Yeah, and I completely understand that. Just from a logical perspective though, lets say the process happens after you fall asleep normally at night. If you can’t tell it happened, does it matter? I’ve been really desensitized to the idea of dying through suicidal ideation throughout most of my life (much better now), so I’m able to look at it without the normal emotional aversion to it. If teleportation existed, via this same method, I don’t think I’d have qualms about at least trying it. Certainly wouldn’t expect other people to but to me I don’t think it’s that big a deal. I wouldn’t do a mind upload scenario, but moreso due to a complete lack of trust in system maintenance and security, and a doubt that true conciousness can be achieved digitally. If it’s flesh and blood to flesh and blood though? I’d definitely try

I mean, if I die instantaneously and painlessly, and conciousness is seemingly continuous for the surviving copy, why would I care?

My conciousness might not continue but I lose consciousness every day. Someone exists who is me and lives their (my) life. I totally understand peoples aversion to death but I also don’t see any difference to falling asleep and waking up. You lose consciousness, then a person who’s lived your life and is you regains consciousness. Idk

We had an all hands on deck, world is ending bug one time. Like, basically the entire org got pulled onto it. In our product is a spreadsheet of activities, with dates and durations. Our customers can run a scheduling algorithm to adjust dates based off of durations and activity dependencies and relationships. This is super important. This broke. We have to make sure that activities don’t have circular dependencies, or otherwise scheduling will loop infinitely and fail. So, we basically dfs looking for a loop before scheduling, and fail it with a not really helpful error message. That loop checkimg got updated so it could properly provide helpful info in the error message. This change caused most real world schedules to have false positives for loops when checked, ergo, no ability to schedule. I found the cause of the problem but not the dependency structure that caused the issue, and ultimately decided it would be faster, cleaner, and overall better to rewrite the feature myself than to fix the original. So, I wrote the most beautiful damn depth first search of my life! Learned about the bug monday morning, had the fix good to go tuesday night, so that qa could test wednesday thursday for the hotfix merge deadline friday. Two days isn’t a lot to cover testing it, but I figure with every tester in the org pretty much available to pound on it itd be good enough. While I was working on the rewrite, other devs and qa were hunting down all the details of what happened to cause the bug, data structure wise, and coming up with good test cases. So, by the time it was ready, they knew what happened and had a much more thorough test plan. Well, it came down from on high that the fix would go into the next major release, not a hotfix, so it didn’t actually go out for 3 weeks after the monday the bug came in. Sigh. Well, I had fun writing it, and I consider it the cleanest, most beautiful and elegant code I’ve ever written. It used a stack of stacks! When I’m feeling shitty and useless at work, I go back and look at it tbh.

A sane and reasonable take? On the internet?

it’s more likely than you think

I seriously think that if you’re using a continue, at best it’s just a bit less clear way to structure something, and at worst the codes a kludged together nightmare. There’s definitely good uses for break, but if you think you need a continue you should take a step back and reevaluate what you’re writing.

The only time I’ve used break outside of switch statements is to break out of for each loops early, when I’m checking to see if at least one element in a collection meets a condition. I really don’t think there’s ever a good time to use continue, to be honest. And if you use a labeled break statement, that’s a problem.