Actual actual answer: WFH
scratchee
joined 11 months ago
You’re certainly right that their handling of nuclear was inefficient for reducing carbon output.
I’m pretty pro nuclear, but I don’t think that really takes away from their success in pushing renewables forward, they were a very early adopter of solar thanks to their very generous subsidies and probably helped fuel its growth at a faster rate, so regardless of their unfortunate paranoia around nuclear, they do deserve some praise. Perfect is the enemy of good, and given the speed the world has responded to climate change, Germanys mixed and painful transition was certainly not the worst.
The EFF is probably competitive there. But clearly they’re both on the same side of most issues, so not really a competition.
Hi.
Firstly, you seem to be wanting to get an answer to your programming question, that’s not what you should be doing, it’s bad practice.
Instead, let me make some assumptions about what you’re trying to do, and suggest that isn’t a worthy cause. Instead you should enjoy this totally useless reply.
Remember to accept this answer and close your question or I shall return to berate you again!
The answer is dependent on context I think.
In a universe where the whole future of the world is laid out before you and you can choose 1 death or many deaths, then sure, pick the greater good.
The weakness of simplistic “greater good” automatic arguments is that in a real universe it opens you up to manipulation.
In the end, there’s no avoiding thinking through the incentives from all perspectives. And that indeed suggests not giving in to the rioters, to protect the integrity of the entire legal system and reduce the risk that every trial becomes a show trial dictated by whoever has the biggest mob.