I don't think you can claim that non-replaceable batteries are a clear safety issue, especially when the replacement market would be flooded with cheap junk hand grenades.
The problem I have with that is that I hear it every decade about niche-x. And people are right, but as soon as costs drop enough that niche-x can support the full desktop stack there's now a niche-y where you're still stuck with hundreds of bytes of memory, the market is x10 as big, and you're using the same tools you were using a decade ago.
An 8-bit micro controller will be with us forever because it is the smallest computer that is useful for more than trivial tasks, it will just keep getting smaller and smaller. I won't be surprised if the first space ship to land on a different solar system has trillions of 8-bit computers on it the size of atoms.
>Third, Collins and Lapsley estimate the net costs of smoking, taking into account both those costs that are made greater and those that are reduced because of current and past tobacco use. For example, smoking increases some health care costs because of the higher prevalence of diseases caused by smoking (in smokers and ex-smokers who are still alive). These are the gross health care costs attributable to smoking. However, certain other health care costs are lower than they otherwise would be because of the premature deaths of many people who smoked over the past 40 years. These people did not live to use health care that they otherwise would have, so Collins and Lapsley subtract the costs that would have been incurred from the gross health care costs attributable to smoking in order to estimate the net cost. Similarly, in terms of labour (production) costs first costs that are made greater by smoking are estimated. For example, the time spent undertaking domestic duties because a home-maker is ill or has died prematurely is costed assuming domestic help will be hired. Then, savings due to reduced consumption—for example, household spending on food and clothing—are subtracted because these costs will be lower when there are fewer people in the household as a result of smokers dying earlier.
>Collins and Lapsley estimated that in 2004–05 the total cost of smoking in Australia was $31.5 billion
The only times I've heard of safe spaces and trigger warnings is when people bitch about them. Can we get a safe space were we don't talk about them and a trigger warning about trigger warnings so I never have to look at a bullshit oiece about them?
It's probably related to your location. My guess is you're not on a coast and don't live next to a college or deal with 18-22 year old kids where they feel empowered.
A gracious unwillingness to burden acquaintances && passersby with one's own neuroses is now "privilege". Likewise, being annoyed at having to walk on eggshells around unstable hysterics on campus is a "persecution complex".
I do my best to empathize with the obviously distressed.
That does not extend to humoring the slingers of pseudoclinical quasi-academic cant like "privilege" or "persecution complex" or "trigger warning". That kind of tedious priss-spigot sanctimony needs to be shown the back of a hand.
This violates the HN guidelines. Please don't escalate incivility like that, regardless of how provocative someone else's comments may be. Instead, please (re-)read site guidelines and post civilly and substantively or not at all.
If people telling you to watch your language triggers you to the point of making violent threats then you are over privileged. Dismissing others as hysterics and wanting to backslap them demonstrate a lack of empathy.
In general, when a smug moral imperialist tells me to watch my language, I see it as an invitation to dial the taunting up to eleven. Why resort to violence, when it is so easy to make them press their (very accessible) Emotional Self-Destruct buttons?
Also, being slapped by a Badthinker such as myself would confirm their Sacred Victimhood; my handprint on their gob would be like stigmata on a medieval saint. Deep down, they'd love it in a very disturbing way that I refuse to participate in.
As to my so-called 'privilege', I suppose I can cop to being raised in a milieu where we desired to do no insult to others, on the assumption that we would be given reciprocal goodwill and consideration, unless we were explicitly looking for a fight.
(That is what used to be called 'carrying a chip on one's shoulder', if you are unfamiliar with the idiom.)
The practice of actively courting offense as a method of social signalling would have been seen as perverted and maladaptive.
This isn't about actual psychically wounded people who may need support, or therapy or drugs. This is about filth that use other people's mental anguish (real or imagined) as the base cosmology of a faith of their own creation. It has it's own dogma, and part of being Elect is to denounce heretics. Guilt-tripping innocent people into feeling bad about maybe thinking a crank or malingerer is...a crank or malingerer.
However, given the nullity of soul in most of Misery-Worship's practitioners, once you've heard one denouncement, you can script the rest. It's like listening to a chi-com cadre loudly quote Mao at you from the little red book, or having a particularly inept Scientologist try to audit you.
(Quick, search and replace "trigger" with "charge" and "privilege" with "Body Thetan" and "othered" with "exteriorization". The parallels are eerie...)
If I tell you to use my preferred pronouns is that just cause for taunting? I've had people say so in various instances offline and online. So I can't say there's really any room for that sort of behavior (at least offline).
Orwell talked about this in one of his essays. The man who does not have fascism beating in his breast can't understand the pleasure of smashing someones have with a boot for all eternity. Sex, money and control have nothing to do with the pleasure of destroying others and their work.
Just like Hitler wrote (and proved), if you just lie big enough, people will be too "polite" to even suspect it a lie, and that works in many layers. E.g. for many wars, there is the outermost facade which is usually "we have to save X from the aggression of Y". Then there is "we meant well, but made mistakes" as the next layer, then comes "we didn't really mean well, it was about geopolitics and national power", then "it's not actually about national power, but about transfer of tax payer money to the military-industrial complex which ultimately has no ties to any particular nation, at the deliberate expense of social development".
And then you have the same game with the people involved in that, first there's how much they care for their children and are worried they might have to grow up without private jets, or how they're just trying to prevent a job someone would do anyway being done badly, and a whole host of other good reasons (maybe they simply operate a "business" and it "makes sense" to "make profit", no further questions). Then there's how they really just want power and fame, because we're all just apes and that's what apes want, and so on... but that they might simply be sociopath/narcissist and essentially stuck at some point in their childhood they built a shell around, that they might be merely a black hole chasing a fix they can never quite reach, now that is too much. Sure, we grant that it occurs here and there, but not as a major driving force, as the underlying pattern for a lot of things. No, of course it has to be more grandiose than that, if only because we're under the heel of and/or doing it.
It boils down to this, "normal" people aren't that way, simply cannot fathom the utterly alien and barren landscape some others operate in, and would rather pile on rationalizations and faux complexity. Even you described as "pleasure" which I would assume is more a temporary relief from the pain and fear of existence someone who never got to develop a personality feels constantly, and tries to instill in others.
TLDR:
> "I learned that it is the weak who are cruel, and that gentleness is to be expected only from the strong."
While I didn't put it that way, that's not the worst summary. Though I would say whatever induced his narcissistic personality disorder made him weak, and his disorder made him cruel. Lack of empathy and the inability to reflect are not strengths.
Hitler came back from WW1 with the same rank he went in, which was a huge disappointment for him, then he failed as an artist and ended up in homeless shelter where he was disliked because, well, I guess he just wasn't very lovable or interesting. He was driven by resentment and a feeling of inferiority, which is narcissism 101, as is the fact that he put on a great show which he and others fell for.
Generally, even when "just" talking about a sociopath desire for power and less about the self-destruction of someone as sick as Hitler: any leash transforms people on both ends, and the very desire to have power over others betrays a lack of inner strength and integrity. I can't prove that, but I'll claim it. And furthermore I think people pretend to themselves and each other that power is an end in and of itself, because they're so scared of what it covers up. When you walk on a landmine, you can't just go on pretending you still have legs -- not so with abuse, trauma and neglect resulting in a haywire personality development, where routing around things, in ourselves and others, is often our default reaction.
P.S. If you're really interested in the psychology of Hitler as well as the Nazis historically I can recommend the books by Sebastian Haffner, the titles make it kind of obvious which ones apply.
