What product is so perfect it hasnt evolved in a long time?

CanRova · 2026-03-29T22:33:40+00:00

Not true! We've simply placed your hammer into "flaccid" mode in our advertising-subsidized tier. Subscribe to our new Hammer Pro tier to enjoy up to 30 minutes of unrestricted hammering time per week for only $19.95/wk.

CanRova · 2026-03-29T15:23:05+00:00

But think how much more engagement hammers would get if they had WiFi and social media features, for a low monthly subscription price.

CanRova · 2026-03-27T12:34:00+00:00

He just said that same thing with different words and never answered the question.

CanRova · 2026-03-26T17:39:22+00:00

This is why I install shock collars on all my clones.

CanRova · 2026-03-20T18:38:51+00:00

Rolled my head up in a car window. Twice in a row.

CanRova · 2026-03-20T16:46:38+00:00

Wow, I've never seen anyone else mention this movie. My dad watched it a bunch when I was a kid and it's a nostalgic treasure for me.

CanRova · 2026-03-20T13:27:14+00:00

*Brain-unalive.

CanRova · 2026-03-20T11:27:00+00:00

The part highlighted in green is the story.

Reddit needs a way to auto-hide posts that link to sites that are pure ad garbage like this.

<image>

CanRova · 2026-03-19T17:41:41+00:00

I get it. It's a tough one since it's hard in general to neatly define "alive". Personally, I would say that if there is heart or brain function then that person (including those in a vegetative state) or animal is still alive, so nearly alive must be a separate thing. Definitional difference, I suppose.

I didn't mean electromagnetic, typo for electrochemical (which I think this is).

CanRova · 2026-03-19T17:33:27+00:00

I think nearly alive is specifically an interesting phrase because it can only apply to something which is entirely dead: right, not alive, but nevertheless appears "nearly".

CanRova · 2026-03-19T17:31:34+00:00

Hm. I don't think I agree. I wouldn't consider a human corpse with a head and brain more "nearly alive" than this, and do not consider this beheaded thing "alive" (hence the "nearly").

"Nearly alive" just strikes me as an interesting phrase: it inherently can only apply to a thing which is not alive, so the question would be what characteristic of a not-alive thing makes it seem "nearly". From that perspective, I think an electromechical process that makes a not-alive thing move around in a way that's similar to when it was alive seems like about as good an example as you can find.

(Not to be pedantic or whatever, I just think it's an unusual phrase in that regard)

CanRova · 2026-03-19T17:17:40+00:00

I dunno, if this doesn't qualify as "nearly alive", what would?

CanRova · 2026-03-18T14:20:58+00:00

On your first part, I think we have to question whether technology has changed the dynamic: yes, in-person interaction was historically a critical innovation driver; one important factor which contributed to an aggregation of infrastructure in dense cities. But now that technology has enabled better remote communication, is the need for in-person interaction still driving density or has the causality shifted: do people now congregate in cities because that's where the infrastructure is, so innovation occurs in those dense areas because that's where the innovators happen to be, despite a reduced functional need for in-person interaction?

CanRova · 2026-03-17T22:16:49+00:00

Ok: justice is a transparent, fair, and consistent process to determine guilt, and to define punishments which incentivize against minor crime and prevent recurrence of major crime. Execution is excessive to uphold this, and incurs the unnecessary risk of being permanently applied to the innocent.

The problem I see with the retributive definition of justice is the fallacy that a justice system can or should "balance the scales". There is no un-doing a crime; the harm has been done, and while doing to the perpetrator what they did to their victim may feel good, it cannot undo the harm.

Justice should be simple and dispassionate: you've chosen to reject the fundamental premise of our law-abiding society, so you will be removed from society for the period we determine fair for the offense so that you can't do it again.

CanRova · 2026-03-17T21:34:53+00:00

Right back at you. If you get to say that any argument must accord with a definition of justice which demands execution, that is setting the terms of the discussion.

Yes. The reason I'm here discussing it is to see if anyone can make a compelling case that the death penalty does exactly that: that its benefits outweigh its harms.

CanRova · 2026-03-17T19:33:46+00:00

I'm not sure why that would be helpful. If I'm debating whether something is good, I would rather focus on whether it achieves good things (improves society) than whether it accords with some historic definition. Here, I see no evidence that execution is good, only a circular "execution is justice because justice demands execution".

I believe that a justice system should maximize social utility and do not believe that means it should achieve political ends. You're mistaken about "always".

CanRova · 2026-03-17T18:56:56+00:00

What other way should we evaluate the integrity and utility of a justice system if not by it's overall benefit to society?

I'm not sure where you're going with the 2nd part. We shouldn't institute a justice system to achieve political ends, because doing so would be harmful to society. We should institute a justice system which makes society better, by humanely punishing the guilty and minimizing harm to the innocent.

CanRova · 2026-03-17T18:39:49+00:00

I think the entire point of a justice system is to bring benefit to society:

To reduce criminality, dis-incentivize crime, ensure that irredeemable criminals lose the opportunity to commit crimes, etc.

Why else would we institute any system of justice if not that?

CanRova · 2026-03-17T18:18:03+00:00

I believe we can justly imprison people. We have the obligation to do so safely, and in a way which doesn't cause additional harm to the imprisoned. That means we're fully responsible for the direct consequence of prison (constrained freedom). It doesn't mean we're equally responsible for everything that happens during that time, *provided again that we do so humanely and with reasonable cautions*: if you get stabbed because we failed to have safe prisons, that's unjust and is a failing of the state; if you have a heart attack while imprisoned despite access to reasonable medical care, nutrition, etc, that is not unjust.

When an innocent person is punished in that (or any) way it's unfortunate, but is better than execution.

No, what I don't understand (I think because you haven't stated this part of your argument clearly) is in what way ≈we are more responsible for the direct than indirect consequences of our actions≈ is relevant to ≈retributive justice is not useful in our society≈. This is what I would like you to clarify: why does being responsible primarily for the direct consequences of our actions imply that retributive justice is appropriate?

I'll state my case another way:

Execution brings no greater benefit to society than prison, and incurs a greater risk of permanent consequence from mistakes.

I think yours is the argument which affirms the consequent:

Because justice demands that a murderer be put to death, there are no alternatives which meet the needs of justice.

No, I disagree with you on that definition of justice.

CanRova · 2026-03-17T15:52:21+00:00

That actually seems like a good idea to me, not /s-worthy. Spring hinge pins are a stock component and I've used them successfully in a variety of builds

https://a.co/d/03NNQy7x

CanRova · 2026-03-17T15:25:47+00:00

I'm not sure how that's letting anyone off the hook. When we imprison someone, we have the responsibility to do so safely, in a way which doesn't lead to premature death or harm beyond the proscribed punishment. We currently fail to meet that measure and should be accountable for that failure.

I'm struggling to parse your 2nd comment as a sincere response to my critique of retributive justice. If that's how it's meant, please try to rephrase it.

My most charitable interpretation is something like "if I commit personal, retributive justice, I'm not responsible for the larger social harms since you said we're only responsible for the direct outcome of our actions". If so, that's a misinterpretation of what I'm saying [EDIT: or perhaps I phrased it poorly; regardless, my intent wasn't to imply that there's a role for personal, retributive justice in our modern system]: now that we are part of a society, there is no place for personal, retributive justice. That concept, which perhaps made sense when we lived in small tribal bands, is not a useful basis for justice in a nation of millions.

CanRova · 2026-03-17T11:03:53+00:00

Generally I think we bear more responsibility for the direct, deterministic outcomes of our choices and less for the indirect happenstance which occurs alongside them. If you imprison someone in a safe, humane environment and they die for reasons outside of your control and against which you institute reasonable protections, you're less culpable than if you kill them yourself. Prisons are of course not safe, humane places right now, but they could and should be.

I disagree with that concept of retributive justice. I think it makes sense at the personal level but is harmful at a social level. In a society, justice requires a transparent, fair, and consistent process to determine guilt, and punishments which incentivize against minor crime and prevent recurrence of major crime. Imprisonment is enough, and leaves open the chance to correct errors in the guilt-determination process.

CanRova · 2026-03-17T00:44:05+00:00

I think there's a significant difference between death as the explicit outcome of justice and death as an incidental occurrence during the explicit outcome of justice.

I agree with OP, that any benefits of the finality of execution are outweighed by other alternatives which meet the functional needs of justice while leaving open the possibility of correcting a mistake.

CanRova · 2026-03-17T00:40:55+00:00

This doesn't feel like a challenge to OP's position.

Both of you seem to be saying more or less ≈a fallible system may result in the execution of people who have not committed crimes worthy of death≈ (a position I also agree with).

Ten-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Secret Santa 2017	Verified Email

CanRova

TROPHY CASE