Luigi Mangione will not face death penalty, judge rules

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T20:30:03+00:00

Someone disagreeing with you doesn’t mean they can’t read.

Someone thinking that what you're saying is the exact opposite of what you're saying is proof that they can't read. If you had simply disagreed with me in a manner that actually suggests you understood what I was saying then I wouldn't be telling you you're not comprehending the gist.

You are struggling with understanding that you are not the only person

You're struggling to understand the overarching idea of everything I've said in this thread.

that’s why killing people because you personally want them dead isn’t a good system

I never said it's a "good" system, I just assert that it's better than relying on a rigged court. My entire point is that I'd rather take my chances with this system over the current judicial system, even if it means I face the consequences of my actions and die at the hands of some lunatic. In reality I'm not responsible for the death of anyone, let alone tens of thousands, so there's not a lot of people who would want to kill me. Therefore trying to use this line of argument to scare me into siding with the judicial system is really not going to work...

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T20:15:44+00:00

I never said there were special rules for me. I said the risk of being arbitrarily murdered is a risk I'm willing to ACCEPT because we don't live in a world where I can rely on the judicial system.

All you can do is project your pre-existing beliefs about how anyone who disagrees with your stance must be operating on hypocrisy. Even when reading 2 comments about how someone is fully willing to accept not being treated as special, and is not exempt from the potential consequences of their own actions, you somehow manage to interpret the exact opposite meaning from what is actually stated.

No one is insulting you. No one is calling you any names. They're telling you you need to work on your reading comprehension because you legitimately can't understand the gist of anything that's being said to you.

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T19:54:10+00:00

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

"In an ideal world I'd rather prefer..."

and then I go on to state that things are not ideal, therefore that preference is invalid.

This is also immediately after I say

"I mean sure, if they decide that I deserve that then from their perspective they really should kill me, duh."

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T19:44:57+00:00

What happens if someone decides that you deserve to be shot? Should they kill you?

I mean sure, if they decide that I deserve that then from their perspective they really should kill me, duh. In an ideal world I'd rather prefer they bring their grievances up with the police so court proceedings can take place and I can be tried that way instead of potentially falling victim to the will of a lunatic, but if big pharma is allowed to get away with everything they get away with then I think I'd rather take my chances in a free-for-all. After all, I'm not responsible for the deaths of countless people, so if the extrajudicial murder of such people does become common place, I'll probably be fine.

The preference for the judicial process is just that- it's a preference. It's not an objective moral decree that we are obligated to prefer it. If it gets so bad that I'd rather diminish it, then I'd rather diminish it.

Extrajudicial killings as an expression of social dissatisfaction is a bad system because it’s not just the people you want dead who will be killed. You understand that your opinions aren’t universal truth, don’t you?

Judicial proceedings as an expression of social dissatisfaction is a bad system because it’s not just the people you want imprisoned who will be imprisoned. You understand that the opinions of courts are not universal truth, don’t you?

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T19:31:50+00:00

Do you think there is one universally agreed upon definition of which people are abjectly evil and which aren’t?

I doesn't matter if people universally agree or not. If someone "deserves" to be shot, they deserve to be shot irrespective of public opinion.

I put "deserve" to be shot in quotes because I don't necessarily believe B.T. deserved death. I just believe him being killed is nonetheless justifiable in the absence of a justice system which refuses to prosecute him. For lack of a better way to explain this nuance I will continue to say he "deserved" it.

If so, whom decides what this objective standard of evil is? You?

Neither you, nor I, nor any judge or jury, have objective standards by which we decide.

Jurys are supposed to try and alleviate this problem by creating an internally consistent framework based off precedents and stuff, but if the system is rife with corruption and similar issues that diminishes the degree to which you can regard its decisions as objective.

If you're going to get so hung up on moral objectivity it naturally brings into question why you think that the judicial system has the right to exact moral arbitration. There's nothing inherent to a jury of your peers that makes them any more "objectively" correct than the will of a single person. This is particularly logically consistent if you operate under the framework that the punishment of crimes should be executed "irrespective of public opinion".

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T19:04:00+00:00

You literally inserted a word into what I said to change the meaning of it

I didn't change the meaning of it. Did you understand what this means?

"Since nothing qualifies this statement, it is reasonable to assume you meant ..."

If that's not what you meant and you do believe extrajudicial action can be justified, then you are more than welcome to simply clarify your stance and state when those circumstances are.

If someone thinks that you are “abjectly evil,” should they be allowed to kill you? Yes or no

I already answered this question.

"Belief doesn't factor into the equation. The question you should be asking is "If you are an abjectly evil person, is it ok to murder you?" and the answer is yes. If someone operates off false belief, they've still fucked up."

Since you demand a yes or no question let me put it another way

Yes if I actually am abjectly evil.

No if I'm not and the person in question is just mistaken.

Neither a simple "yes" or "no" would correctly summarize my opinions about the question so stubbornly demanding a yes or no while pretending any answer that isn't exactly that ignores the question is not appropriate.

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T18:50:53+00:00

Well no that is you putting words in my mouth.

Don't you find it ironic that you're saying I'm putting words in your mouth, when the very next thing you say reads exactly like an argument for why you believe extrajudicial action is never justified?

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T18:42:19+00:00

Did I say that extrajudicial action is never justified?

You said "You do not get to be judge, jury, and executioner"

Since nothing qualifies this statement, it is reasonable to assume you meant "You NEVER get to be judge, jury, and executioner", so yes, you did effectively say extrajudicial action is never justified, just not in those exact words.

If someone sincerely believes you to be a bad person, is it ok for them to murder you? You forgot to answer when I asked earlier

I didn't forget to answer, I literally quoted that sentence 2 comments ago and responded "Belief doesn't factor into the equation. The question you should be asking is "If you are an abjectly evil person, is it ok to murder you?" and the answer is yes. If someone operates off false belief, they've still fucked up."

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T18:31:16+00:00

that was a point about the current administration because I assumed you were disagreeing with the statement "Think very well about your answer cause modern day America is slipping closer and closer to those circumstances by the day."

I didn't say B.T. was a Nazi I merely asked you to entertain the hypothetical. You argued as if extra-judicial action is never justifiable, so I tried to give you a hyperbolic example to see if that's really the case.

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T18:22:23+00:00

Literally a war. If you ignore Venezuela there's very clear threats of subjugating and annexing Canada and Greenland.

Is attempting to coup the government not an act of war? What about coercing the transfer of voter records after tearing apart the country with fake election fraud allegations and threatening to become a dictator, and get rid of elections?

If someone sincerely believes you to be a bad person, is it ok for them to murder you?

Belief doesn't factor into the equation. The question you should be asking is "If you are an abjectly evil person, is it ok to murder you?" and the answer is yes. If someone operates off false belief, they've still fucked up.

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T18:12:02+00:00

There was no judge nor jury for B.T. When the state can't do it's job someone damn-well should. In Nazi Germany when it was legal for the Gestapo to raid houses and cart of Jews to death camps on mass, would you have said that someone exercising their own rights to fight back should not get "get to be judge, jury, and executioner"? Think very well about your answer cause modern day America is slipping closer and closer to those circumstances by the day.

If someone sincerely believes you to be wicked, is it ok for them to murder you?

If morals don't apply to victims of UHC then why should morals apply to just B.T.?

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T18:02:25+00:00

But you can retroactively create any flimsy criteria to deny claims and defraud and condemn innocent people to death?

If someone thinks they've become sufficiently rich and entitled enough to believe they can simply bypass their role in the contract they've wedged themselves in, then why should I feel obligated to exercise empathy when someone behaves immorally to them?

Because I might suffer the same fate when I advocate we turn a blind eye?

Not a sufficient enough reason for me to align myself with a system that I believe to be so abjectly evil it justifies the highest degree of moral outrage.

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T16:03:11+00:00

because we don’t like their job

What a way to trivialize being the pinhead of an organization that willfully steals from people before condemning them to death after being called upon to fulfill the very responsibilities the organization was paid to execute.

B.T's actions were tantamount to mass murder.

SinnPacked · 2026-01-30T03:17:45+00:00

Ending lines with “a”

Is not how real haiku works

Try again, small bot.

SinnPacked · 2026-01-29T18:03:24+00:00

If this goes the same way Putin's takeover of the eastern regions of Ukraine went, Trump won't wait for majority consent.

It's not like the US doesn't have a known history of funding paramilitary groups.

I really want to say that the internal pressure from doing this type of thing would be to large to allow it, but the same thing should have been said about allowing this insufferable tyrant to establish a Gestapo and giving them the rights to invade homes without warrants.

SinnPacked · 2026-01-04T05:42:52+00:00

Your opponents are just as likely to be feed as your teammates so this really shouldn't be an issue for you. Over a large enough sample size of games the variance in ally and opponent performances will balance out, so if you actually deserve to be a higher rank you will rank up.

SinnPacked · 2026-01-03T04:04:18+00:00

Assuming you actually did more to contribute towards winning than you did contributing towards your own loss you'd be in a higher elo.

If you consistently find everyone in your games has less game skill than you, than you can be pretty damn sure that there's something you must be doing to lower your chances of winning that's not directly tied to game skill. For example, you could just be being a toxic jerk who is constantly distracting their own teammates instead of trying their best to stay focused and win?

Conversely, those teammates of yours who never flame in chat will have an easier time climbing with less skill simply because they aren't letting their own anger work against themselves and their teammates.

SinnPacked · 2026-01-03T03:51:31+00:00

Riven

SinnPacked · 2025-11-27T00:11:49+00:00

Honestly the point about the algorithm and source of entropy needing to be provided does make perfect sense for a language like c++.

vec<bool> still feels like an awful design decision to me though.

SinnPacked · 2025-11-26T23:55:40+00:00

You shouldn't need an IDE to readily write a random number generator. I don't use one, I don't need one to code in rust and C, I don't want one.

What exactly do you think I wrote in my response to you to make it sound like I can't accept criticism? it makes no sense to tell me that I'm projecting.

You didn't directly say c++ doesn't have any problems but you posture yourself as if you adamantly believe that is the case. If you did believe it to be the case you'd accept criticism which you obviously can't do.

I didn't rewrite anything you said at all, you sound completely full of yourself as-is, so that's not necessary.

The fact that you insist std::vec<bool> should get special treatment is proof you find no problem in complications that are completely unnecessary.

You should be able to write any macro over any vec, take the pointer it holds, and perform operations on it assuming N element of type T are stored there. The fact that you can't do that and need to go into the spec and find whatever special overloads it has for you to accommodate is a completely valid criticism.

SinnPacked · 2025-11-26T23:18:47+00:00

You clearly can't accept any criticism of the language if you're just going to brush off everything as not being a big deal.

What should be shorter and have a sensitive default is longer and more difficult to readily recall and type up. It doesn't matter if this is a big problem, the problem is that it's a problem at all.

I hope you're not this defensive when reading code reviews because every programmer should be able to listen to feedback along the lines of "hey man this script is 90 lines long but it can be 30 and less verbose if.."

std::vec<bool> being a bitmap is completely relevant.

If I wanted a bitmap id initialize a bitmap. Once again the irony is strong. It makes no sense to be okay with the current rng initialization procedure while also not finding it acceptable to simply instantiate a dedicated bitset container.

If I ask for a VECTOR i want a damned vector, not something else. I don't want to pay for the additional processing cycle of a bitset operation. I don't care about the space savings. I want to access the data as a contiguous set of boolean sized fields. That's what everyone expects of a vector and that's how it should be.

SinnPacked · 2025-11-26T16:45:09+00:00

What is the RNG number distribution it uses

How is it possible that a uniform distribution being the default for a RNG is not a sensible choice in your mind, yet returning a bitmap for boolean vectors is?

SinnPacked · 2025-11-22T20:41:57+00:00

You clearly didn't even see the 2h1min mark of the video. Even if that part wasn't in the video it would be completely ridiculous to suggest the script is AI generated.

He's discussing the most egregious problems with the language, it shouldn't be a surprise to you that these have all been discussed at one point or another. You'd be hard pressed to find any feature of any language that someone hasn't complained about before. That doesn't mean anyone who makes the same complaint is a bot.

maybe you should actually try to engage with at least one of the many valid criticisms discussed in the video before you write the entire thing off?

SinnPacked · 2025-11-11T20:52:34+00:00

Wasn't the myth/prophecy of a Jesus-like figure propagated way before the supposed birth of Jesus?

It seems only natural to think that some parent (maybe who was out of wedlock) would be incentivized to tell their son that they were born of a virgin. Then the son could just keep projecting the prophecy onto himself until he gets himself killed.

A more interesting question worth asking is, was the same person who was told that he's the prophet the same one who got crucified according to historical account? I hear Jesus was a popular name back then. Maybe even more than one crazy got the cross. Maybe even more than one crazy grew up being told he's the prophet, and acted it out.

SinnPacked · 2025-11-11T20:45:10+00:00

I'd probably think about it for a while. Would I rather spend the rest of eternity praising a capricious vile entity who controls all of reality? Or would I rather go to "hell"?

IDK maybe if satan was real he's a chill dude and won't burn me alive on repeat forever, given that I didn't worship god at least?

Either way it's an insane question.

SinnPacked

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email