I just recently (finally) read this paper thanks to @GnomeGodsGnomeMasters@hexbear.net and as much as it’s a really interesting framework, imo it has serious problems particularly with the Weak Harming Principle B it asserts and I’m curious to hear what anyone here thinks.

If you don’t want to read the 22 page paper (valid, but imo it’s worth it), I’ll summarize the relevant bits below.

The problem I have is best shown on page 21-22, where the author says:

Essentially, there are both bad and good reasons for harming. The rights view holds that a wrong reason for harming animals is this: harming will bring about “the best” aggregate consequences for all those affected by the outcome. And, as argued, two acceptable justifications for causing harm are: (1) the harm is non-basic and causing it will prevent another from enduring a basic harm, or (2) the harm is trivial and causing it will prevent another from enduring a serious harm. While we should not appeal to the aggregate of harm to justify harm imposition, we ought to appeal to the magnitude of harm (Regan 1983, 389–390).

They explicitly argue we shouldn’t look at the total harm caused, and instead look only at the magnitude on each recipient, but this plus the Weak Harming Principle B implies some pretty wild shit.
The Weak Harming Principle B alone implies that if it’s necessary to cut off one person’s arms to save another person’s life, we should do it. Under the constraints that the second person’s life ending is a basic harm (they have a life worth living, they wouldn’t die the next day anyway, etc) I think this is a reasonable view even if I’m not sure I agree personally. Pairing this with the “look at the magnitude of harm, not the aggregate” leads to the mildly insane conclusion that if it’s necessary to save that one person’s life, we should cut off every pair of arms on earth.
This isn’t me cherry picking the author for one badly phrased sentence or anything, either - they very explicitly establish that (basic harm of one being) > (serious harm of many beings) more than once throughout the essay, though with significantly less extreme examples than I used.

This framework feels really promising to me, other than this (significant imo) hole in it - it seems like the bones of it are correct but it needs another piece or two to be complete. Does anyone have any ideas about what those pieces might be? Am I just missing something in my understanding? I’d appreciate any thoughts

I don’t understand the modlog behaviour and didn’t find any posts explaining it in a search, so I’m hoping someone more familiar with the fediverse backend(s) can explain it. General answers would be great, but I’ll put the specific context I’m not understanding as well in case that’s relevant:

https://album.link/ca/i/1385954418

I just thought of how much I’d benefit from a way to filter out communities matching a name pattern, saw there was no way to do it in the voyager app, and then checked the piefed web ui and there it is. Now I can finally stop playing whack-a-mole with -moe communities (murdermoe, mechamoe, etc) when anime girls aren’t my thing.

This post is half for other chronic app-users like me who may not have seen this till now, and half just to say thank you again to @rimu@piefed.social and everyone else who contributes for making such an awesome feature-complete platform.

i've seen some really stunning hyprland setups and i'd love to see more, does anyone know where to find examples or inspiration?

the sidebar has a link to the "Official Ricing Field", but the link is dead and hyprland's new homepage only has the hall of fame. this seems like a really great use case for the fediverse and i'd love to see this (or another) community become the unofficial hub - so as a separate question does anyone know if @s4if@lemmy.world (the only mod here) is still active?