Read his comment. Then read the post’s title. Then read his comment again.

Something of literally human value may be in his basement.

Sir, I’m gonna have to inspect your basement.

This may be the first confirmed case, but it’s probably not a good idea to make it the poster case for pro-choice. Let’s look at the facts:

• She was pregnant with twins, and wanted an abortion.
• She couldn’t legally do it in her home state Georgia, so she had to travel to North Carolina and get abortion pills there.
• A few days later, when she was already back home, she started to suffer from severe complications.
• The doctors in Georgia could not legally perform the procedure that could have saved her life - a surgical removal of what remained of the fetus - because it was to close to abortion.

The article says the clinic in North Carolina could have performed that procedure, but does not state why she was not brought there. Maybe her condition was too bad for the long travel? Maybe she was evacuated to the nearest hospital (a decision which does, generally, make a lot of sense) which could not have signed her away for an illegal (by Georgian law) operation outstate? Maybe it was medically and legally possible to drive/fly her there, but it was too expensive for her? Either way - it is clear that the ban on abortions in Georgia (made possible “thanks” to the Roe vs Wade overruling) is the direct reason why she could not get the treatment which could have save her life.

BUT!

The pro-life camp can easily pin this on the abortion pills, claiming that a nation-wide abortion bad would have prevented her from receiving them and therefore would have prevented her death (and the aborted twins’ death. They won’t forget to include that)

I’m a different person, but also from lemmy.world and I don’t use an app. I don’t see any heart heart symbol around the voting buttons. It’s probably just your app.

You are assuming here that I know what I want. What if there is no obviously correct answer, and even in the Everett branch that generates the optimal content for the file I’ll still think it can be improved and tell it to destroy the universe?

What if there is no correct answer?

I just use this:

#!/bin/bash

keep_generating=1
while [[ $keep_generating == 1 ]]; do
    dd if=/dev/random of=$1 bs=1 count=$2 status=none
    echo Contents of $1 are:
    cat $1
    echo
    read -p "Try generating again? " -s -n1 answer
    while true; do
        case $answer in
            [Yy] )
                echo
                break
                ;;
            [Nn] )
                keep_generating=0
                break
                ;;
            *)
        esac
        read -s -n1 answer
    done
done

In that sense, had they been closing the plant with the expectation of drastically reducing energy demand, it might have made sense.

I really hate this kind of reasoning. Even if we do manage to reduce our energy consumption, closing the nuclear plant would still be more harmful to the environment because we could have closed fossil fuel plants instead. Unless, of course, we’d manage to reduce energy consumption so much that we wouldn’t need any non-renewable energy sources - which I don’t think is very realistic assumption. Certainly not realistic enough to make such a gamble on.

The only way closing the nuclear plant would have been beneficial to the environment would be if the act of closing it would have caused a reduction in our energy consumption that is greater than the energy the plant itself was producing (minus some extra energy from fossil fuel plants that take up its “emission budget” to increase their own energy production). Which is also quite unrealistic. I actually think it makes more sense that it achieved the opposite effect, since closing the plant took up activists’ effort and environmental publicity, which could have been used to push for reducing consumption instead.