- Xyprus ( @Xyprus@beehaw.org ) English4•6 hours ago
Also, Option 1 would essentially mean the end of the human race. Assuming the rate of killing is faster than the birth rate it would mean everyone dies soon
- Incandemon ( @Incandemon@lemmy.ca ) English3•5 hours ago
I mean, no? Its given in the question that option one is an infinite amount of people. Its not limited to just the existing human race.
- Queen HawlSera ( @HawlSera@lemm.ee ) English4•14 hours ago
Isn’t Stockholm Syndrome fake?
- BobGnarley ( @BobGnarley@lemm.ee ) English4•6 hours ago
Actually upon looking it up, there is some suggestion that it is fake.
- Flocklesscrow ( @Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee ) English4•11 hours ago
No?
- ShinkanTrain ( @ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml ) English45•1 day ago
One must imagine Maths grads happy
- anarchrist ( @anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English12•1 day ago
i
- rbn ( @rbn@sopuli.xyz ) English14•24 hours ago
I go for option 1.
In all programming languages that I know, integers have a maximum number. E.g., in C that’d be 2,147,483,647. After that, you would run into an overflow, resulting in either…
- a crash (train stops, no more deaths),
- death count suddenly turns negative (all people previously killed are suddenly alive again and even new people are generated out of nowhere) - until we reach the next overflow when people disappear and start dying again
- or - if it’s an unsigned integer - death count resets everytime we reach the maximum limit
So compared to option 2, we have a chance of stopping the death count. And even if the train keeps running, we have essentially option 2 but the same people only die very rarely. If we assume a cycle of 1 death per second and an integer boundary of 2,147,483,647, that’s just one death every 68 years per person involved. Seems more fair to me compared to 100 people constantly dying over and over again.
- mexicancartel ( @mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English3•10 hours ago
They used database to store integer…
- fallingcats ( @fallingcats@discuss.tchncs.de ) English4•13 hours ago
Yeah okay but by that logic you’d also have to quantize time and the suffering would end either way in a finite amount of time.
- Wojwo ( @Wojwo@lemmy.ml ) English3•21 hours ago
Or is it like a Y2K death trolly and when the overflow happens the universe doesn’t catch the exception and things get weird. Like suddenly any number can be divided by 0.
- RandomVideos ( @RandomVideos@programming.dev ) English6•1 day ago
Cant you just take people from the track with reincarnating people? They might have to die a couple of times, but thats nothing compared to infinity
- stinerman [Ohio] ( @stinerman@midwest.social ) English7•1 day ago
Where I’m from Calc 2 is integrals. That wasn’t so terrible. It was Calc 3 (vectors and series) that was the hard one.
- Kogasa ( @kogasa@programming.dev ) English2•1 day ago
At the universities I went to, Calc 2 was integration, sequences and series, then Calc 3 was multivariable. They really pack all the harder parts into 2.
- stinerman [Ohio] ( @stinerman@midwest.social ) English1•1 day ago
We were on quarters, so we had calc 1-4. Makes sense that Calc 2 was rough if you were on semesters.
- BakedCookie ( @BakedCookie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English1•1 day ago
My multivariate calc was a separate course from regular calc 1/2/3
- Kogasa ( @kogasa@programming.dev ) English1•21 hours ago
It can be, usually for college credit though
- CarbonIceDragon ( @CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social ) English4•1 day ago
Arguably these are different amounts of bad even before considering this: We generally consider existing preferable to non-existence to some extent when suffering isnt taken into account, consider that if you murder someone quickly and painlessly in their sleep without waking them, they dont really themselves suffer from it, but people will still find you to be a murderer, and would object to the idea that you might do it to them. In the top example, killing the people actually kills them, but in the lower example, it arguably doesnt, because the experiences of the people involved never actually cease, therefore, the lower path seems to me to be preferable because you supposedly get equivalent amounts of “suffering”, but different amounts of time that people spend in non-existence.
- Johanno ( @Johanno@feddit.org ) English6•1 day ago
Morally speaking people could argue that torturing immortal people is worse.
However legally speaking to you don’t kill them and therefore the immortals are preferred.
- usualsuspect191 ( @usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca ) English1•24 hours ago
Isn’t the top case just how things are now?