4 ms·
> you do not just publicly publish information hazards that might be real But... for "might be real" to be valid at all, you have to buy into the Roko's basili
by zyxley 12y ago
> you do not just publicly publish information hazards that might be real
But... for "might be real" to be valid at all, you have to buy into the Roko's basilisk concept in the first place.
If you don't, there's nothing to get upset about.
- kbenson 12y agoThat's like saying you shouldn't be mad at someone who attempted to murder you because they failed. There's a reason we have a crime called "attempted murder". You may find the wikipedia article on "Inchoate offense" interesting, specifically the section on Impossibility[1]. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense#Impossibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense#Impossibility
- convexfunction 12y agoI meant "might be real" according to generic-you in that statement. Someone being wrong doesn't make information hazards in general disappear.
- ciphergoth 12y agoIf I learned that a co-worker believed that nuts were invariably fatal to me and gone on to hide some in my food, the nuts would do me no harm but I would still take the whole incident seriously.