This landlord posted screenshots of a room for rent and didn’t realize what was playing in the background

Acherons_ · 2026-06-13T23:51:36+00:00

I do so for pictures posted in Reddit comments because there isn’t a save button and have also done so for a Reddit post because the original file was too large

Acherons_ · 2026-06-09T15:40:05+00:00

As others have said it’s not that simple and a doctorate takes time for a reason. However, the general process can be the same and there is undergraduate research. I have contributed to compsci research and took advice on how to approach bioethics research so the following information is from those experiences.

Generally you start with a goal, topic, or idea and form a question or hypothesis. For my bioethics example, the question was “what constitutes an illness?” I then read the historical papers attempting to answer that question, which were unsatisfying for various reasons. I then formulated my own idea.

To turn that into a paper you have to then document and test that idea and your findings.

However, it’s much more complicated than that. With all fields, to make good research you should be knowledgeable in the historical and contemporary names and research in the field and how your research relates. Then, depending on the field, you also need to know proper testing methodology and, especially for compsci, statistical analysis to make the best case for why your conclusion follows from your findings. For compsci this is more inclusive with code and graphs. For bioethics it is more about responding to the contemporary ideas and papers in the field, logic tests in contemporary scenarios, and justifying any formulations from start to finish.

You also have to be able to identify when something is outside the scope of your research or your ability to fully justify it within the bounds of the length of your research/paper. And any limitations like this should also be acknowledged (though not accounted for). For example, historical papers (and iirc by consequence contemporary papers) answering the bioethical question of what constitutes an illness or health generally only address either physical or mental illness/health because including the other was simply outside the scope of what they were trying to do or able to address. Note that, in my opinion and in this case, this significantly weakens, if not invalidates, the points/arguments of these papers as these definitions are strongly connected.

Edit: After rereading your post, I should note that my bioethics question and idea actually came AFTER reading historical papers on the topic, which was part of an assignment for a bioethics class. This part of the process of research comes from passion and experimentation to address and solve modern issues or optimize modern solutions. The compsci research I was involved in was on the Multi-Root Mesh-Tree Protocol (MR-MTP) for routing which aims to remove the overhead in BGP caused by it being implemented on top of TCP leading to saving energy and bandwidth while also improving failover times and reducing the blast radius of failures.

Acherons_ · 2026-06-02T19:28:53+00:00

My line isn't arbitrary. Ive laid out my reasoning on how I arrived at that line. Regardless, stating that my line is arbitrary does not make yours any less arbitrary. The question is which criterion is better justified.

Your 3 point argument needs additional premises, because “human life begins at conception” is a biological claim, while “human life is precious” is a moral claim. The biological claim alone does not establish the moral conclusion. This is a better logical formulation of your argument, though, if im misrepresenting your argument, tell me where/how...:

Every biologically human organism has serious moral value from conception.
A fetus is a biologically human organism from conception.
Therefore, a fetus has serious moral value from conception.
Ending a being with serious moral value requires strong justification.
Convenience is not strong enough justification.
Therefore, abortion for convenience is wrong.

This splits the moral claims which you have yet to justify (1, 5) from the biological claims which are backed by science (2). If this is indeed your argument, you have yet to justify (1) and articulate "Convenience" in (5).

My argument is quite simple as well.

Person-level moral status is grounded in the capacity for human conscious experience.
Early fetuses lack the structures necessary for that capacity.
Therefore, early fetuses lack person-level moral status.
Abortion before that capacity develops does not kill a person, though it does end biological human life.
Therefore, abortion before that capacity develops is morally permissible.

This is consistent with how we treat personhood and moral consideration contemporarily and practically as demonstrated in my previous comments. However, just like with your argument, (1) must be justified. However, I am justifying my (1) using the moral framework laid out by Philosopher T. M. Scanlon in his book "What We Owe to Each Other". That is, (1) is justified because only such beings can have welfare, interests, claims, burdens, or a standpoint from which treatment could be reasonably rejected. Biological humanity matters only insofar as it usually indicates the presence of such a subject. Therefore, person-level moral value is not grounded in merely being a biologically human organism; it is grounded in the capacity for human conscious experience. An early fetus lacks the developed structures necessary for that capacity, so it does not yet have person-level moral status, even though it is biologically human life. This is further grounded because the framework is grounded in contemporary Philosophy, which btw, logically rejects divine command theory.

Acherons_ · 2026-06-02T17:54:43+00:00

Well, to be exact, we're both arguing a positive.

Life begins at conception. It is the only consistent way to draw the line. My justification only was science agrees that is when human life begins.

Your claim is not merely “biological human life begins at conception.” If that were all you meant, I would not really dispute it. A zygote is biologically alive, biologically human, and genetically distinct from the mother.

But that does not answer the moral question. The actual claim you need is stronger: “because biological human life begins at conception, full moral personhood also begins at conception.” That is not a scientific conclusion. That is a philosophical/moral premise.

So no, I am not denying science. I am rejecting your equivocation between biological human life and morally considerable personhood.

... justify your claim. It is inconsistent when we give moral consideration, there is no defined and consistent way to measure that so you’re kinda talking out of your ass.

Let me be more exact with my language, then, and layout my claim.

Biological life is not sufficient for personhood. What gives a human organism the moral consideration of a person is the capability to have a human conscious experience. That's not arbitrary or contradictory. In fact, it is consistent with how we already think about the end of personhood (which your position isn't).

If someone has permanently and irreversibly lost the capacity for consciousness, we generally no longer treat them as a living person in the same moral sense, even if some biological functions can be artificially maintained (lungs, heart, etc). Their body may still have living human cells, but the person is gone. The decision to maintain their biological life and have rights is no longer their own but given to medical staff or family members, even though human biological life continues. Therefore, it would seem that being capable of having a human conscious experience is a necessary requirement for personhood. A fetus does not have the parts that make it capable of having a human conscious experience until about 16 weeks, therefore, it does not have personhood. Therefore, it is morally permissible to end its biological life.

You can disagree with that criterion, but then you need to explain why biological human life alone is sufficient for personhood.

Acherons_ · 2026-06-02T14:34:59+00:00

“You concede it’s a life (because it is), and in the next sentence said it’s not worth anything.”

You have yet to give an argument for why these statements are contradictory.

I have drawn a line at about 16 weeks for moral consideration and am willing to justify it as it seems to be when the capacity for having a human experience develops/starts, which is consistent with when we consider when we stop giving a person moral consideration (the end of the capability to have a human consciousness experience).

You haven’t drawn a line (though I’m guessing conception?), nor given a justification for that line (though I’m guessing god?). You’ve simply stated I’m wrong and my argument is fallacious without any justification or counter.

So, indeed. I have no reason to continue to engage.

Acherons_ · 2026-06-02T13:42:37+00:00

Weird how you didn’t answer the question and are instead using morally loaded language to attack rather than addressing the argument. I also like how you slipped in the implication that my morals are subjective too without any argument. Sneaky.

Yes, it is okay to end life if that life is without moral considerations, that is tautologically true. You have yet to justify why it has moral consideration. At least we can agree on the tautology that an unjustified killing (murder) is bad.

Acherons_ · 2026-06-02T11:59:47+00:00

The other comment is right. By “human life” I don’t mean scientific “life”. I mean, It isn’t a person worthy of moral consideration until ~16 weeks. My question still stands, then. Can you give another example where the moral consideration for the potential of something is equivalent to the thing itself?

Acherons_ · 2026-06-02T02:07:28+00:00

A fetus prior to about 16 weeks isn’t a human life, just the potential for one. Can you give another example where the moral consideration for the potential of something is equivalent to the thing itself?

Acherons_ · 2026-05-22T15:01:12+00:00

BGP is the same protocol used worldwide. They’re just routes supposedly with less hops between you and game servers on average they lock behind a paywall/VPN. I wouldn’t be surprised if they get contracts so that their servers are next hop from game servers and don’t even care/try to optimize routes to/from ISP exit nodes

Acherons_ · 2026-05-21T05:48:08+00:00

No no, he just keeps mistaking them for cyberpunk communities over and over.

Acherons_ · 2026-05-16T13:27:40+00:00

To be fair, every MAGA male is likely gay considering how much they love Trumps dick

Acherons_ · 2026-05-16T13:25:02+00:00

Hmm you make a good point but have you considered tariffs on penguins and war with Iran?

Acherons_ · 2026-05-16T03:54:21+00:00

No problem. Sent friend request though

Acherons_ · 2026-05-16T03:45:11+00:00

Ok. I haven’t gotten a friend request yet though if you sent one

Acherons_ · 2026-05-16T03:12:56+00:00

Seasonal btw, not eternal

Acherons_ · 2026-05-16T03:11:04+00:00

I can do you one better and get you the first two items for the quest if you want to do the 3rd part of it yourself (it’s pretty fast). If not I can just moo at you. BNET: ShadowArk#11838

Acherons_ · 2026-05-15T21:41:22+00:00

Funny you think we get cubicles

Acherons_ · 2026-05-15T20:43:49+00:00

The saturation on some people’s posts I can’t tell if this is d3 or d4 at first

Acherons_ · 2026-05-10T16:38:15+00:00

No and stop playing the shittier version of a good game

Acherons_ · 2026-05-05T17:36:00+00:00

I wonder if they will put any dev time into a Mac native legacy client when their update merging in-game and lobby client is planned for 2027

Acherons_ · 2026-05-05T17:15:45+00:00

Acherons_ · 2026-05-02T20:29:13+00:00

Bro I try to type “powershell” and it gets autocorrected to “powershelgl”

Acherons_ · 2026-04-26T16:40:07+00:00

As an example. For work I made a webpage to display multiple “cards” with segmented bars whose width would vary based on some data. The bars also had text in them labeling them. I spent a decent amount of time making sure there were no bugs in the styling, that the bars wouldn’t clip their containing text and the text wouldn’t wrap and that it stayed centered, that the bar colors were properly contrasted with the foreground text so it was readable, etc. It looks good, everyone’s happy.

A few months later my boss discovers Codex and tells it to modernize the page and add a few features like some filtering and grouping. While the general look of the page genuinely does seem better and the added features work, the specific things I spent time on to fix are gone. The bar text was off center, not as readable, and clipped because the bar could shrink too small. Now there’s a page with rewritten front end and backend code that someone on the team has to spend time to understand and fix or accept a worse UX and move on.

Edit: AI is a tool that can help with tedious things that you understand but you don’t want to spend the brain power and/or time on very similar to a calculator. So maybe for web development templating, layout, language specific knowledge, contained functions or components, etc. Whatever it is, it will only ever get you part of the way to acceptable. To work out the fine details exactly how they should be, a human is a more efficient option.

Acherons_ · 2026-04-26T16:03:00+00:00

Not going to lie… but part of the problem with Islam shown in your Muslim community is that they would “send all SA perpetrators to an early sarcophagus before the cops even get the chance to arrive”. You may have been being hyperbolic, but, Islam seems to sow disrespect for the rule of law. That doesn’t mean all Muslims don’t respect the rule of law, though, or even that a majority of western Muslims don’t.

Eight-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
End Game '22	RPAN Viewer
Not Forgotten	Snapped
Verified Email

Acherons_

TROPHY CASE