Yep, I know what you're talking about, but spotify weights songs it thinks you'll like higher than other songs, and with big playlists it really is a noticeable problem. There are services that shuffle the order of your playlist, so then in spotify you play it with spotifys shuffle turned off, and yes there are "patterns" that I notice (one song I had in their twice, I think like a single version and album version, was right next to itself), but at least I actually hear songs I haven't heard in a long time, and I don't get the same ones regularly
Because my playlist has thousands of songs yet I hear the same ones a lot, their algorithm weights songs it thinks you like to be more common in the shuffle
Yes, if I were in the original position and there was a chance I could be born into a life of being treated like property with no autonomy and completely incapable of improving my lot in life, that would be unacceptable.
From the original position it doesn't matter how you interact with a society, if the society affects you it is relevant and worth considering from the original position. For a human-to-human example, a slaveowner could use that logic to say that slaves aren't members of society so therefore the original position doesn't extend to them. But it does extend to them, they are affected by the society even if they don't get to make decisions about how it operates or interact with it freely, the society's norms, values, and what it accepts heavily influences their life and experience of the world, and so they are very much worth considering from the original position. From the original position, there's a chance you could be the one born under the heel of societies boot, and that society might not view you as part of their society and use that to justify your abuse and exploitation. All the more if you're not human and can't advocate and fight strategically for your own freedom the way humans can
Edit: obviously a human slave, once freed, would be able to participate in society in a way that a nonhuman animal couldn't, but even then there are humans with severe brain damage or severe mental illness who would not be able to participate in society much. From the original position they matter too, even if they can't participate in society or be held responsible for things
it's a really useful thought experiment, and once you understand it I think it becomes clear why it matters every time any being suffers or experiences injustice and/or exploitation
not literally punished, but socially responded to negatively. I've been lucky that I haven't experienced it much (and even then, I still struggle to open up), but it's a very real thing. For men, one umbrella term that includes this concept is "toxic masculinity"
And why would you be ridiculed and scorned for opening up emotionally?
because people are mean and repeat the mean things that have been done to them, and difficult emotions make people uncomfortable and one way to avoid them is punishing people who do open up
Not to mention unexpected costs. It's happened to me a few times where I've gone to the dr, gave them my insurance, and then a few weeks later get a bill in the mail they never mentioned. Fortunately they were all under the amount where it can't affect my credit score 😈
sometimes it's not like that, like when I got a vasectomy or got my wisdom teeth removed they told me at the desk when I first went in how much my insurance covers, how much was out of pocket, and I was able to make an informed decision on whether it was worth it, and paid right there. The surprise ones wouldn't have been worth the out of pocket cost, so I would've said no if given the chance
No, to the best of my knowledge plants aren't sentient. By sentient I mean "the ability to experience feelings and sensations", which I think is the primary way that word is used. Something could be sentient with no way to react to senses (a paralyzed person for example), or able to "react" to "senses" without experiencing anything (a computer, chemical reaction, or to the best of my knowledge, plants would be examples of this)
the main reason I don't think sapient (as you describe it) is a good marker for who/what is morally relevant is that we can likely agree there are pretty obvious cases where sentient, but not sapient, beings are morally relevant. The first example is baby humans, next is adult humans who are not sapient (terrible injury, disability, etc, could lead to a loss or lack of sapience while retaining sentience), and then even for nonhumans I think we can agree that kicking a dog is a morally relevant action (there could be circumstances where it's justifiable or even good, e.g. kicking them out of the way of a car. But kicking them for fun is wrong)
No clue, sorry. Looking at the list, I'd go with "multilingual thumb-key" or just thumb-key. Messageease is the proprietary keyboard thumb key is based on, and I think more thought has been put into making even more optimized layouts for thumbkey, so I'd guess the messageease one is a bit outdated, and I think there might be a two hand mode that "type-split" is for but idk
sentientism is compatible with deontology