We would need 212 Mega Guillotines to eliminate all the world’s billionaires at once.
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
327 points (97.1% liked)
196
16714 readers
2673 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
212,000,000 guillotines. Wow! 222,298,112 if you're a nerd.
The mega guillotine is unproven tech, lets test it on all the MAGA freaks before we roll it out to greater use.
Can someone do the math on this? What kind of force would you need on the blade to cut through 15 fat rich person necks? How heavy would it need to be? And what speed, like how high would the drop need to be? Would it be strong enough to just hold at two ends, or would the flex cause issues with it not dropping straight?
At this point it would probably be better to have some kind of pneumatic cylinder that chops off a single head, but does it really really fast. That way you can just drop down the rich asshole, lop off their head, pull the body away and plop down the next one. How much throughput could we get with that?
I'm not saying we should grind any living beings into pulp, but I'm pretty sure those meat grinders they throw male chickens into, already exist in very similar and much larger versions in various industries.
That was kinda my thoughts too; just use a log splitter with a sharper blade.
Cons; the blade will weigh a metric fuckton.
That's about it.
Springloaded carbon fiber blade for v2
Wouldn't a heavy blade be a good thing? So you can ensure a clean cut on the way down?
Oh sure, to get a good cut, you need a heavy blade.
The point is... who's gonna lift it up?
You can see the heft a blade meant for a single head has in this video from guys who made one this summer: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/RPO7fm_ZtlY (it's a short no long video)
Perhaps the design could be altered.
I know the appeal of a guillotine is that it's fairly simple, but if we're gonna scale it up for maximal decapitating efficiency, then I feel like we can afford to have a motor with some horsepower lift the blade. Maybe two to make keeping both sides of the blade even easier.
We'll of we're just going for efficiency, what don't we just use a bolt gun?
I think the appeal of a guillotine is more... the vivid images of the French revolution it conjure.
We could still go for the massive one, just got to have some ratchet system so it doesn't fall before we want it to.
Nah just add a decent pulley and maybee thicker beams so it wont collapse.
I think it would need extra force to push it al the way down until it is done as well as an extra guide rail or chain to keep it from jamming.
That's okay though, we can test it a bunch in situ to work out the kinks.
You're really underestimating the weight of stainless steel.
Nice, came here to see if someone already posted it
Agreed. Did the same thing. Thanks op, everyone needs a little The AJJs in their life.
- Head Assembly on the head disassembler
New trolley problem just dropped
You can fit so many billionaires into this bad boy.
I don't think it would get all the way through the one on the far right. Should hit his spine tho so whatever.
Congresspeoplw not just men. Don't want to leave out MTG.
I find it a little concerning how many people seem so gung-ho about the death penalty. Personally, at least, if Hitler hadn't killed himself, and I had been alive back then, I would have argued against him being executed. Death is too quick. Let him rot in supermax. Make him spend the rest of his natural life thinking about what he's done.
Maybe put him in a cell block where the security cameras have been flakey lately.
Starts comment with concern about people who support the death penalty — ends comment with advocating vigilante torture/rape/something else horrid.
There's a lot of long-term cost associated with imprisonment. The death penalty is cheaper to impose. If you're never going to let them go, why not rid yourself of the burden.
It is not, in fact, cheaper to impose the death penalty.
I was given the con side of the death penalty to argue once in forensics. I was actually pro death penalty and one reason was that I thought it was cheaper. I went to do research on this because it was certainly a point I’d have to contend with from the pro side.
It is vastly more expensive to execute a prisoner than to imprison them for life. https://ejusa.org/resource/wasteful-inefficient/
Now you might think, hey that’s a link to a group that wants to get rid of the death penalty, of course they are going to say it’s more expensive. Go read the studies, I did, and again and again it is far more expensive to execute.
Why? Because we, pretty reasonably, put a high burden in front of the state before we allow them to kill a citizen. The legal process for both reaching the death penalty and then the numerous appeals to that decision is not cheap. It is a massive cost that the taxpayer has to bear to uphold the ruling and actually carry out the execution.
So it is far cheaper to house a person for life, and this shouldn’t really be that shocking. The prisons are built, the daily care of a prisoner is minimal, we provide them with the barest living conditions and food. The number of people we even could execute is a tiny percent of the prison population, so it’s not like they are taking up some huge amount of space and require us to build huge facilities to house them. If you could thanos snap every prisoner that could reasonably be executed out of existence, you wouldn’t free up enough prison housing space to close even a single facility, even more so when you consider that these prisoners are a handful in each facility.
The danger with “common sense” things that confirm our beliefs is that they can be wrong. The world is more complicated than it seems. I used to believe that it was cheaper to execute than to house. I was forced to argue the other side and because I’m competitive and want to win I did the research. I’m glad I did, it taught me an important lesson in not just believing something because it felt obviously correct.
All told, I’m not really sure I’m even against the death penalty. Some people are irredeemable and their deaths don’t weigh heavy on me. On the other hand, the idea of making it any easier for the state to execute me if they want to is unsettling. The common arguments in favor of the death penalty don’t really hold up. I’m an atheist, so I don’t believe the person is going to some eternal torture, they simply cease to exist. And it’s more expensive. From a practical standpoint I see little benefit for imposing the death penalty, but I understand the point of view of people being so reprehensible they don’t deserve to live even if it’s a high cost on society.
If you would like to continue arguing in favor of the death penalty though, you’ll do yourself a favor to go research the subject. It is more complicated and nuanced than you might think at first glance. And at the end of the day, if the thing you care about is cost, you’d never execute another person. It is far far more expensive to execute a prison than to house them.
I think we can all compromise. A short period of time (1-3 months?) of unimaginable torture. Then the mega guillotine. They suffer, we don't have to use taxpayer money to keep them alive. Win win.
Although someone did mention r**e below. I think everyone can agree that is taking it too far. Stick to non-sexual bodily/psychological harm.
I agree that I would like to get off of Mr. Bones' Wild Ride before it reaches the "rape is okay as long as it's happening to the right people" stop.