> What is your point? That zstd cannot exist? That it shouldn't? I can't read minds you know.

Would it be better that:

* zstd exists because Meta exists (net benefiting over other people's pain — including possibly the 'pain' of genocide), or

* a genocide did not happen (or was not as bad) because Meta did not exist (but we never got zstd)?

▲

iugtmkbdfil834 an hour ago | parent [-]

Friend, there is no better. There is just this. I know it is hard for you to hear me, but hear me for I do have something to tell you.

We do not live in a perfect world. That is a simple fact, but I need you to accept that fact before we have a chance to communicate. I don't mean me reading, you responding ad infinitum. No. I mean communicating.

Can you do that for me? Because if you are gonna give me tired binary choices along the lines of:

1) would you rather have a cookie 2) would you rather go to work

It is not much of a choice. It is a cute rhetoric, but it is not the reality in which we live.

Fucking qed.

▲

throw0101c an hour ago | parent [-]

> Friend, there is no better. There is just this. I know it is hard for you to hear me, but hear me for I do have something to tell you.

This sub-thread started with:

> Zstd is worth a lot of other's people's pain.

The (philosophical/theoretical) debate/discussion is about the 'quantity' of "people's pain", and how much of it is it worth for having Zstd (and other things that have come out of Meta/FB). What is the 'trade-off' (if any) between getting good and accepting evil? (Assuming "good" and "evil" even exist.)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Om...

	▲	iugtmkbdfil834 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		First, it started with grandparent stating: "none of those contributions are worth the pain that they have caused." Which a little excessive and I take personal issue with never, all, and none when someone writes that -- out of principle. Second, are we talking about its quantity or quality, because I posit that big numbers aint everything.