4 ms·

> dangerously experimental PEDs Would you be willing to be the guinea pig?

next_xibalba 2y ago
No more than I'm willing to drive a race car 200+ mph (i.e. formula 1) nor step in a boxing ring and accumulate a bunch of micro-concussions. But I'll happily tune in for the many that would be willing to do it if the money was right. Why in the world would this have any bearing on the conversation? What point are you trying to make?
- rglullis 2y ago
  Do you watch sports because of the chance of people dying from accidents and because you know they are risking themselves, or despite it? If the former, I regret to inform you: you are a psycopath. If the latter, then please go read some Nassim Taleb and refrain from opining on what is acceptable risks for others unless you yourself are willing to pay for the consequences.
dylan604 2y ago
Why would you ask someone reading HN that question? That's like asking a 'roided up athlete if they wanted to rewrite grep in Rust. Ask the athlete if they'd be willing to take PEDs if it would be allowed.
- triceratops 2y ago
  You only need one athlete that's willing to. The others will have no choice after that. It's no different than asking if workers should be allowed to work without PPE.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    If workers want to work without PPE, then let them. Just ensure that they sign releases acknowledging that the PPE was made available to them and they chose of their own volition to not use it, and that by doing so they release everyone from any liability about what happens to them from not using the PPE.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      It's a slippery slope from there to "the children yearn for the mines".
      - dylan604 2y ago
        You mean like deport those that do jobs that nobody else wants so we're not trying to lower the ages restrictions for those jobs? Not sure why the hypothetical slope is even necessary. We're doing it to ourselves
    - munificent 2y ago
      Foreman: "You want to work today, or go home and tell your family you're broke? No? Then sign the fucking form. We don't pay for PPE here."
    - liamwire 2y ago
      Your comments go to show either a concerning lack of thought towards second-order effects, or a disturbing lack of empathy towards your fellow humans.
      - dylan604 2y ago
        If everyone else is using PPE, but you choose not to wear PPE, there's no empathy to be given. You may think the need for PPE is a hoax, but that's not anyone else's problem if there's a direct repercussion for your actions. The problem was not offered as your sibling comment as a forced decision. Some people choose to juice, others do not. That same logic applied to if you want to do it, here's the waiver to acknowledge it was your decision. I can feel sorry for someone's family for being related to a dunce, but no empathy is required on my part for the dunce.
        triceratops 2y ago
        You're still only thinking about direct effects, not second-order effects. Keep workin' that noggin you'll get there.

No more than I'm willing to drive a race car 200+ mph (i.e. formula 1) nor step in a boxing ring and accumulate a bunch of micro-concussions. But I'll happily tune in for the many that would be willing to do it if the money was right. Why in the world would this have any bearing on the conversation? What point are you trying to make?

rglullis 2y ago
Do you watch sports because of the chance of people dying from accidents and because you know they are risking themselves, or despite it? If the former, I regret to inform you: you are a psycopath. If the latter, then please go read some Nassim Taleb and refrain from opining on what is acceptable risks for others unless you yourself are willing to pay for the consequences.

dylan604 2y ago

Why would you ask someone reading HN that question? That's like asking a 'roided up athlete if they wanted to rewrite grep in Rust. Ask the athlete if they'd be willing to take PEDs if it would be allowed.

triceratops 2y ago
You only need one athlete that's willing to. The others will have no choice after that. It's no different than asking if workers should be allowed to work without PPE.
- dylan604 2y ago
  If workers want to work without PPE, then let them. Just ensure that they sign releases acknowledging that the PPE was made available to them and they chose of their own volition to not use it, and that by doing so they release everyone from any liability about what happens to them from not using the PPE.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    It's a slippery slope from there to "the children yearn for the mines".
    - dylan604 2y ago
      You mean like deport those that do jobs that nobody else wants so we're not trying to lower the ages restrictions for those jobs? Not sure why the hypothetical slope is even necessary. We're doing it to ourselves
  - munificent 2y ago
    Foreman: "You want to work today, or go home and tell your family you're broke? No? Then sign the fucking form. We don't pay for PPE here."
  - liamwire 2y ago
    Your comments go to show either a concerning lack of thought towards second-order effects, or a disturbing lack of empathy towards your fellow humans.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      If everyone else is using PPE, but you choose not to wear PPE, there's no empathy to be given. You may think the need for PPE is a hoax, but that's not anyone else's problem if there's a direct repercussion for your actions. The problem was not offered as your sibling comment as a forced decision. Some people choose to juice, others do not. That same logic applied to if you want to do it, here's the waiver to acknowledge it was your decision. I can feel sorry for someone's family for being related to a dunce, but no empathy is required on my part for the dunce.
      - triceratops 2y ago
        You're still only thinking about direct effects, not second-order effects. Keep workin' that noggin you'll get there.