NPD and BPD are both driven by an eternal sucking void of insecurity and negative self-esteem that can never be filled.
Narcissists try to fill it with praise and social status, or failing that, power and subjugation.
Borderlines try to fill it with limerence and victimhood or failing that, revenge.
But it canât ever be filled - itâs worse than addiction, worse than being underwater in some shitty MLM scheme. It takes and takes and takes because fuck you, pay me.
So they donât have friends or loved ones, they have hosts. They suck out all the goodness until thereâs nothing left to give, then they start in on the pain.
Assholes, in the other hand, are just driven by simple greed, callousness and lack of consideration. They can and do still hurt people of course, but itâs not an all-consuming obsessive need.
Always assume your data is in N-1 places at all times.
Any drive can and will fail at any time, no matter how well it was working yesterday.
Iâve had people in with their entire PhD and years of research on one single drive, with no backup - just gone.
If your data is only in one place, it will be in zero places soon enough.
Disposable or replaceable data - which honestly is going to be 90% of your stuff - meh.
But anything that you need and couldnât replace, that shit needs backing up to AT LEAST one other place.
As for the rest - drives can fail slowly, or they can fail fast. When they fail slowly, you start getting a couple of disk errors here and there, and you may just be able to order one in time to replace it.
When they fail fast, they just drop like a heart attack.
Thereâs no way to know in advance. If your data is safe, then youâll either be out a few days while a replacement arrives, or youâll be just about able to copy stuff across. At that age, I wouldnât trust it farther than I could spit it. It could work fine for years more, but the moment you rely on it for something important, itâll give out on you.
It isnât fun.
Yeah, all the stereotypes of the wacky ADHD guy squirrel lol, but itâs not like that on the inside.
We are lost in the goddamn fog, chasing phantoms and mirages that disappear when you look at them too long. We are constantly running to catch up and flailing for context. What looks capricious and funny is mostly just desperation. We arenât bursting with unlimited energy, itâs as exhausting as it looks. Taking five attempts to actually get a task done because you just forget halfway through. Forgetting where you put the thing, every time. Feeling your working memory slip away like waking from a dream. Fucking up all the time, then having to work twice as hard to fix it, and feeling like shit because you canât get anything right.
It gets old, man.
All these tasty nutritious facts are great, but theyâre doomed without a robust immune system.
They need to know how thereâs a drunkardâs walk or one-way tropism for wealth and power to accumulate in the hands of the few, how the noblest intents get degraded and corrupted over time, how rich people get to make the rules and thereby get even richer, giving them even more control over the rules.
How this is what killed our civilisation in the first place, and how it will kill theirs if they let it. How you need to water the roots, not the leaves, unless you want the whole tree to collapse.
What rent-seeking looks like, how tribalism works, how propaganda and psyops and PR campaigns work, what narcissists and sociopaths are like, what abusive relationships look like (since they use the same tactics), how to spot demagogues, grifters and think-of-the-children paternalism. How internecine conflict is encouraged and used to distract from actual oppression. How the church maintained a vast grip on power for millennia just by manipulating shame, fear and self-righteousness.
How you can (and should!) make a bunch of rules to slow or mitigate this, but cancer finds a way; it will worm its way past your defenses in time. And when it does, you canât fix it from within the system, pretty much by definition, because it subverts the law and the entire social contract to protect and serve itself.
How the only fix is to step outside the law, step outside the system and root it out the hard way, from the top down. You canât put a formal trigger condition on this, as the failure mode will game its way round it: just say that when you need it, youâll know.
If you must kill the one to save the many, then ceterus paribus, you kill the one. Itâs shit, itâs always shit, but itâs less-shit than not doing it.
And you never, ever pretend that it was actively good. Itâs not a vector sum. Youâve still killed someone, the score isnât +9, itâs (+10, -1), and those are not the same thing. You bear the blood on your hands forever, you accept the mantle of killer and you do it anyway. Thatâs a shit deal, but life throws you shit deals. If you ever try to paint yourself the hero for it, youâre a killer and a fucking coward.
Kid going for a nuclear bomb trigger disguised as a teddy bear, youâre 250 meters away and only have a sniper rifle: sorry honey, :bang:
You may have saved the city, but you still killed a kid, and youâre supposed to feel shit about that. And if you donât, something is very very wrong with you.
But ceterus is rarely paribus, is the problem. Couching the problem in this particular formulation robs the problem of its purity, and now youâre tying in externalities like what happens to your society when you put the force of law behind decisions like this - and whether there are knock-on effects that skew the balance.
What youâve got here is a hostage situation with extra steps. Theyâre ill-defined hostages with no specific identity or location, which prevents you from just sending in a SWAT team, and that gives you a clear choice: capitulate with their demands, or sacrifice the hostages outright.
For an individual to capitulate is likely the better choice, as they arenât likely to be in this situation again, and a one-off less-worse situation beats the alternative.
But for an institution like the justice system to capitulate is pretty much guaranteed to be the worse choice, as theyâre going to be involved in the great majority of hostage situations going forward, and a reputation for capitulating will invite many, many more such cases. That anticipated harm can easily be expected to far outweigh the harm of sacrificing one set of hostages, and so the only reasonable choice, shit though it is, is to be a hardass about them and sacrifice them.
Objecting to the details of the problems is spectactularly missing the point.
You may as well object to a physics problem on the grounds that the accompanying diagram doesnât show a real rocketship, just a drawing of one. I mean sure, but thatâs not even remotely relevant to the question at hand. The illustration is just a mental aid to let you relate to the problem in a more hands-one manner, nothing more.
By what principles do we determine that benefit to one may outweigh harm to another? What are the factors that must be taken into consideration? Do the principles you name generalise as well as you assume, or are there counter-cases that would evoke a different moral intuition despite being entirely analogous?
Itâs easy to come up with neat, elegant statements couched in purely abstract terms, but the entire point of the exercise is to build a predictive model of your emotional response - and you test that by considering actual scenarios.
Trying to kobyashi-maru your way around the scenario doesnât achieve anything, and just makes it harder to test the thing you were trying to.
But if you want stupid ways Iâve hurt myself that werenât actually life-threateningâŚ
youâre doomed, then.