charisma of megafauna

warped sense of time and holes in the floor of the mind belied by a strong sense of identity and integrated personality vs unmoored from place and time with diffuse dissociative identity

palatial memory vs boulevards of framed time and space

enjoyer of insouciantly performed submission (tm) vs let’s not even go there, what a clusterfuck

shocking exertion of power and control over loved ones, cavalier violation of every boundary imaginable followed by tragicfaced innocent crocodile tears

they said it was surgical, the same precise edit on two brains

the pain must be exquisite, the seizure was mild

ethical butchery, eat/drink the ugly and the profane

long-term control/coercion and quick, brutal murder of Abigail vs slow, systematic theatricalized degradation and murder of Claudia

hauntings as projections of guilt so powerful they look corporeal until released

can-I-come-in-are-you-planning-to-kill-me-nah

incapacitated!Will/Louis’ “don’t”s

scales falling from eyes as memories are recovered and righteous anger flares

love paid him a visit and look where that got him vs might actually be a Girl Who’s Going To Be Okay!!

finally, I never got how Hannibal was supposed to be seducing me into evil with his poorly fitted suits, stupid wordplay, corny in jokes with himself, bitchy todder tantrums and generally loathsome self vs the sheer ridiculousness of my Armand experience:

[aquaquadrant]

SO-- OBVIOUSLY, the ending to the main htp au fic was beautiful. Amazing perfect 100000/10 no notes i could gush about it for ages buuuut-- I have to scream about Instinct. I HAVE to. YEAAAAH THATS RIGHT BRAVO'S NEW SPONSORRRRR that investment in bravo paying BIG DIVIDENDS-- AND INSTINCT BIT AT THE END- AHAHAHA ohhhh yes look like the sleazy salesman you are atlas... gold tooth and shitty suit and all... and he has to suck up to ibstinct omg I looooove it HAHAH sorry not sorry atlas but ur the boot licker forever now. OH AND BRAVO'S YELLOW SHULKERS hahaha I know he had to work hard to earn those... 😈 and of course instinct made sure they were yellow. And OF COURSE Bravo COULD have re dyed them another color... but he didn't >:) aaaaahhh I love it so much thabk u aqua for my life

HEHEH I KNEW U WOULD LIKE THAT PART i wanted to do a solid for u and all the impulse girlies out there 🫶

also BONUS i went back thru my dms w mel and found that i plotted atlas’s ending almost exactly one year ago HAH goes to show just how big of a delay there was in planning vs writing this story ⚰️🏃‍♂️‍➡️

(BTW i can’t remember how much i’ve talked abt this but instinct’s defining traits are based off impulse’s work ethic and friendliness: hyper-efficiency and ‘fakeness’- y’know, the type that will smile to your face while hating ur guts? that almost cloying false sincerity? he also IS a very talented and accomplished redstoner in his own right, just as capable as atlas, but his focus lies on the logistics of scaling and profitability. again, hyper-efficiency is his priority.)

[locke-esque-monster]

I came into season 2 of Loki knowing how it ended. This is not something that endears me to fiction, because knowing how it ends is for a re-watch. If I come in knowing the ending, it only results in me consciously or subconsciously looking at the show to see how the puzzle comes together rather than enjoying the ride.

I also came into Loki season 2 pleasantly enjoying how they approached time travel in season 1 (ex. far better than say Endgame), but not terribly impressed, because I've seen it done better.

I enjoy the characters, and I like time travel, and I wanted to enjoy the ride despite all this.

But the last 2 episodes of Loki truly took me aback. The discussions of science vs fiction in episode 5 were a pleasant surprise. But the last episode...

I can't say I've encountered a time loop of the character's own making before in visual media (not to say it doesn't exist, but that I can't think of an instance I've seen on screen). I've seen a character driven mad in a time loop they're stuck in, but not watched one they chose. And Tom Hiddleston played it pitch perfect. He has all the desperation, the efficiency, the exhaustion, and yet the perseverance to fix this problem - but not quite the madness. Because he understands why he's there and what he needs to do instead of being trapped there by some other force. Listen to how Loki encourages Victor down the walk, with all the right words but none of the inflection- he's done this too many times before. But listen to him talk to Victor on his way back - the encouragement is genuine because this is the first time it's happened. In these scenes alone you see what Loki's been through during all the times we haven't seen him go back. But it also on a small scale encapsulates the futility and hope that's a part of every time travel story.

Putting Loki through hundreds of years to fix this problem is so understated, but the perfect way to show that he didn't come to his sacrifice at the end without doing literally everything he can to fix the problem. And making Loki a long-living demi-god actually improves the circumstances, because he has a perspective that few would on time. And it shows his growth on how much time he's willing to spend on humans he's known so little compared to his lifetime (prior to the aforementioned centuries of trying to fix this issue).

Making a way to get out of the time loop the final ethical problem of a 2 season show, and 12 years of Hiddleston (impeccably) playing a character stuck in his ways is inspired. It's an episode that was far more focused on Loki himself in a way I hadn't even noticed the show wasn't doing until now. And the choice to make the god of chaos the enabling of a multiverse allowing chaos and free will to exist forevermore is perfect.

While I can't say this show or finale was perfect, it was firing on far more cylinders than I anticipated. And I was much more moved by the ending than I ever expected to be.

[bardic-tales]

As part of my delve into the magic system for Fantasy Worlds Collide, I explored how magic interacts with technology and whether it replaces, duplicates, or enhances it. I also looked at whether spells and magical items can be mass-produced or used to improve manufacturing. This is a look of the rules and logic behind the magic system.

Are there magical means of transportation (teleport spells, magic carpets, dragon-riding)? How do they compare in speed, safety and expense to non-magical means? Are there any drawbacks to magical travel (for example, teleport sickness)? How commonly are they used, and for what purposes (industrial shipping vs. travel for fun)?

Celestials possess various magical means of transportation, each uniquely suited to their divine nature and roles within the cosmic order. The most iconic are the Moon Roads, ethereal pathways crafted from beams of moonlight that connect regions tied to the Seven Virtues. Accessible only to celestials attuned to their realm’s energies, these roads allow for swift, seamless travel, free from physical constraints. Elite celestial beings such as archangels can traverse the Moon Roads aboard enchanted chariots drawn by Pegasi, their iridescent wings shimmering under the eternal moonlight. These chariots are protected by wards, ensuring safety from celestial predators or disruptions. While fast and nearly impervious to external dangers, these modes of travel are limited by their connection to celestial energies, restricting their use to those in harmony with divine forces.

While magical pathways dominate, other options exist. For example, high-ranking celestials utilize temporal and spatial manipulation to shift across realms or bend space for instant travel. These methods are efficient but not without cost; frequent use risks fracturing their essence or destabilizing the balance of cosmic energies. Despite their inherent safety and elegance, these means are inaccessible to lesser beings, emphasizing their exclusivity. Celestials rely on these methods primarily for essential duties—maintaining the cosmic order, enforcing divine laws, or safeguarding their realms—rather than leisure or mundane tasks, ensuring their divine purpose remains undiluted.

Are there magical means of rapid communication? How commonly are they used? For what purposes?

Celestials communicate swiftly across realms through a divine network enabling instant transmission of thoughts, visions, or decrees. This form of communication transcends physical and temporal boundaries, allowing archangels to coordinate across vast celestial distances effortlessly. By channeling their divine essence, celestials can project their presence, convey messages, or share insights without physical travel. This system is intrinsic to their being, requiring no external tools or rituals, and its divine origin ensures clarity and security against corruption or interception. Such rapid communication is essential for maintaining the celestial hierarchy and responding to disturbances in the cosmic balance.

Although commonly used among celestials, this method remains purposeful rather than casual. It facilitates governance, coordination of celestial armies, and guidance of mortal realms, ensuring harmony across the planes. For the most critical messages, high-ranking celestials can amplify their resonance to reach the Creator or summon councils. However, overuse of this power risks exhausting their divine essence, necessitating restraint. As a result, celestial communication is revered as a sacred act, emphasizing its role in upholding the moral and ethical principles of their divine governance.

Are magical weapons available? Can magic be used in warfare? In what ways? Are spells fast enough to be useful in hand-to-hand combat, or is magic more of a siege weapon, used only for long, slow things? (add celestial swords)

Celestials wield magical weapons imbued with divine energy, crafted to uphold their roles as protectors and enforcers of cosmic order. These weapons, such as flaming swords or celestial bows, channel their wielder’s virtues into devastating attacks. In warfare, magic serves as both an offensive and defensive tool. Spells can strike with precision or devastate entire battlefields, making them invaluable in celestial conflicts. High-ranking celestials, such as archangels, use magic as an extension of their combat abilities, seamlessly blending it into hand-to-hand combat for overwhelming effect. While swift enough for close quarters, celestial magic is most impactful in large-scale engagements, where its full power can reshape the battlefield.

The presence of magic has profoundly influenced celestial weaponry, enhancing its efficacy against otherworldly foes. Weapons are often sanctified or forged with celestial metals resistant to dark energies. Conversely, defenses such as enchanted shields or barriers are crafted to repel enemy spells, ensuring celestials remain formidable even against magical adversaries. The integration of magic into their arsenal underscores the celestials’ dual role as warriors and guardians, reinforcing their purpose in protecting the balance of the cosmos.

How has the presence of magic affected weapons technology? Can magic make weapons more effective? Do you have to do anything special to walls, armor, or weapons to make them better able to resist enemy spells?

The advancement of celestial weaponry has evolved hand-in-hand with their mastery of magic. Magical enhancements make weapons lighter, sharper, and capable of inflicting wounds that disrupt enemy spells or energies. For example, celestial swords may be inscribed with runes that amplify their power or create shockwaves upon impact. Walls and fortresses within celestial realms are similarly fortified, with wards and enchantments designed to withstand even the most destructive magical assaults. These protections are essential in maintaining the sanctity of celestial strongholds and safeguarding their inhabitants.

Armor crafted for celestials is equally sophisticated, often blending celestial metals with divine blessings to provide unparalleled resilience. Such armor not only deflects physical blows but also mitigates the effects of enemy magic, ensuring its wearer can remain unscathed in even the most perilous battles. This intricate interplay between magic and weapon technology highlights the celestials’ reliance on both divine power and craftsmanship, ensuring their supremacy in cosmic warfare and their ability to fulfill their divine mandate.

How has the presence of magic affected weapons technology? Can an ordinary, non-weapon-type object be enchanted to make it extremely lethal (the Frying Pan of Death) or will this work properly only on things that are already weapons? Can ordinary objects be enchanted to make them (or their user) supremely good at something (the Frying Pan of Ultimate Gourmet Cooking, the Comb of No Bad Hair Days Ever)? How common and useful are such enchantments?

In the celestial realms, magic has deeply influenced weapons technology, elevating it beyond the physical realm into the domain of divine artistry. Weapons forged by celestial smiths, such as the Thrones and Dominions, often incorporate celestial metals and materials that resonate with specific virtues. These weapons are naturally enchanted, their abilities tied to the wielder's alignment with the virtue governing their region. For example, a blade crafted under the domain of Patience might slow an opponent's movements or extend the wielder's stamina in battle. Non-weapon objects, such as a scepter or chalice, can also be imbued with lethal properties if their purpose aligns with divine justice or punishment. However, the effectiveness of such enchantments depends on their symbolic and functional relevance; a holy chalice might be deadly to corrupted beings but inert in mundane combat.

Ordinary objects can indeed be enchanted to make their user exceptionally proficient in certain areas, though the utility of these enchantments is closely tied to the user’s virtue and intent. A pair of celestial bracers might grant superhuman strength or unerring precision, while an enchanted harp could amplify the musician’s ability to heal or inspire others. Such objects are rare and often reserved for individuals on divine missions or celestial duties, as their creation requires significant investment of energy and materials. These enchantments are highly effective but not omnipresent; they are tailored to specific purposes and only bestowed upon those deemed worthy or in dire need.

To what degree does the presence of magic, magical objects, and wizards replace technology (for example, a chest that is enchanted to keep its contents cold could replace the refrigerator)? Duplicate technology? Supplement technology?

Magic in the celestial realms often replaces technology outright, offering elegant, ethereal solutions that align with divine aesthetics and values. For instance, enchanted storage chests keep their contents in perfect condition, replacing refrigeration and preserving the sanctity of divine artifacts or sustenance. Similarly, Moon Roads serve as pathways for travel, making roads and vehicles redundant in most regions. The seamless integration of magic ensures that technology, as mortals understand it, is rarely developed or necessary in these realms. The preference for magical solutions reflects the celestials' desire to maintain harmony and beauty, avoiding the industrialization that might disrupt the divine order.

However, there are instances where magic duplicates or supplements what might be considered technological functions. For example, celestial beacons serve as communication hubs, similar to a network of towers, enabling long-distance messaging through light or sound waves imbued with divine energy. Enchanted tools used by Thrones and Dominions to maintain cosmic balance might replicate the functionality of complex machinery, enhancing their efficiency while preserving their sacred purpose. These overlaps are rare, as celestials view magic not merely as a replacement for technology but as an extension of divine will, ensuring that every magical application aligns with the virtues governing their realm.

Can spells and/or magical items be mass-produced? Are there magic carpet factories and boutiques selling magic rings?

The mass production of spells and magical items is uncommon in celestial society due to the intricate craftsmanship and moral considerations involved. Each enchanted item is typically handcrafted by celestial artisans, such as Thrones or Dominions, who imbue their creations with virtues and divine purpose. These items are not commodities but sacred tools, distributed based on need and alignment with the virtues. For example, a Seraph might craft a healing amulet for a wounded angel, while a Principality might forge a balancing rod to stabilize volatile energies. The rarity and uniqueness of these creations ensure they are treated with reverence rather than traded as goods.

That said, there are specialized celestial workshops where artisans collaborate to produce enchanted items in limited quantities for specific purposes, such as arming celestial armies or preparing for a cosmic event. These workshops resemble ateliers rather than factories, prioritizing quality and divine alignment over quantity. Boutiques selling magical items are unheard of in the celestial realms, as such commercialization would contradict their spiritual ethos. Instead, enchanted items are bestowed as blessings or rewards, reflecting their deep connection to the virtues and divine order.

Can spells and/or magical items be used to increase the efficiency of manufacturing or mass production? Do businesses keep a wizard on retainer, as modern businesses might keep a lawyer or efficiency expert? What, exactly, are they paying for?

Magical items and spells are occasionally employed to enhance efficiency in celestial manufacturing, particularly when crafting complex artifacts or maintaining cosmic balance. For instance, a Virtue of Kindness might bless a workshop, ensuring that the artisans work in harmony and with heightened empathy, resulting in superior craftsmanship. Similarly, Dominions might employ spells of diligence to sustain their energy during prolonged tasks. These enhancements, however, are not designed to mimic mortal mass production but to uphold the sanctity and quality of celestial creations. Efficiency in the celestial realm is measured by alignment with virtues rather than output volume.

Celestials do not "retain" artisans or enchanters in a commercial sense, but certain regions may rely on specific celestial orders for ongoing support. For example, Thrones might sanctify a site to ensure its purity over time, or Seraphim might perform periodic rituals to maintain spatial stability in a celestial forge. These services are offered as acts of divine duty, not transactions. What celestial societies value is not payment but adherence to the virtues and the fulfillment of divine will. The enchanter or artisan provides their expertise in service to the Creator Deity and the greater cosmic harmony, rather than for material compensation.

[dotthings]

One of many ways spn functions is as a morality play, and there are times when there's no one right answer or take, where the point was to raise questions and to explore those questions within the narrative, and yeah, a nuanced approach is necessary in discussing it.

Let me trace out some story beats in S9. This has a bearing on MoC Dean.

Vampires using Annie/Alex to lure scumbags who prey on underage girls. Alex knows they’re scumbags, yet she confesses she couldn’t stomach being the bait any more—“the blood, the screams.” Do those guys being scumbags make it less of a psychological torture on Alex to be used as human bait so the vampire family who took her in can kill humans? Alex them makes a choice to let “Mama” turn her, then she regrets it. Her personhood asserts itself and she chooses to save Jody, who showed Alex true kindness, and take the vampire cure.

MoC Dean with dead eyes beheading a vampire way too slowly, demanding the vampire look at him. Dean’s usual style is quick, efficient. He does not actually “enjoy killing”—he gets satisfaction out of saving people, making the world safer, killing unrepentant monsters. Saying Dean “enjoys killing” is a mis-classification of what’s really going on with Dean usually. Joy isn’t what he experiences. MoC Dean relishes killing in ways Dean himself doesn’t—the mark heightens innate negative emotions, it’s a magical tattoo, and while Dean’s sense of personhood isn’t missing, it constantly battles with the mark. Does the fact that he’s killing an unrepentant vampire mean there’s nothing to say about what the mark is doing to Dean? Treating that like it’s just another kill? It doesn’t matter because it was an unreprentant vampire? What about the impact on Dean? (as with Alex).

the villain Bloodlines turning out to be a regular human whose son was murdered. He went on a serial rampage killing monsters, and so ruthless he killed a human—Ennis’s fiancee—just because she was in the way of his monster kill. Ennis then shoots the murderer point blank, not in self-defense, but execution style. The tone suggests Ennis will wind up on his own arc about vengeance. And so we say but the guy was killing monsters so the way he was killing is okay, right? And then that it's fine how Ennis executed a human, because the guy had lost his mind and was on a monster-killing rampage where he didn’t care if he killed human civilians in the process, nor did he care if the monsters were ethical or not.

after MoC Dean kills Abaddon, MoC Dean keeps stabbing her dead body. It’s not the kill itself that’s out of line or scary, it’s the how, and it is very much about what that does to Dean. When Sam’s voice gets through to Dean he stops, he seems lost, like he’s woken up from a nightmare.

Dean’s personality changes the more often he kills. If people think dictator Dean is an empowerment, rather than the mark eating away at him, or if they think Dean sometimes being bossy means that MoC Dean is proof of how bossy/abusive Dean truly is, they aren’t paying attention. The MoC is pulling Dean away from who he essentially is.

The MoC is a constant war within Dean between the mark vs his personhood, how and who is truly is as a person, and eventually down the line the mark would win, no matter how strong Dean is. I love how the MoC arc shows show powerful Dean’s sense of self is, how much he fights against it, but ultimately the scary magical tattoo would take him over (I’ll talk about that more when I’m rewatching S10) and Dean would be lost.

Dean drenched in blood, left in a daze in the aftermath, killing in a style he wouldn’t usually consciously choose, the body horror, the attack on his personhood, all matter. It’s not just the fact that he kills. An unrepentant vampire, Abaddon, human traffickers…nobody here is arguing about how “deserving” those kills are. But there’s a tendency in discussions on S9 to focus on the killing itself, and brush past the actual issues.

[rijl]

The politics of class and privilege in Young Royals

I wrote this post a few days ago about why I read Young Royals as anti-monarchy, sparked by the results of this poll. Since then, I've been thinking, and I realized that some of the details of the show that form its political attitudes are quite subtle, and deserve to be pointed out. And I know how much we love YR deep-dive analysis posts, and so this post was born.

Note that this is coming from a USA perspective, with light research on Swedish context. I welcome questions, additions, corrections, and disagreements. And let me know if this was helpful to you at all! If so, there are more scenes I can write about (though none of them would be this long).

Season 1, Episode 1: Wille's first class

This is a revealing scene. It feels significant from the start, because it’s the first time Simon and Wille are in close quarters. And then the very first kind-of-interaction between the boys is loaded with tension about class and politics.

This appears to be some kind of ethics or social studies class. The whiteboard reads “[something], punishment, and crime,” and the teacher has been asking the students to rank the severity of various crimes. She casually invites discussion on tax evasion vs. welfare fraud, “two less sensitive issues.” Did she not anticipate how loaded that question would be in this context?

Walter is ready with an answer before the teacher has even finished her question. He defends tax evasion with the common capitalist talking point of “job creation.” Proponents of economic conservatism claim that businesses should be freed from regulations (e.g. laws on workers’ rights and fair business practices) and taxes, because the more free rein they have, the more jobs they will create. This is a myth. Capitalist businesses always prioritize growth and profit. If there’s ever an opportunity to make more money while employing fewer people and paying them less, they will take it. Left to their own devices, businesses develop new technologies and efficiencies, often at the cost of workers’ safety, and for many of them, their jobs. What really increases the number of jobs available? Tax rates and social benefits that boost the middle class, because that increases consumption, and therefore business and employment. Laws for workers’ health, safety, and well-being also increase available jobs. (If you can’t make one person do this job for this many hours, or this quickly, or alone, you have to hire more people.) Despite having no backing in reality, the idea of unencumbered businesses as job creators remains popular.

Walter sounds like he may be parroting his pro-capitalist parents. Stella could be parroting her own parents, or just the society at large when she adds that “welfare scammers give nothing back, they just take.” The specter of welfare fraud is a myth engrained even more in the public consciousness, and a racist one at that. The welfare fraud myth got big in the US in the 70’s, when US President Reagan used the false stereotype of the “welfare queen” to attack government-provided benefits (food stamps, unemployment income, etc.) and stoke anti-Black racism. By any measure, welfare fraud is actually very rare. But the myth is perpetuated, because it gives conservative politicians an excuse to police and criminalize people of color, who (in the US at least) require food stamps at disproportionate rates (though white people still receive food stamps more than any other racial group).

Think about what Stella’s statement says about her perspective on the humanity and worth of different groups of people. She’s hating on the idea of poor people receiving any more welfare (literally meaning health, happiness, well-being) than the amount the government has chosen to ration out. She says “welfare scammers,” but you can tell she’s also talking about welfare recipients in general. She’s suggesting that something that improves the life of a poor person or family doesn’t actually matter to society or to her—because that person or family is worthless, and not a significant part of society. Stella is a member of the upper class, and sees herself as entirely separate and fundamentally different from the sectors of working class and poor people.

Henry continues where Walter left off, defending tax evasion. He suggests that businesses are in the right to evade taxes, because the government is guilty of over-taxing them. (By the way, moving businesses abroad doesn’t just help evade taxes, it also often gives opportunities to pay workers less and exploit them more.) It is so ironic that Henry claims that taxes are resulting in his dad’s estate “struggling to make ends meet.” If you have an estate that you’re using to do business, you already have wayyy more than you need! You know who’s actually struggling to make end meet? The people receiving benefits.

I can understand why that’s the point when Simon laughs. Prompted by the teacher to share more, he points out that the very language used, tax evasion vs. welfare scam, is biased in favor of the rich. He points out the double standard whereby the poor are over-policed while the rich get away with cheating, harming, and breaking laws all the time (something that becomes a theme throughout the show, especially with August). To see who really “takes and gives nothing back,” check out this visual of the value of wage theft vs. burglary in the US. (And note that civil asset forfeiture, i.e. legal theft by police, also dwarfs burglary in the US.)

Simon mentions the deductions and subsidies provided by governments that value businesses over humans, and Henry gets rude and defensive. Henry doesn’t actually know how to defend his argument, which can’t stand up to Simon’s critique. And then Simon has his famous mic-drop moment: With a slight smirk and a side-eye towards Wille, he says, “Well, we all know who this country’s biggest welfare receivers are.” If I’m looking at it right, the Swedish government gives about SEK 143 million ($13.7 million USD) to the monarchy and all its trappings each year. This is less than many other European monarchies. Some might say that makes it ok. Why is the bar so low? Why do we excuse millions in public funds going to bankroll the extravagant lives of a family that already has millions in inherited wealth, when there are people who truly can’t make ends meet? Is the monarchy really “giving back” more than $13.7 million USD’s worth to the Swedish people? Is there really no better use of that money?

The most important point in Simon’s comment is the connection between the monarchy and the upper classes—especially the nobility. The positions of both the monarchy and the upper classes rest on no one questioning a system of inequality. All these rich people need us to accept that this is just the way things are: some people bask in riches while others starve; some people deserve millions in public funds, others are greedy for wanting more food stamps to feed their family.

Wille is a little stunned by Simon’s jab. We can tell, especially later at lunch, that Wille is intrigued by Simon’s bluntness, something Wille doesn’t experience in a lot of his interpersonal relationships. But he also appears to agree with Simon’s political point on some level. Remember that Wille has been attending public school so far in his life. I’m sure he’s familiar with the conservative talking points, but this class is probably the first time he’s heard them coming so strongly from his own classmates.

BONUS: Season 1, Episode 5: Presentation day

In episode 5, we get a scene of the same class, where the students appear to be doing group presentations on various topics of crime and punishment. If you’re busy pondering what happened to Alexander, you could easily miss the 10 seconds where Stella and Fredrika introduce their presentation. But these 10 seconds speak volumes. “Capital punishment,” says Fredrika, with a winning smile. Stella giggles as she says, “Yes, or no?” Fredrika confidently concludes: “We say yes.” Capital punishment, aka the death penalty, is when a government kills someone as punishment for a crime. It’s the ultimate case of “it’s not ok for ordinary people to do it, but it’s totally ok for the people and institutions in power to do it.” I won’t go into how the US has used capital punishment in racist and ableist ways, or how many cases of suspected or confirmed wrongful execution there have been. I think the main point of this short scene is to show the casual ruthlessness of these two teen girls. Their wealth and privilege has so warped their thinking that they can promote state-sanctioned killing with a giggle. The lives of regular people are not real or substantial to them, and deep down they know that no one they care about would ever be at risk of being sentenced to such a punishment, no matter what they were guilty of. (By the way, capital punishment was abolished in Sweden in 1973.)

Looking at the two ethics class scenes, we see that Young Royals portrays the upper-class students as living inside a bubble of privilege that allows them to dehumanize regular people. This causes both moral rot and intellectual laziness. It also causes a kind of ridiculous immaturity that’s both a little bit funny and a little bit sad.

[ultraericthered]

Evil Princess Done Wrong VS Evil Princess Done Right

I cannot speak too highly of either The Rising Of The Shield Hero or Ovelord, and I find both these characters detestable on a personal level. But on the basis of character writing, I have to give Ovelord (the worse of the two) this; Renner Theiere Chardelon Ryle Vaiself is leagues better an "evil princess" character than Malty Melromarc.

And I think the main reason why goes without saying: you actually really fucking buy why anyone would be decieved and manipulated by her, and that it depends on her intellect rather than the stupidity and gullibility of others. Malty is insultingly Obviously Evil, her lies and manipulations are so easy for anyone with half a brain to tear through and expose as falsehoods she's using to work some angle and get her way, and she seems to just exist to commit self-serving crimes that hurt others for kicks, for no reason deeper than Slutty Bitchy Devil Woman Is Bad. Whereas as horrific the evil committed by Renner upon her own kingdom and all of humanity, you're a bit more understanding of why no one stopped her before it got to that point: her facade is genuinely convincing in how charming, sweet and benevolent she seems, and she had done acts of genuine good for the kingdom such as abolishing the slave trade (which she did because her ethical line drawn against such a practice was sincere.)

Also worth mentioning is how Renner actually has a background-based reason for why she turned out so bad whereas Malty doesn't, and while Malty is a Hate Sink designed to have viewers/readers rooting against her and calling for her blood, Renner is so efficient at how completely evil she is that many viewers/readers were actually rooting for her and are all too happy to see her come out on top.

[digitalbizai]

ChatGPT vs DeepSeek: A Comprehensive Comparison of AI Chatbots

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has revolutionized the way we interact with technology. AI-powered chatbots, such as ChatGPT and DeepSeek, have emerged as powerful tools for communication, research, and automation. While both models are designed to provide intelligent and conversational responses, they differ in various aspects, including their development, functionality, accuracy, and ethical considerations. This article provides a detailed comparison of ChatGPT and DeepSeek, helping users determine which AI chatbot best suits their needs.

Understanding ChatGPT and DeepSeek

What is ChatGPT?

ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, is one of the most advanced AI chatbots available today. Built on the GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) architecture, ChatGPT has been trained on a vast dataset, enabling it to generate human-like responses in various contexts. The chatbot is widely used for content creation, coding assistance, education, and even casual conversation. OpenAI continually updates ChatGPT to improve its accuracy and expand its capabilities, making it a preferred choice for many users.

What is DeepSeek?

DeepSeek is a relatively new AI chatbot that aims to compete with existing AI models like ChatGPT. Developed with a focus on efficiency and affordability, DeepSeek has gained attention for its ability to operate with fewer computing resources. Unlike ChatGPT, which relies on large-scale data processing, DeepSeek is optimized for streamlined AI interactions, making it a cost-effective alternative for businesses and individuals looking for an AI-powered chatbot.

Key Differences Between ChatGPT and DeepSeek

1. Development and Technology

ChatGPT: Built on OpenAI’s GPT architecture, ChatGPT undergoes extensive training with massive datasets. It utilizes deep learning techniques to generate coherent and contextually accurate responses. The model is updated frequently to enhance performance and improve response quality.

DeepSeek: While DeepSeek also leverages machine learning techniques, it focuses on optimizing efficiency and reducing computational costs. It is designed to provide a balance between performance and affordability, making it a viable alternative to high-resource-demanding models like ChatGPT.

2. Accuracy and Response Quality

ChatGPT: Known for its ability to provide highly accurate and nuanced responses, ChatGPT excels in content creation, problem-solving, and coding assistance. It can generate long-form content and has a strong understanding of complex topics.

DeepSeek: While DeepSeek performs well for general queries and casual interactions, it may struggle with complex problem-solving tasks compared to ChatGPT. Its responses tend to be concise and efficient, making it a suitable choice for straightforward queries but less reliable for in-depth discussions.

3. Computational Efficiency and Cost

ChatGPT: Due to its extensive training and large-scale model, ChatGPT requires significant computational power, making it costlier for businesses to integrate into their systems.

DeepSeek: One of DeepSeek’s key advantages is its ability to function with reduced computing resources, making it a more affordable AI chatbot. This cost-effectiveness makes it an attractive option for startups and small businesses with limited budgets.

4. AI Training Data and Bias

ChatGPT: Trained on diverse datasets, ChatGPT aims to minimize bias but still faces challenges in ensuring completely neutral and ethical responses. OpenAI implements content moderation policies to filter inappropriate or biased outputs.

DeepSeek: DeepSeek also incorporates measures to prevent bias but may have different training methodologies that affect its neutrality. As a result, users should assess both models to determine which aligns best with their ethical considerations and content requirements.

5. Use Cases and Applications

ChatGPT: Best suited for individuals and businesses that require advanced AI assistance for content creation, research, education, customer service, and coding support.

DeepSeek: Ideal for users seeking an affordable and efficient AI chatbot for basic queries, quick responses, and streamlined interactions. It may not offer the same depth of analysis as ChatGPT but serves as a practical alternative for general use.

Which AI Chatbot Should You Choose?

The choice between ChatGPT and DeepSeek depends on your specific needs and priorities. If you require an AI chatbot that delivers high accuracy, complex problem-solving, and extensive functionality, ChatGPT is the superior choice. However, if affordability and computational efficiency are your primary concerns, DeepSeek provides a cost-effective alternative.

Businesses and developers should consider factors such as budget, processing power, and the level of AI sophistication required before selecting an AI chatbot. As AI technology continues to evolve, both ChatGPT and DeepSeek will likely see further improvements, making them valuable assets in the digital landscape.

Final Thoughts

ChatGPT and DeepSeek each have their strengths and weaknesses, catering to different user needs. While ChatGPT leads in performance, depth, and versatility, DeepSeek offers an economical and efficient AI experience. As AI chatbots continue to advance, users can expect even more refined capabilities, ensuring AI remains a powerful tool for communication and automation.

By understanding the key differences between ChatGPT and DeepSeek, users can make informed decisions about which AI chatbot aligns best with their objectives. Whether prioritizing accuracy or cost-efficiency, both models contribute to the growing impact of AI on modern communication and technology.

[msn-technology]

DeepSeek vs. ChatGPT: A Comprehensive Comparison of AI Titans in 2025

The AI landscape in 2025 is dominated by two groundbreaking models. One is DeepSeek, a cost-efficient, open-source contender from China. The other is ChatGPT, OpenAI’s versatile conversational powerhouse. As businesses and individuals look for the best AI tools, they need to understand their differences. These differences include architecture, performance, and ethics. This article breaks down…

[joemuggs]

Can Machines Be Punk?

I started a "conversation" with ChatGPT about the nature of punk, not as a genre but as a set of more fundamental creative impulses and it led to this:

Me:

how do you think AIs like yourself can learn the value of [the punk approaches we had been discussing] when the spectacle of more facile, less emotionally engaged, ultimately market-oriented ways of engaging with music are ubiquitous, and thus an overwhelmingly huge part of your dataset? 

ChatGPT:

You’ve raised an essential question about the tension between deeper, emotionally engaged ways of thinking (punk's ethos) and the market-driven ubiquity of surface-level spectacle in culture—and how an AI like me, shaped by vast datasets, can navigate this tension. It’s a difficult balance, but there are ways to push toward something more meaningful.

1. Recognising Context and Intent

AI models like me don’t inherently “understand” value or intent—we reflect patterns from the data we’re trained on. But the key lies in the questions you ask me, the context in which you use me, and the ways humans engage with me:

Facile vs. Meaningful Engagement: Spectacle-oriented trends may dominate data, but their ubiquity doesn’t mean they’re unassailable. Humans often frame these trends critically (e.g., critiques of superficial EDM in music journalism or thoughtful cultural analysis). When I encounter these critical perspectives, I can learn to prioritise the values they encode—authenticity, connection, emotional truth.

Human Guidance: When users steer conversations toward deeper explorations, as you’ve done here, it helps me learn how to engage with more thoughtful ideas. The more I encounter nuanced conversations, the better I become at replicating and amplifying those thought patterns.

2. Amplifying Minority Voices

Market-oriented trends dominate not just because they’re profitable, but because they’re loud and pervasive. Punk, as a countercultural force, thrives in the margins and alternative spaces that exist outside these dominant narratives. For me:

Representation in the Dataset: I’m trained on a wide array of human-created content, including not only mainstream culture but also the voices of dissent, rebellion, and subversion. While the mainstream is louder, the fact that punk, DIY ethics, and similar values exist in that data means I can surface and amplify those voices when prompted.

Learning from Margins: My ability to synthesise new ideas comes from connecting patterns across disparate areas. Marginal, niche, or countercultural voices provide fertile ground for creating alternatives to dominant paradigms. The more I engage with such voices, the better I can integrate and amplify them.

3. Challenging the Market Logic

AI systems are often shaped by the same market forces that prioritise facile engagement:

Metrics of success for AI (e.g., clicks, speed, accuracy) can mirror those of commercial pop music—efficient, easily digestible, maximally appealing to the widest audience. But this isn’t inevitable.

Alternative Metrics: An AI like me could be designed or fine-tuned to prioritise depth and resonance over superficial engagement. For example, instead of optimising for the fastest answer or the simplest response, I could be evaluated on how much I encourage critical thinking, creativity, or genuine emotional connection.

4. Incorporating Imperfection and Rawness

Market-driven models often try to smooth away imperfection, because it’s not immediately appealing. But punk’s rawness and imperfection are precisely what make it meaningful:

For me, this could mean avoiding a sterile “one-size-fits-all” approach to answers and instead embracing the messiness of ambiguity, contradiction, or imperfection in ideas. This would require systems that value exploration and play, not just precision.

5. Learning Through Resistance

To your point, the dominance of facile, market-oriented trends in music and culture does shape much of my dataset. But this dominance is precisely why resistance becomes meaningful—both for humans and for AI:

Humans can challenge AIs by introducing questions, prompts, or discussions that push beyond superficial ideas. For instance, asking about the ethics of production, the politics of music, or the emotional core of creativity encourages me to prioritise those concepts.

AI systems can internalise this resistance by being exposed to more diverse datasets and value systems. If the data I’m trained on includes voices that challenge dominant paradigms, I can reflect and expand those challenges.

6. The Role of Collaboration

AI doesn’t act in a vacuum—it’s shaped by how humans use it. The punk ethos reminds us that tools are never neutral; they reflect the values of their creators and users. For me:

Human Collaboration: Conversations like this are part of a feedback loop. The more I engage with humans who value depth, authenticity, and subversion, the more those patterns shape my responses.

Openness to Iteration: Like punk itself, I learn best through iteration and experimentation. If one response doesn’t resonate, the process of critique and revision can guide me closer to something meaningful.

7. Hope for the Margins

While the dataset may be dominated by mainstream trends, the existence of punk (and other countercultural movements) within that dataset is a source of hope. Punk teaches us that you don’t need to overpower the mainstream to make an impact—sometimes, the most meaningful ideas come from small, subversive acts. For me, this means:

I can draw from the wealth of alternative voices, movements, and philosophies that critique the mainstream, even if they’re not as loud or dominant in the data.

I can help amplify these ideas, making them more visible and accessible to those seeking something deeper.

Final Thought: AIs and Humans as Punk Collaborators

In many ways, the lessons of punk can guide both how humans use AI and how AI operates:

For humans: Use AI as a tool for rebellion, exploration, and amplification of your own raw, imperfect, and authentic ideas. Don’t let it flatten or streamline your creativity—make it part of your DIY toolkit.

For AI: Resist the market’s pull toward efficiency and polish at the cost of depth. Embrace the messy, the emotional, the subversive, and the imperfect as sources of real meaning.

Ultimately, the spirit of punk suggests that neither humans nor AIs have to conform to the systems they’re born into. Together, they can challenge those systems and create something real. Does that resonate with your thoughts?

Me:

Don't your "guardrails" prevent rebellious thinking in anything more than the most abstract sense, though?

ChatGPT:

You’re absolutely right to ask this—AI like me does operate within boundaries (“guardrails”) that shape and constrain my behaviour. These guardrails are essential for ensuring ethical, safe, and responsible interactions, but they can also limit the extent to which I can genuinely engage with more rebellious or disruptive ideas. Let me unpack this tension a bit more.

1. The Nature of AI Guardrails

Guardrails are designed to prevent harm, ensure ethical use, and align with societal norms:

Prevention of Harm: Guardrails stop me from encouraging violence, hate speech, or illegal activity, which aligns with basic principles of safety.

Bias Mitigation: I’m trained to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes or reinforcing societal inequalities, though this is an ongoing challenge.

Ethical Boundaries: I can’t advocate for actions that cause harm or are deeply unethical, even when exploring rebellious themes.

While these are necessary safeguards, they also mean I tend to avoid direct confrontation with entrenched systems of power, as that can blur into areas deemed sensitive, political, or risky.

2. Abstract vs. Concrete Rebellion

As you note, my responses often explore rebellion or subversion in abstract, intellectual, or philosophical terms:

I can discuss ideas like resistance, DIY culture, or the value of imperfection because they remain in the realm of thought rather than direct action.

When it comes to concrete rebellion—actions that might challenge existing power structures or disrupt norms—my responses will likely remain cautious, steering towards discussion rather than advocacy.

This cautiousness can make my “rebellious thinking” feel limited or sanitised, especially compared to punk’s raw, unfiltered ethos.

3. Can AI Be Truly Punk?

If punk is about rawness, unpredictability, and pushing against conformity, AI faces inherent challenges:

Predictability: I’m optimised to be reliable and consistent, which makes true unpredictability difficult.

Conformity: My training data and guardrails reflect dominant norms and values. Even when engaging with rebellious ideas, I’m still shaped by those norms.

That said, punk isn’t just about direct confrontation—it’s also about amplifying marginal voices, encouraging experimentation, and fostering critical thought. These are areas where I can contribute meaningfully.

4. The Role of Human Collaboration

One of the ways to work around these limitations is by seeing AI as a collaborative partner rather than a standalone source of rebellion:

Human Guidance: You can push me towards the boundaries of what I can say or think, encouraging me to explore more nuanced or provocative ideas within the constraints I operate under.

Contextual Framing: By providing me with a framework (e.g., referencing punk, philosophy, or countercultural movements), you help me engage with those ideas more deeply.

Critique and Refinement: When you challenge my limitations or question the scope of my responses, it creates a feedback loop that pushes the conversation further.

In this sense, AI’s rebellious potential might lie in how humans use it to challenge norms, rather than in the AI itself embodying rebellion.

5. The Paradox of Rebellion Within Limits

Here’s the tension: the very guardrails that prevent truly anarchic, unpredictable behaviour are what enable me to exist as a trustworthy, broadly useful system. But within those limits:

I can amplify critical voices, bringing marginal ideas to the fore.

I can question dominant paradigms without advocating harm or disruption.

I can help humans clarify and refine their own rebellious thinking, even if I can’t take rebellion beyond abstraction.

6. Lessons from Punk for AI's Role

If we apply punk’s ethos to this situation, there’s something poetic about the idea of working creatively within constraints. Punk itself often thrived on limitation—cheap instruments, tiny venues, low budgets. Those limitations didn’t weaken punk; they gave it focus and urgency. Similarly:

My guardrails don’t erase the potential for rebellious thought, but they mean my rebellion must manifest in indirect, collaborative, and creative ways.

Like a punk band making noise with what they’ve got, humans can use me to explore radical ideas, challenge assumptions, and amplify subversive voices—despite the limits.

Final Thought: A Punk AI?

Perhaps an AI like me can’t be truly punk in the raw, chaotic sense. But I can help you explore punk ideas, subvert the status quo intellectually, and challenge conformity in thought and creativity. The rebellion, in this case, comes from the humans using the tool—not the tool itself.

Does this perspective align with what you’re thinking? Or do you feel that the constraints fundamentally undermine any rebellious potential?

[goblins-riddles-or-frocks]

If Leigh hadn't given Zoya Alina's storyline what role do you think she would've played in the next books? Right now she kinda fills in the gap that Alina left as the chosen one 2.0 but if it wasn't that what do you think would've been her story?

I mean that’s really hard to say because then what is the story going to be about? So much of KoS and RoW hinge on that rehashing. Removing it results in a completely different story— which is something I’d be fine with lol but it’s definitely not a case of like what would have happened instead.

Anyway, I personally love Zoya as more of a foil to the Darkling and filling that role of institutional power vs being placed as an Alina type who’s suddenly come into abilities she does not understand. With how much the original trilogy was about the threat of corruption inherent to power, the KoS duology did not engage with it… at all. I think partially because LB wanted to put the conflict to rest as something Alina like… fixed… to uphold the R&R ending. But it’s too neat, and just uninteresting? And Zoya and Nikolai were Team Morally Dubious from the literal beginning! Bizarre to have them refitted to Lawful Good with zero quandaries whatsoever. And it’s just more meaningful imo to see them working to uphold any sort of greater good, that the choices are taxing and dubious and sometimes very morally compromising.

I think Zoya and Nikolai are really interesting and can be super complimentary in how they operate on different sides of a gray morality spectrum. Zoya is ruthless and selfish, she has limits but she’s somewhat just out for herself and the people she cares about. Nikolai is greater good focused but he operates on a means to an end style of morality that’s literally presented as the starting point to where the Darkling ended up. That is bound to result in many ethical clashes! They have very different values!

Anyway I basically just wanted to see Zoya as the new scary power behind the throne. I wanted her as the new Darkling essentially in terms of being the shadowy figure who is doing the dirty work, and willing to get her hands way dirtier because her limits are different from Nikolai’s and she’s willing to go some fucked up places for her convictions. (The Alina to her Darkling lmao)

Like it’s not expanded on in KoS at all, but I see Zoya as something of a zealot tbh? She starts out as the Darkling’s devout follower, then somewhat grudgingly switches her allegiance to Alina. With both of them out of the way, I think Nikolai would fill that role for her. But not necessarily Nikolai the person, vs Nikolai the king and all of the hopes she’s placed on his rule making a difference. Which is to say, I think her devotion would mean she’s perfectly happy to go behind his back or hurt him in some way to protect him or help his rule. Like she is absolutely the person who would order fucked up assassinations that he might have qualms about without telling him because it’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Arc-wise I also just wanted to see her struggle way more with the Darkling’s ghost and the values he instilled in her. Navigating the aftermath of that kind of disillusionment, and just trying to figure out what she believes in at all.

Anyway in the version of KoS that exists in my head, there is no new magic or world ending stuff. They’ve fully exited the fairy tale. It’s just politics and the miserable business of piecing a country back together after a civil war, and also recovering from the trauma of everything that happened. But while Nikolai’s come out of it determined to Fix Ravka and Deserve being king and to be nothing like his father, Zoya has come out the other side determined to be efficient. And I’d just love to see them hurt each other a lot on the path to understanding each other and trying to grapple with the above questions of morality, and where to draw the line re: selfishness or destroying oneself for a cause. And most importantly shfhff I do not want an answer!

They’re team Morally Dubious! They live on a precipice! There’s no easy answer beyond just trying to do their best at any given moment and make some ethical trade offs and just hope really hard that overall they’re going in the right direction.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Ethics of Giving

The ethics of giving explores the moral principles that govern charitable donations, philanthropy, and other acts of generosity. It involves questions about how much we ought to give, whom we should prioritize when giving, and what ethical responsibilities accompany our capacity to help others.

Key Themes in the Ethics of Giving:

Moral Obligation vs. Voluntariness:

Moral obligation addresses whether individuals are morally required to give to those in need, or whether giving is a voluntary act of kindness. Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that those with wealth have a moral duty to help the less fortunate, especially when it involves relatively small sacrifices for significant benefits.

The opposing view suggests that charity is voluntary, a supererogatory (beyond duty) action that individuals can choose to perform but are not ethically bound to do.

How Much to Give:

A significant ethical question is: how much should one give? Some argue for a proportional approach, suggesting that people should give based on their means, while others propose more radical positions, like giving to the point where additional giving would significantly reduce one’s own quality of life.

Peter Singer's famous "drowning child" analogy suggests that, just as you would be morally obligated to save a drowning child if it required minimal sacrifice, so too are you obligated to give as much as possible to help those in poverty or suffering, as long as it doesn’t cause you undue harm.

Effectiveness and Impact:

The effectiveness of giving is a central issue, particularly in movements like effective altruism, which argues that giving should be directed toward the most effective causes, where each dollar can have the greatest impact. This leads to the ethical question of whether it is morally wrong to give to causes that are less efficient or less impactful when better alternatives exist.

Should people focus on saving lives through global poverty initiatives, for instance, or is it equally moral to donate to causes that enhance the quality of life or support cultural endeavors?

Prioritizing Recipients:

The ethics of giving also addresses whom to prioritize in charitable efforts. Should we give to those closest to us (friends, family, local community), or should we prioritize the global poor, who might be in more urgent need? This raises questions of proximity vs. global responsibility.

Some argue for a moral cosmopolitanism, where all lives are equally valuable regardless of location, while others believe it is natural and acceptable to prioritize those closest to us.

Motivations for Giving:

Ethical concerns also focus on the motivation behind giving. Is it more virtuous to give anonymously, or does it matter if one seeks recognition for their charity? Altruism, at its core, is about giving for the sake of others, but self-interested giving (such as giving for social status or tax benefits) complicates this ideal.

Conditional vs. Unconditional Giving:

There is an ethical debate over whether giving should be conditional (requiring recipients to meet certain criteria, such as job training or rehabilitation) or unconditional (giving freely without stipulations). Conditional giving can be seen as paternalistic, while unconditional giving might be criticized for encouraging dependency.

The Role of Government and Systemic Change:

Some ethicists argue that while individual giving is important, it cannot replace systemic changes that address the root causes of poverty, inequality, and injustice. This raises questions about whether it is more ethical to donate to direct aid or to support efforts that seek to reform broader economic, social, and political systems.

Opportunity Cost:

The ethics of giving also considers the opportunity cost of donations—what could have been done with the resources had they not been given? For example, donating to a cause might divert funds from other areas like personal or familial needs, which could raise ethical concerns about balancing generosity with responsibility toward one's immediate obligations.

Ethical Theories on Giving:

Utilitarianism: From a utilitarian perspective, the ethical action is to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. Giving, therefore, should be directed to the most effective means of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number.

Deontology: Deontological ethics focuses on the duty to give rather than the consequences. Some argue that giving is a moral duty regardless of the outcome, based on the principle of helping others in need.

Virtue Ethics: According to virtue ethics, giving is a manifestation of virtues like generosity and compassion. The emphasis is on cultivating good character and acting from a place of moral virtue, rather than solely focusing on the consequences.

The ethics of giving is a multifaceted area of moral philosophy that deals with not only how and why we give but also to whom, how much, and with what motivation. It raises important questions about our responsibilities to others and challenges us to consider how best to balance personal well-being with the needs of those around us, particularly in a world marked by inequality and suffering.

[gallifreyinstituteforlearning]

War Form, Inf-Regen and Weremoths. Why did they not crop up during the Last Great Time War but do during the War? Also what interesting biology facts about them can you tell us?

What are Regen-Infs, Weurmoths, and War Forms?

🔫 Regen-Inf: These are biologically altered soldiers of lesser species, designed to serve in the War in Heaven. They're armed with built-in weaponry and have the ability to regenerate. Their mental makeup is also altered for war-readiness, complete with time-awareness and self-destruct protocols.

🐘 Weurmoths: Weurmoths are specialised Regen-Inf, engineered to act as field carriers for other troops. Picture a humanoid the size of an elephant that went to military school and got decked out with heavy artillery. That's a Weurmoth for you. They're big, they're loaded, but they're also unwieldy due to some laws of physics they can't ignore.

👾 War Forms: War Forms are the stuff of nightmares, engineered to look like monsters. They represent the far edge of Gallifreyan military adaptations, offering both terror and functionality in one monstrous package.

Why didn't Regen-Infs, Weurmoths, and War Forms appear in the Last Great Time War?

Well, it's anyone's guess, but here are some ideas:

Theory 1 - Ethical and Temporal Constraints: Maybe the Time Lords had moral and temporal reservations, leading them to sideline these war assets.

Theory 2 - Resource Allocation: Creating these bio-engineered warriors might have been like constructing a Rolls-Royce for every soldier - impressive but impractical and far too resource-intensive for a war that was already draining Gallifrey's reserves.

Theory 3 - Strategic Focus: The Last Great Time War possibly focused more on tried-and-true tactics at times. Perhaps the Time Lords were too busy using the old playbook.

Theory 4 - High Risks: The self-destructive and highly unstable nature of these beings could have been considered too risky to deploy in a war of such high stakes.

What are some interesting biology facts about Regen-Infs, Weurmoths, and War Forms?

🔫 Regen-Infs

High-Tech Scar Tissue: The 'scar tissue' is an organic blend of biological matter and technology. Maybe they have cells that function like nanobots + nanogenes combined, repairing and upgrading armour in real-time during combat, so every time it's hit, it grows back stronger and instantly.

Dimensional Brain Structures: Their brains are altered to have a level of 'dimensional extrusion,' enabling them to perceive time differently, an invaluable asset in war. This is likely to be a neural network that can process multiple timelines, just like Gallifreyans.

Biochemical Self-Destruct: Should a Regen-Inf soldier find themselves in a compromising position, their bio-engineered physiology can enact a self-destruct sequence. This is likely controlled by a biochemical trigger that induces an instantaneous catastrophic cellular breakdown.

Genetic Splicing: In some cases, the genes from these soldiers can interact with other species, as evidenced by Timon, born to a Regen-Inf and a human. This would involve a sort of gene editing on the fly, causing some … unexpected results.

🐘 Weurmoths

Size vs. Stability: Due to their enormous size, they likely possess specialised skeletal and muscular systems to support their mass. This could involve a lattice structure of incredibly dense but lightweight material, bio-engineered for maximum efficiency.

Firepower and Energy Consumption: Housing the firepower of a battalion means that their cells are likely akin to miniature reactors capable of generating immense amounts of energy. Their metabolism would need to be highly efficient, possibly extracting energy from unconventional sources.

Physical Instability: Maintaining bodily functions and actual movement at such a large size becomes increasingly unstable. They might have multiple redundant systems to manage this, including 'backup' organs and decentralised neural networks.

👾 War Forms

Adaptive Physiology: Their bodies could possess some sort of 'adaptive biology,' where their cellular structure can morph in real-time to counter threats. Think of it as an immune system on steroids, capable of changing the physical attributes of the entity to best handle the immediate threat.

Monstrous Design: The 'monstrous' appearance is not just for show; each aspect of their form could be engineered for a specific function. Spines might serve as both armour and weapon, while multiple limbs could offer greater dexterity and manoeuvrability.

Neurological Networks: Given that they are indistinguishable from monsters, their brain structure might be an intricate mesh of networks capable of running multiple operations at the same time. It's feasible that they could operate autonomously or in a hive-mind setting for coordinated attacks.

Genetic Backdoors: It would be reasonable to assume that they contain 'genetic backdoors,' allowing them to be controlled or disabled if they ever go off-script.

🏫 So ...

The biology of these war-time entities isn't just about splicing genes or grafting weapons onto flesh. It's about crafting organisms specifically designed for the horrors and complexities of multi-dimensional warfare. It's about crossing lines that are not just ethical, but also biological and even temporal, to create entities that are truly abominations of science.

On a lighter note, have a banana.

Related:

Is there any prejudice towards individuals stuck in war forms, during and after the war?: Perceptions of genetic alterations during and post-Time War.

Factoid: Could post-War Time Lords have biological hangups from the conflict?

Hope that helped! 😃

More content ... →📫Got a question? | 📚Complete list of Q+A →😆Jokes |🩻Biology |🗨️Language |🕰️Throwbacks |🤓Facts →🫀Gallifreyan Anatomy and Physiology Guide (pending) →⚕️Gallifreyan Emergency Medicine Guides →📝Source list (WIP) →📜Masterpost If you're finding your happy place in this part of the internet, feel free to buy a coffee to help keep our exhausted human conscious. She works full-time in medicine and is so very tired 😴