• Write programs that do one thing and do it well.
• Write programs to work together.
• Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface.

I guess none of these apply when reading files is involved?

*knocking on it*

“Yup. It’s wood aright”

Since it can’t be LG anymore - what’s a good TV screen for gaming?

You don’t use it. It uses you.

You don’t need the $in | in that last command. each { str upcase } will already pipe each item to the str upcase command.

So… drows?

Probably, but only because at this point I’m fairly certain reality itself must be a parody of something.

“Doctor! I’m bleeding right here and now!”

*writing down* “last period: today”

Also - these were my underwear. Also on loan.

I see you purchased a washing machine. May I assume you are collecting washing machines? Of course I may. Let me offer you these excellent deals for washing machines!

Maybe the real wasted time is the friends we made along the way?

No need for scanning. I have a binder where I neatly organize them, and currently they are all shoved under the binder so that the cats won’t play with them.

Most jobs are a pointless waste of time

His journey, on the other hand, is a pointful waste of time.

There is no hell

Sure there is. Just look around you!

Science is totally right here, I have no doubt. It’s just… that I have zero regard for my own health.

I don’t remember where exactly, but I’ve encountered an hybrid approach that balances utilitarianism with deontology. It goes something like this:

1. Generally do what brings the most utility. But…
2. People have “deontological protections” - basic human rights that you are not allowed to infringe upon even if it is for the greater good. But…
3. One’s deontological protections can be bypassed if said “greater good” is solving a mess they are responsible for.

Take, for example, the case of a mass shooter. Utilitarianism says you are allowed to take them down if that’s the only way to save their victims. Naive deontology says you are not allowed to kill whatsoever. The approach I’ve just presented says that we can go with utilitarianism in this case - but only because the shooter is one responsible for this mess so it’s okay to harm them for the greater good.

Note that it does not say it’s okay to kill them otherwise. If you manage to capture them, an other lives are no longer in risk, both deontology and utilitarianism will agree you are not allowed to kill them.

Let’s go back to the classic Trolley Problem. Is the person tied to the second track responsible for the situation? No - they are a victim. They are not stripped from their deontological protection, and therefore you are not allowed to sacrifice them in order to save the other five.

Back to the case in hand. We need to ask the following questions:

• Does the suffering of the employees outweigh the life of the CEO?
• Does the death of the CEO stop the suffering of the employees?
• Is the CEO responsible for the suffering of the employees?

If the answer to all three questions is “yes” - then what’s the problem?

Wouldn’t they still be disappointed that you are an engineer and not a doctor?

Almost everyone is Johnny. Spike and Timmy are caricature types - the uncompromising extremes. If Johnny was on the list you’d have to choose if you are more similar to Spike to more similar to Timmy, but since he is there - representing the entire range between the other two - you, a complex real-life (I hope?) person and not a shallow 1D character, are bound to meaninglessly identify as a Johnny.

First, that is not your child. It is a fucking elephant.

Finally someone addresses the elephant in the room!

That officer is a named character. Her importance will be revealed during the big twist of this arc.