We need reasonable people like you in this chaos.

For a moment I thought the comic was AI generated because of that. Exactly how many AI image generators make textual errors.

I read this as if she was on life support.

There is much to say about reporting biases, but in this case you're touching one of the most humane services only the most progressive countries have touched on. The ability to pass away in a respectful way on your own terms. No one is being forced or pressured, that's a blatant lie many media channels are responsible for.

You don't choose to be born, if you feel your life is unbearable/complete you should be able to step out of it without having to be kept alive by pills and/or treatments while slowly deteriorating mentally/physically. And don't get me started on the uncertain outcome and dramatic outcome of suicide, which is usually an insane 'counter-argument' that gets proposed as available option.

Sadly many countries have not yet reached that level of sympathy, mainly because of religious intervention. Which is exactly the point of this post.

It depends on if you trust Meta. Generally speaking there is end-to-end encryption in WhatsApp, which means only you and the person you chat with can decrypt your messages / media (source). I believe there are some weak spots in group chats, mostly caused by users themselves. Not sure about the new Community function but I'd be careful with what I share there.

Some parties like Apple have decided to scan photos from your device for illegal material (edit: after backlash they dropped this for now, my bad). If using an app like WhatsApp I'd personally be aware that something like that might happen in the future as well. I'd not be surprised if some employees might (temporarily) be able to access more data than widely assumed, for debugging reasons in case of bugs.

Personally I take the risk for pragmatic reasons, but it doesn't hurt to be a bit cautious / aware.

Or other women who see this. Both are normal variations. Although I wouldn't recommend sticking it between some buns.

A bunch of cells in rapid development with the potential to become a human being. Murder is a strong term, but in a broad sense I don't think your insinuation is wrong per se.

This might be getting a bit controversial, but for the sake of discussion:

The important thing here is, do you mind if that potential for life is taken away. In this case we place priority on the human being that eventually has to dedicate her life to that potential. Or is that new potential more important than that already existing, conscious human being (especially when there are physical / mental problems involved)?

It comes down to why we live, and why must we live? Personally I believe trying to avoid (potential of) suffering is a more reasonable concept.

If one gives life to a baby, you give it a potential for suffering which it otherwise does not. I'd say the ways one can suffer is of a greater weight than the ways one can be happy. So if you go the route of creating life, you better be damn confident that you are in a good position to do that.

In that philosophy 'murdering' a potential with a large chance of creating more suffering for the collective is not that bad. One might view this differently when the being is conscious and might actively not want to die, as we bring the complexity of individual human choice to the table and what worth that has; but I think we can agree that is not applicable on the unborn potential human being discussed in this topic.

They eat bones occasionally to aid digestion or induce vomiting to clear their stomachs of indigestible material.

This information may or may not be false.

It's only wrong if you believe hurting other living things is wrong, it depends on your upbringing / mental framework and how you relate those between different species.

But I believe most people agree that the current way we mass produce meat and how we treat these animals is like a dystopian endgame. If humans were treated like that by a higher intelligence that would be extremely disturbing and cruel. We just accept it as we place the priority on a steak on our plate.

It is how it is, everyone is ignorant or a hypocrite in some parts of life. Good or bad are only subjective perspectives. But if you look at the harm we cause to other beings with eating meat and in what mechanistic way, that might be one of the things in 100 years we look back at and just can't fathom.

I'm thinking new interfaces/concepts of interaction might be where we lose touch.

Just like the previous baby boom generation had people with a lot of technical knowledge about for example how punch cards were used to configure computers and how to type with an old typewriter, we might know much about more advanced technical software and touch interfaces, but many might skip the Snapchat/TikTok scene and feel out of place.

Not to mention future upcoming things like a Brain-Computer Interface connected to an AI; perhaps to socialize, to create tools / content. Some of us, and maybe you as well, will join this scene too, but I already see people giving up and staying away from new stuff.

We will have a role in the technical side because of our knowledge, but that core knowledge is not that important any longer in many fields just like most developers don't have to worry about machine code any more.

I get what you mean, but that's just us placing a value on the importance of someone staying alive. An emotional habit that we as social creatures that work together and can love one another of course have.

Purely rationally speaking, there is no need for one to be alive and that person cannot regret such action, as he/she's dead. The regret is an emotion we project on someone who does not exist anymore, while thinking death is something negative. But in my opinion it's neutral.

To be fair, if the refactoring has been done well it should be now easier to fix the bug. Your walls need to be steady before you fix the roof.