Interesting Links for 06-01-2015

[andrewducker]

• How to make Piñata cookies!
  (tags: food awesome )
• Tips from experts on how to fall asleep at night
  (tags: sleep funny )
• Which Medieval English Cathedral are you?
  (tags: funny quiz history religion UK )
• This is what happens when people starting taking ethics too literally.
  (tags: morality logic )
• Devon farmer who owns Britain's only Nazi cows

Comments

Phones

[danieldwilliam]

A $29 internet phone.

I do wonder how much they are losing on each one. How do they make up the difference? Are they getting a kick back through the tariff for usage?

If they are able to sell these at a profit at about these prices that begins to halve my mobile phone bill.

Re: Phones

[andrewducker]

Yup. My go-to recommendation for a smartphone is currently the Moto G 2nd Edition - selling for £145.

This phone is undoubtedly a bit rubbish by comparison. But if people don't want to run anything other than FB, Twitter, and make phone calls, may well be fine (although I'd wait for the reviews) and is much cheaper even than that!

Re: Phones

[resonant]

In volume, they might actually break even at that price point.

(but 95% of the price would be BOM cost).

Ched Evans

[danieldwilliam]

I find the Ched Evans case fascinating and I’m a bit ambivilant about it. There seems to be a bit of a confusion about the nature of criminality and the boundary between the state and the right to freedom of association

Re: Ched Evans

[lil_shepherd]

Well said, sir.

I cannot think of a single point in this case in which I disagree with you, and, as my friends will tell you, that is unusual.

Also Unrepentant Oxford Comma User.

Re: Ched Evans

[rhythmaning]

Yup, me too.

I find people's reaction to the case problematic. I too am ambivalent about it.

I hadn't realised he wasn't allowed to travel - kind of silences those saying he should go abroad to play!

Re: Ched Evans

[andrewducker]

I'm somewhat ambivalent about it too. I'm entirely in favour of people having the freedom to not associate with people they dislike - but wish that they generally wouldn't use it except in particularly unpleasant circumstances.

In this case, with him being unrepentant, and unwilling to rein in his unpleasant supporters, it's understandable, and in a general case I'd like to believe in rehabilitation, and people being able to move on with their lives once they've reformed.

Oh, and a role model is anyone who other people want to be, or whose behaviour they clearly model their own on. Which is something alien to me, but seems to be very common through large chunks of the population. When you have someone whose behaviour people are defending, no matter what, then they clearly identify with him in that kind of way.

Watership Down

[danieldwilliam]

I'd forgotten how much I liked Watership Down.

I haven't seen the film for years. I wonder if the Captain is old enough for it yet.

Re: Watership Down

[andrewducker]

If you pop over to rmc28.dreamwidth.org you'll find a readthrough going on - one chapter per week (which is 3-5 pages each)...

[pennski]

That illustration is of our village church. The spire is fairly distinctive.
We don't know exactly where in the village he lives, but we think it's fairly close to the church.

This is what happens when people starting taking ethics too literally.

[cartesiandaemon]

Just from the description, I knew this was going to be slatestarcodex, if not which :) However, while I'm fairly sure that donating to animal rights charities is ok, and murder is bad, I'm not sure I have an actual answer to his question of "what's the difference", and I would like to understand one... :)

Re: This is what happens when people starting taking ethics too literally.

[andrewducker]

Are you _really_ saying that you don't understand the difference between "donating to a charity" and "murdering someone"?

Re: This is what happens when people starting taking ethics too literally.

[cartesiandaemon]

I was being glib. I didn't mean "donate to charity" at all, I meant, instead of only eating vegetarian, donating to animal welfare charity. And I agree that murder is much more serious than the other things discussed.

But I'm not sure whether "it's much more serious" is the answer to his question, of why we feel one right/wrong thing can be traded fungibly and the other can't be? Is it because it's always unethical, but sometimes only a little unethical so we ignore it? Is it because most people implicitly accept that eating animals is ethically neutral but factory farms are bad? Is it because an excuse to murder has a greater overall deleterious effect on society, which the others don't? I feel a bit of all of them, but I feel there *should* be a clear answer, but I don't think I could give one!

Re: This is what happens when people starting taking ethics too literally.

[andrewducker]

"but I feel there *should* be a clear answer

Devon farmer who owns Britain's only Nazi cows forced to reduce herd due to the cow's aggressiveness

[cartesiandaemon]

I would have used the phrase "Nazi bullshit" a lot more in that article :)