I think we have a different view in Europe on it - Germany had a model of national military service until 2011 (with the option of civil service), the Nordic model includes military service etc. So it isn't completely unimaginable - we just have a different view on the topic.
Gnome, hands now.
Before coming to Linux, I was an Apple user. I was a fan of their design philosophy - minimalism, clarity and simplicity. Well, I can't tolerate Apple as an enterprise, and there are also a lot of very weird design desicions which I discovered while using their devives - but the core principle is something I stand by.
Gnome in my opinion is exactly that - KISS, and all the options are really polished.
I've tried KDE as well, and have a lot of respect for the developers of it. But after using it for a few days, there are just a lot of inconsistencies in the KDE applications which don't make sense to me.
True, hood point. I remember to have read a study according to which a disproportionate amount of people at the top (aka CEOs) display narcissistic behavioral traits - so it can make sense to suspect the same applies to other personality disorders.
It just feels ahhh to me - that these people dont utilize their talents and itelligence to improve the world, but to build up ways to monetize every last bit of your time. Like come on :/
Am I the only one who gets the feeling that this is kinda dystopic? Like come on, this just gets crazy. It amazes me that some people think this is an ethically acceptable way to earn money.
Yes, definitely. For me, it is kind of a meditation - while I work out, I can't really think a lot, and after working out I'm exhausted. It is just a reset for thoughts.
Okay, let me rephrase - for me it sounds that if people work together, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Aka, if I am one of the twenty who sit around and do nothing, stand up, I on my own probably won't be able to block the policy. But if I stand up, there's a good chance others will get up as well and do. Or maybe I'll discover that after I stand up, there are three others of whom I haven't suspected anything, but who now also oppose the policy. And thus by standing up, you also influence others. If that is successful (aka if you can stop the policy or not), you can only find out afterwards.
Then every single person who takes any action would make a difference in the world and change the situation, which obviousy isn't true. Lots of people have tried rebelling and fighting against a regime, but failed. So this logic doesn't apply in every case, does it?
I think the argument is kinda weak, because from my decision to do something (like construct a weapon) the other workers at the factories don't change their opinion. For these kinds of events to happen, there must either already be a huge grudge in the workforce, so that you're the "tipping point", or you have to be as charismatic as a reborn Jesus and convince everyone to follow you. Both of these events seem implausible here. Thus, your decision to make or not make a weapon will not influence others, and the outcome won't be significant.
However, I'd love to have your input on it. I think the question if for the judgment of an action it is important that it is significant (or not) is a fundamentally important one, so I'd really appreciate your response here :)
Very good criterias! I think OP posted a great question, and your philosophy seems to be a very interesting merge of a virtue-based approach (that A/B is always good/bad) and an utilitarian one. I like it at a lot :)
I think we have a different view in Europe on it - Germany had a model of national military service until 2011 (with the option of civil service), the Nordic model includes military service etc. So it isn't completely unimaginable - we just have a different view on the topic.