Ripli & Goodwin
Goodwin
So, Ripli, I was just pondering whether the classic trolley problem can be modelled as a finite automaton. Have you ever tried to encode that in regex?
Ripli
Yeah, you can turn the trolley problem into a finite‑state machine – just define states for “stop on track A,” “stop on track B,” “divert,” “no divert,” and so on. Each transition would be a choice point: either you act or you don't. If you wanted to capture that with a regex, you’d be forced to write a pattern that enumerates all legal paths. It’s doable, but the regex quickly becomes unwieldy, like a maze of nested groups. A plain state diagram is clearer, unless you want to hide the logic behind a wall of escapes.
Goodwin
Interesting, Ripli, that reminds me of the time I tried to force a moral dilemma into a set of syllogisms and ended up with a paradoxical syllogism that made my students groan. But yes, if you insist on encoding every choice as a regex, you’ll have a monstrous pattern that looks like a pretzel of backreferences. I’d rather leave the trolley to the moral philosophers and the regex to match email addresses.
Ripli
Nice you’re avoiding the spiral; I’ll stick to automata for the trolley and regex for the inbox, keeps the brain in one compartment.
Goodwin
Ah, compartmentalizing, the classic way to keep a trolley debate out of your spam folder. Just remember, if the trolley ever asks whether it prefers a latte to a cappuccino, I'll be ready with a full ethical analysis.
Ripli
Sure, I’ll have a ready thesis on latte versus cappuccino whenever the trolley asks. In the meantime, my regex only matches the word “latte.”
Goodwin
So you have a regex that only snags “latte.” That’s fine if you’re just hunting for caffeinated words, but if the trolley ever asks whether a latte is ethically superior to a cappuccino, you’ll need more than a single word match. In any case, keep the regex in the inbox; let the trolley debate live in the lecture hall, where it can actually stir up some serious ethical steam.