timorl @timorl@qoto.org

@namark @bonifartius It doesn't have to be a significant portion to have an effect, with the usual vegan approach of not buying things your effect is probably of a similar order of magnitude.

Although funnily enough this points to another serious reason why usual veganism has chances of working while this approach doesn't – usual veganism is relatively easy for people to adopt as a moral framework, creating the potential for a decentralized shift in values in society, while steling-for-animals is unlikely to be widely accepted.

I think your idea has about the same chances of working as mine, but it's a moot point anyway. Unfortunetely I'm not actually a proficient robber. :<

@bonifartius Well, yeah, it is technically vegan for the reasons I explained above, but obviously it's not really a good idea because of the different measures you mention as well as various effects of increasing crime rates etc.

This was supposed to mostly be a parody of the "idiot utilitarian" arguments, the "shouldn't you rob banks and give the swag to AMF?" ones that completely ignore externalities.

@bonifartius Not really, the cost propagates over the chain about as well as payment if everyone behaves rationally (in the economics sense). The higher the ratio of stolen to bought nonvegan food, the less money the victim of the theft should be willing to pay for that produce. Every unit has a lower expected value if you consider the higher probability of it getting stolen.

Feels weird discussing over essentially a shitpost.

@bonifartius
* veganism = (hurting animals = bad)
* giving resources to people doing bad things = bad
* taking resources from people doing bad things = good
* stealing = taking resources
* veganism = (stealing from people hurting animals = good)

Infallible logic.

Remember, stealing food means you don't support the whole chain of people that worked towards getting it where it was.

This also means that any nonvegan food becomes vegan when stolen.

@kmic U Mnie Działa™. Ale nie jestem pewien czy to ci pomaga, bo choć moje pochodzenie simplandzkie, to rezyduję w kraju Helwetów.

My PR got merged! This means I can finally call myself an open source contributor without strange qualifiers!

@chrysn I think it's an equivalent of /sub, i.e. "I want to know what will happen here." without implying support or opposition to the proposed changes. Adding any reaction gets you notifications, so the semantics even work in practice.

@robryk I don't particularly like that it treats two types very specially at the level of the language – it would be better if it at least referred to a trait, which one could implement on any type. But I could understand if it was just that, maybe the convenience is worth making the language slightly uglier. What actually convinced me `?` is a mistake is the difference between `f()` and `Ok(f()?)`. As far as I know `?` is the only inherent feature of Rust that performs automatic coersion. Introducing this to the language cannot be worth it.

It would be completely fine as a macro – either `try!` as it used to be or a macro that rewrites `?`s in a function. The latter would preferably have an option for turning automatic coersion on/off, but even if it didn't I wouldn't care that much, as it wouldn't be a inherent feature of the language.

After actually working with it a bit, I still think #rust might be one of the more reasonable popular languages out there, but the semantics of the `?` operator are stupid. It looks like the result of an oath to include it in the language, whatever the cost, between two drunken developers – one from Go one from Haskell.