[a9h74j]

> Sometimes the best solution is not a technical solution

I once came across an early 1950s Scientific American article by Bertrand Russel, IIRC. It included a cartoon.

Frame one: Computer beats man at chess.

Frame two: Man unplugs computer.

[Vecr]

How about this? Frame one: man beats woman at chess. Frame two: woman shoots man with automatic pistol. Not sure how deep the original really is if you think about it...

[weird-eye-issue]

The problem is you are trying to make something "deep" when it wasn't trying to be

[a9h74j]

IIRC, Russel's thesis was something to the effect of ultimate supremecy of man over machine. I associate "Sept 1952" as the issue. The last frame suggested a certain obviousness and nonchalance in the man unplugging the computer, as if no great debate would be involved. I wonder if the article itself might now evidence too much of innocence back in that day, aside from a prediction that computers would eventually beat humans at chess. Too much innocence regarding technological imperitives and the technosphere?

[CydeWeys]

What?! That's not comparable at all. The computer isn't murdered, it's just off. Also even if you did destroy the computer, that's not murder.

[Konohamaru]

It's not comparable because computers are things but women are not.

[Vecr]

My intention was for the woman to shoot the man, it's possible I wrote it wrong. They could be both men or aliens or even computers/robots with human like intelligence. If they were both thinking computers the "pistol" could really be a human paid in Monero to go smash the other computers hard drives and backups.