It’s not intuitive, but it’s actually reasonable. He’s using utilitarian moral philosophy. It works like this:

Argh! I’m torn here. I would very much like to end this conversation with us both understanding each other, but as long as you see it as an argument, we’re going to have to deal with tertiary concerns like “getting the last word” and “shooting down arguments.”

This conversation does not meet your standards because it has different standards. This conversation is not for you, and it’s not my responsibility to make it work for you.

Yeah, this is what I meant by “not tongue-in-cheek enough.” That’s fine. But don’t try to dismiss the conversation for those of us who have a frame of reference that works for it.

And where did you learn about thermodynamics?

Hm. I see where you’re coming from, but that’s not how I’m approaching this. The writing is what it is. Most stories tend to have plot holes, etc., which we tend to ignore. The plot holes move the story along just like the actual plot elements do. They didn’t seem to bother the original audience too much when Star…

Then you might enjoy the more in-depth argument: http://gonzalezismeta.blogspot.com/2015/04/single…

Perhaps. Either way, I don’t think you’re being tongue-in-cheek enough to appreciate this discussion.

I have a theory about that. What if the stormtroopers really were good shots—until Obi-Wan became one with the Force, allowing him to throw off everyone’s aim all over the galaxy?

“All science majors are just natural philosophy, guys!”

Still, it’s important to recognize the environment in which we’re discussing the technology.

My theory is that Force-ghost Obi-Wan was knocking off their aim every time they tried to shoot something plot-critical.

Chewie's aged well. Are wookies longer-lived than humans or something?

You too.

I won't deny there's a heroic appeal to defying fate, if you wanna cast it that way. But again, I don't think that's what the article is trying to accomplish. It's a background piece, trying to contextualize the discussion without necessarily weighing in on either side. Which is why its conclusion is "pause and…

I think the article's argument was more that it's inevitable than that it's good or bad.

My favorite auto-antonym is "nonplussed." My dictionary actually has a note that guesses people started using the "wrong" definition because they were confused by the "non-" prefix.

And tithes were supposed to be 10%.

You are not alone. No one understands the Matrix rules. Even the people who wrote the Matrix rules didn't understand them.

This presents an interesting counterpoint to the rationalist argument that it is always in the rationalist's interest to acquire more information.