I bought some fancy biscuits for my dogs from a local company. Ingredients are basically oats, cheddar, bacon, rosemary. I could 100% kill this whole bag if my dogs didn’t look so devastated when I ate their special treats.

Reminds me of a classic bit from a comedy podcast (My Brother, My Brother, and Me) https://youtu.be/6YqXXBKBPRI?si=_Bmjlr2LIQh56Fhi

I just bought and restored some older but well-built deck furniture. Each piece had a badge on it with a company name and URL, but the site is long gone. Popped it into the wayback machine and instantly learned all about the furniture, its maker, and how much it cost back in the day, which was really neat.

I can’t disagree, except to the extent that I don’t personally view the CI as a means to reaching some objective, universally “good” set of actions. I think Kant was way off the mark with a lot of that pursuit. I do think, however, that an action which fails to satisfy the CI (meaning as I see it, “I want to do this but I don’t think others should”) is often one that should be re-evaluated.

But also I took like 3 philosophy courses so I’m officially in way over my head now but enjoy the discussion!

I think the CI is far from a universal law that solves all problems. But I do think it can be among a set of useful tests to judge an action. I’m not sure the surgeon example is in good faith - a reasonable interpretation might be “Help others to the extent that you are trained and able to”, which gets you pretty close to most Good Samaritan laws.

Most imperatives taken literally and expected to fit every situation and interpretation will fall apart quickly, I think this one is no better or worse than others. Probably the way I’ve internalized it is different from how it was originally intended, too!

Something that’s weirdly stuck with me (even though he’s not my favorite philosopher) is Kant’s Categorical Imperative which says, briefly, do only the things that would still be okay if everyone did them.

I think it fills in a nice gap left by the golden rule (treat others as you’d like to be treated) in drawing attention to how some things which don’t seem to do much harm would be a major problem if broadly adopted.

A way that I find helpful to answer questions like this is to look backwards when taking multiple doses:

“If I were to take another pill now, would I have had no more than 1-2 pills in the last 4 hours?”

The pharmacokinetic questions are outside the scope of what the patient should be trying to figure out when taking a drug. That was the responsibility of the drug label writer and (if applicable) the prescribing physician and/or pharmacist. Yours is to faithfully follow the instructions, not make assumptions about drug residence time or loading doses.

This is probably the worst example to choose, because in the US the generic name is acetaminophen. This is a case where the brand name actually unites understanding of a drug whose chemical name differs by location.

That being said, I still agree with the spirit, let’s stick to referring to the drug and not the brand.

I use a Kriega messenger bag. It’s got a wide strap with a quick way to adjust the length, so it’s easy to make sure it’s secure and comfortable. Waterproof and tough enough for use on the motorcycle but not so bulky that it looks out of place in the office.

I hate that I’m going to upvote every single one of these.

But I am going to.

Can we talk about how utterly absurd it is that there isn’t an obvious answer to this question yet? Feels like we’ve gone backwards from the AIM Direct Connect of old.

Rust: “Oh honey you aren’t ready to compile that yet”