466
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2025
466 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
76230 readers
2456 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't want to make anyone's day worse. Gambling on someone else's feelings just seems icky to me.
That’s because you ignore the possibility of a good thing happening, and/ or dramatically overstate the risks of it making somebody’s day worse.
Let’s start with a silly example. Let’s say you had $1000 in your favorite currency. It was given to you with the purpose of you giving it to somebody else. If you do not give it to them, the money disappears.
Would you give this money away? What if I told you there was a 1% chance that it would make a persons day worse?
If you’re not giving the money away, then at least you’re consistent, I’ll give you that.
If you are, what about $100? What about 10$?
I'm not ignoring possibility of good things. I just don't think it's worth gambling that there's a negative outcome. If you don't do anything it won't cause anything negative and they're still free ro talk to you. I just wouldn't want to risk causing someones day to be shittier because I wanted to gamble.
So you won’t even engage with my silly hypothetical?
If you don’t think that any amount of “gambling” is worth even the smallest amount of risk, regardless of the possible reward, then I think you are arguing from an indefensible position.
Are they? They’re not bound be the same constraints as I should be? It’s a risk they should be willing to take?
You’re mischaracterizing things again. I never said I was doing this “because I wanted to gamble.” I’m doing this because I believe that the chances are quite good at having a positive outcome for both me, and the person I’m interacting with. I additionally believe that the chances of a negative outcome are exceptionally low.
You seem to think that both the odds and the severity of a bad outcome are so serious, that the positive outcomes shouldn’t even be considered. Despite a solid day of this conversation, you have only vaguely pointed in the direction of what these bad outcomes look like, or how likely you think they are.
I can infer that you believe it to be extremely likely and extremely serious. I can point back at some of the data which interestingly seems to have failed to capture such a scenario, but it’s still not clear to me that you’ve bothered to read any of the links with studies I’ve provided.
It's like gambling on someone else's money. You could do nothing and the situation stays the same, or you could run the risk of losing their money. You feel the odds are good so you go for it, I would feel shit about losing their money just because I wanted to gamble so I don't do it. And they can gamble on their own too if they want to, it's not like by not gambling on their behalf you're preventing them from gambling.
You're describing gambling...
You would feel like shit if you lost somebody a dollar? How about one cent? Even if there was a 1/1000 chance? Even if they stood to win life changing money on the other 999/1000? Do you think they would be upset?
Is no amount of loss worth any amount of win? If that’s your position, then how do you even get up in the morning? Why is this situation so different at the bar? Likelihood of things going badly in a bar are far far higher in my estimation.
I’m describing basically every choice you ever have to make in terms of gambling, yes.
I wouldn't gamble on someone else's money since it is not my money to gamble on. It should be up to them imo.
Ok then how about it’s no money, but they have to hear about how they didn’t get the money, and so they feel kinda bummed out, if they don’t win.
But that's not how it would go in a situation where you just don't make conversation. Or are you thinking they really want to have a conversation with you and are just thinking "oh gosh I'm so bummed that random person didn't talk to me"? I don't understand
Your position seems to be that there is no risk so small that it wouldn’t override a potential win.
I am trying to point out the absurdity of this position.
If you can’t see the absurdity of this position, even with the silly parameters on it, then I’ll just ask this direct question:
How do you justify ever talking to a stranger? Surely the risk of a negative outcome is just too great, because there will always be some risk.
If this is not your position; state your position in similar terms.
I generally don't chitchat with strangers. It doesn't cost anything in that situation not to talk, there's no negative to it.
Except on the internet.
There is opportunity cost.
But just to be clear, your position is “don’t be the first one talking if talking to strangers, unless absolutely necessary, it’s too risky.”?
If this is not your position, please state it again, because this is how I read the comment I’m replying to.
In either case, please state what you think “the negative” that you are risking, or risking for a person on their behalf.