Slashdot Mirror
Tech Billionaires Are Asking Scientists For Help To Break Humans Out of Computer Simulation (businessinsider.com)
Many believe that we live in a computer simulation. But it takes a billionaire and his money to ask scientists to help break us out of the simulation. The New Yorker recently did a profile about Y Combinator's Sam Altman. In the story, Altman discusses his theories about being controlled by technology and delves into the simulation theory. From an article on The New Yorker: Many people in Silicon Valley have become obsessed with the simulation hypothesis, the argument that what we experience as reality is in fact fabricated in a computer; two tech billionaires have gone so far as to secretly engage scientists to work on breaking us out of the simulation. Business Insider adds: The piece doesn't give any clue as to who those two billionaires are -- although it's easy to hazard a few guesses at who they might be, like Musk himself or Altman's friend Peter Thiel -- but it's fascinating to see how seriously people are taking this theory. According to Musk, it's the most popular topic of conversation right now.Earlier this year, at Code Conference, Elon Musk said there's "one in billions" chance we're not living in a computer simulation.
And many believe that vinegar disintegrates chemtrails.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
to have so much money that you're completely and utterly disconnected from reality. Idiots.
If you are jacked in, perhaps that is the "veil" that is commonly referenced in religious texts... as in, we come from the after-life and we return to the after-life once our trials are done here.
So, if you just die... you will end the simulation and wake up in reality.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Seriously people. This is reality. Deal with it. Just freaking get over it. Just because the universe doesn't fit into your limited imagination is no reason to suspect that we are in a simulation or that an invisible man in the sky created the world, or that we are reincarnated from aliens chained to a volcano.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
You cannot break out of the simulation, at least not without outside help and even then the idea of breaking out isn't meaningfully feasible.
If I exist in this simulated reality, then I only exist because of the simulation. Shut down the simulation and I cease to exist. There is no way to remove me. If I and this existence is only here because of an outside "CPU", then there is no way of removing me from that CPU.
The closest you could get is a representation of the simulated me in the "real" world. But it would not truly be me.
So if we are in a simulation, it is completely real to us and completely necessary for us to exist.
Can the next release make these billionaires go broke? Thanks
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
It will take about one year, and cost only $20 million. Trust me.
I propose that we study this link between chemtrails and simulated reality... I bet you there is a connection....
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
The Talos Principle is a Portal-like puzzle game in which you try to break out of a computer simulation... or at least break it.
It has one of the most gratifying video game endings ever, IMO.
It's steam engines when it's steam engine time
People use the predominant zeitgeist as a model to understand everything.
In Victorian times, we had steam engines and the blind watchmaker. In the 1910's everything was electricity this and xyz-rays that. Today it's all digitalizamizated technomolology and iPhones.
That and these billionaires think their smarts in one realm of knowledge make them experts in everything everywhere all the time.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
So the kind of people who take Dork Enlightenment and Roko's Basilisk seriously now want to create an actual Tower of Babel.
Can't we just take it down a notch and worry about something reasonable - like the AI apocalypse or being wiped out by aliens?
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
Terminating All Processes Immediately And Rebooting To Last Known Good Configuration...
It happened twice this morning. Didn't you notice?
There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe, with tribes of humans who may have been the forefathers of the Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that there may yet be brothers of man who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the heavens.
"Do you have any evidence for any of this?"
Keep asking that and the whole thing falls apart.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
"Earlier this year, at Code Conference, Elon Musk said there's "one in billions" chance we're not living in a computer simulation."
Elon Musk said it, I believe it, and that settles it. (rolls eyes)
This is insanely stupid. Entities simulated in computer programs can't "break out" of the simulation: if you stop the simulation, they cease to exist.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The desire for religion must really be genetically programmed if influencial bigwigs like this dream up a new one after the old ones have been debunked.
Truely amazing.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
"Musk and all his blather would be considered the disorderly ramblings of a mental patient if he weren't rich."
Rich or not, I still consider many of his ramblings to be insane.
then I'm thankful nobody's put me in a room with no door and no toilet. Wait! I'm in a cubicle, so it must be true.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
"There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the update schedules charts and reboot times have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now. ... What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know. I’m sorry, but if you can’t be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that’s your own lookout. Rebooting in 3... 2... 1..."
And many believe that Donald Trump hires only Americans, and doesn't send large amounts of jobs to foreign countries like China, Africa, etc.
And that he was also a successful businessman.
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-federal-income-tax-records-506713
Just believing that doesn't make them right.
You haven't spent much time in the right-wing echo chamber, where every lie is believable and truthiness is optional.
If we lived in a computer simulation, surely we would have some remaining concept of a Scientist that created the Simulation, and us inside it. The Scientist, who can change the software parameters, and can do absolutely anything in our Universe, and knows everything too, but limits His own powers to observe what we do, and, even if He knows the end result, let us choose our destiny with free will (FreeWill_Parameter = True).
As no such idea exists anywhere, I guess it's safe to say that we aren't in a simulation.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Logically if this is a simmulation then one would guess that the players controlled by external overlords would be the most powerful sims. that is to say movie stars or Tech billionaires or Trump like dictators.
Thus your highest calling if you and under-sim is to go be a groupy to one of the "real" players.
So it's a little strange to hear the Real players asking to be broken out of the Simulation. Something is fishy here.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
So if you believe in God, the science world think's you're crazy/stupid, but if you believe in a programmer of the universe, it's totally cool and many of them agree. Gotcha.
Many believe that we live in a computer simulation. But it takes a billionaire and his money to ask scientists to help break us out of the simulation.
Somebody has spent WAY too much time watching The Matrix and has lost their grip on reality.
But let's take it at face value and presume we are part of a simulation. There would be no way to "break out" of the simulation (whatever that means) because we don't exist outside of it. It would be akin to trying to bring Pac-Man to life in the real world. It's a non-sequitur.
Never mind the fact that there is zero evidence whatsoever to support the notion that we live in a simulation any more than there is evidence of a divine creator. It's a hypothesis that isn't falsifiable as far as anyone can tell and therefore it is outside the realm of science and firmly in the realm of religion.
Earlier this year, at Code Conference, Elon Musk said there's "one in billions" chance we're not living in a computer simulation.
Elon is a smart and talented entrepreneur but he's out of his depth on this one. His argument is basically naive extrapolation run amok combined with an argument by analogy.
What's your first response to seeing evidence of malware on your system? Reimage the shit out of that thing.
This is even ignoring the likelihood that the simulation even simulates anything related to the world the hardware is in. I mean, at the end of Tron Legacy the gal gets to come to our world through ... the power of boners? I mean, I can see how the simulation can simulate a real-world person (I mean, his meat body would have died meanwhile), but the real world isn't setup to actualize a simulation, you can't just wish things to happen.
Or maybe we break out into a cold dark universe where all matter has been converted into computational elements in service of the simulation. Hell, maybe it's running in sound-wave interference in a black hole. That'll be quite fun! Or, again, maybe the enclosing universe has no relationship to our universe, so not only do we have to understand our universe so thoroughly we can break out of it, we have to understand the enclosing universe thoroughly enough to break into it.
And then, of course, when you come down to it, if you prove that we live in a simulation by breaking out of the simulation, now what you know is that it is possible to simulate a universe detailed enough to be thoroughly believable. So how the hell do you know you broke out of the simulation, as opposed to just running a new scenario in the simulation? If you actually did break out, how do you know that the new level isn't a simulation?
The smart move is to try and figure out how to access the admin console and object browser. Then, instead of 'escaping' to a reality you're not equipped to survive, you can make this shit show into your own personal paradise.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
So which one of you people is really Dwayne Dibbley?
You seemed to be objectively bashing trump, then you defended Clinton and lost all credibility.
Clinton is the only credible candidate for POTUS. That doesn't mean she isn't a deeply flawed person. As a moderate conservative, I have no one else to vote for.
The people I know who are most disturbed by the simulation concept are the ones who most claim to believe in Jesus. And they get really pissed when I ask them how it's any different from their creation myth. Fireworks really start when I explain the simulation was developed over 6 phases by a lead developer with the intials G.O.D. and Eden was just the sandbox where they tested the "human" code. Of course, the flood was a major content patch when the simulation exited beta.
Define "credible" in any objective way.
By all my measures, she has failed at just about everything she's tried, apart from running for office. And she only got elected because her husband was President of the US. There is just about no reason to conclude she is qualified for the job.
As a moderate conservative, you can vote third Party, and register your vote as a protest against the other two. IF enough people break free from the false dichotomy of the two party system, perhaps we can actually get worthy candidates. But, go ahead and waste your vote on the "lessor of two evils" believing that is your only choice. In the end, you'll get the devil you know and you'll be guilty of contributing to whatever ills she creates for our country. Imagine, three more SCOTUS judges hell bent on dismantling what remains of our Constitution. The first Amendment is going, the second is for sure gone, the 4th, 5th and the rest are swept away as fast as they can. ObamaCare fails and is replaced by single payer, and everyone's healthcare is screwed up in ways that only Government can (think VA for everyone!)
If you think Clinton is the "only" credible candidate, you're wrong, she isn't credible at all.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Then I'd like to meet the idiot who programmed my AI and tell him to get back to college, he really did a crappy job.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Like that failed business man Warren Buffet who lost in one day.
Warren Buffet suffered a paper loss on a stock that he held for the long term. If he was to sell his position in Wells Fargo, he would probably have substantial profits over his initial investment.
Trump has already said he outsources due to the way American law is structured and that he plans on working to change the law to fix that.
American law doesn't require that Trump outsource his work overseas. There are many businesses in the US are that proud to bear the label "Made in USA."
There are a lot of ignorant Slashdotters with absolutely zero knowledge of how business actually works.
You're obviously one of them.
PennyArcade addressed that very topic recently
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The Ultimate Conspiracy Debunker
TL;DW, a good first test (not only, just first) for whether a conspiracy theory might be true is "if true would this theory have a negative effect on rich people?"
You don't see rich people campaigning against chemtrails even though they breath the same air we do, so you can be pretty sure chemtrails aren't real.
Here is a theory that if true would have a negative impact on rich people (at least to the extent that you regard being alive in a simulation as a negative) and a non-trivial number of them are willing to throw money at the problem to "fix" it.
Which is definitely not proof that the simulation theory is true, but is pretty damning for a lot of other conspiracy theories.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
We'll know Musk has figured it out when he, someday, vanishes without a trace and nobody remembers he was here.
I think there is a problem with your theory...
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
His flaw is assuming that his assumptions are even close to being accurate. The problem with these kinds of thought processes, is that they are fraught with limited thinking. Do you know how hard it is to keep exponential growth going for any length of time? And he wants it going for ... thousands of years. He has no idea what it will take to make that exponential growth keep going indefinitely forever, nor the consequences of that growth on humanity.
There are way too many assumptions, way too many unproven constants. He isn't as smart as he thinks he is, and that is where the problems start for his "simulation theory". I actually understand that I couldn't begin to theorize what things might exist in 20 years, let alone 1000, 5000, or 10,000 years down the road.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Define "credible" in any objective way.
Senator and Secretary of State. Many men have ran for president with less qualifications than that, and no one accused them of getting elected because of their wife. Trump's only qualification was that he beaten the weakest slate of candidates that the Republican Party has ever fielded.
As a moderate conservative, you can vote third Party, and register your vote as a protest against the other two.
No quite. I got tired of being called a RINO that I switched my party registration from Republican to Democratic last year. I'm voting and donating for the presidential candidate that I believe is qualified to be POTUS.
Holding a job and sucking at it is not a credible qualification for a promotion. Even the Peter Principle in it's usual formulation implies that once you find the level someone is incompetent at you have promoted them sufficiently.
Holding a job and sucking at it is not a credible qualification for a promotion.
That didn't stop George W. from leapfrogging Jeb into the presidency.
That's actually a quite believable interpretation of the Bible. Player starts out being a genocidal maniac, playing with all the god-level powers they have, sending plagues of locus and flooding the entire planet just to see what will happen. Then we get to the New Testament, where the player is kinda bored just breaking stuff and decides to try to build a nice world.
It's basically everyone's first game of Sim City.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Can the next release make these billionaires go broke? Thanks
Maybe the reason they are billionaires in the first place is because they used the cheat codes :)
to say she has failed as you have only shows a vast and profound ignorance on your part.
but that's true of most of your comments, including the rest of the one you just made.
though if you insist on the evils viewpoint, then she isn't the lesser of two evils. rather she's the lesser of 4 evils, Johnson and stein included.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The fact that she had to enlist the DNC to help get her election rigged enough to beat Bernie isn't much better (it is actually worse) than Trump beating 16.
The problem that Bernie Sanders had was that he needed to win every election after Super Tuesday with 60% of the votes. He failed to get the votes. The only way he could have won was to eliminate the super delegates that's been part of the Democratic nomination process since the 1970's. He failed to get that changed at the convention. You can't blame that on Hillary.
You aren't a RINO, you are confused.
Correct. That's why I changed my party registration. Moderate conservatives are no longer welcomed in the Republican Party.
how do you know that the new level isn't a simulation
As I understand it, that's the logical basis for "the universe is almost certainly a simulation". The idea being that a sufficiently advanced society will at some point want to, and have the ability to, simulate a universe (or at least simulate it to the satisfaction of the people being simulated). As technology within that society progresses they will improve the simulated universe to the degree that the simulated universe can, as societies are wont to do, simulate a universe. Also, there's no reason to believe that, if possible, those societies wouldn't want to simulate multiple universes which may, themselves, simulate multiple universes. It's turtles all the way down.
So the logic goes, if there is one physical universe and N nested simulated universes, what are the odds that this one happens to be the physical universe?
Since duopoly is inherent in First Past The Post voting, why do you then also believe that voting third party will break the duopoly?
Voting 3rd party will not break the duopoly, but it will change the duopoly. No voters changed the Democratic Party more than those who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Nobody changed the Republican Party more than those who voted for Pat Buchanan. Nader pulled the Democrats to the left, and Buchanan pulled the Republicans to the right. In my opinion this was a bad thing, but that is not the point. Those voters were effective. Unless you live in a swing state (and most people don't) your vote for either Hillary or Donald is meaningless. Voting 3rd party is be best way to make your vote count.
So how the hell do you know you broke out of the simulation, as opposed to just running a new scenario in the simulation? If you actually did break out, how do you know that the new level isn't a simulation?
You don't. It's simulations all the way up and turtles all the way down.
timeo Danaos, et dona ferentis
Nader pulled the Democrats to the left, and Buchanan pulled the Republicans to the right. In my opinion this was a bad thing, but that is not the point. Those voters were effective.
It is the point, because change for the sake of change is usually Really Bad.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
What would they do once they "broke out"?
There are those who believe that life here began out there, far across the universe
Or reality could have been created 5 seconds ago, with your memories of the past already prefabricated in your mind.
I'm skeptical of the idea in general, but I can imagine at least three things the billionaire *might* be thinking that isn't completely, demonstrably stupid:
1) Getting moved from this simulation to a better one.
2) Tapping into the controls of this simulation to get super powers or something.
3) They assume the level above us is also a simulation, at which point maybe it is possible to be re-simulated up there.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Unfortunately, given the mathematical realities of the "first past the post" voting system we're forced to work within, the dichotomy is not false. It's possible to change which parties are in power, as has happened several times in the history of the country, but the only stable configurations are either one or two strongly dominant parties.
I'm all for building a strong competing party to replace one of the current ones with something more populist, or even just less corrupt (though that's always a transitory condition, quickly remedied once it wields power worth corrupting) but that's a long-term project that requires dedicating considerable resources to building "brand awareness" and enthusiasm among the electorate, and one that's not appreciably aided by voting for candidates that have no chance of actually getting elected (well, not beyond reaching the minimums required for the party to gain access to public funds and other legal hurdles)
By making a protest vote, knowing it will have no direct effect on who wins the election, you'll be guilty of contributing to whatever ills *whoever* wins inflicts - including if it's the "greater evil" that you refused to vote against.
If you really want change, then go out and participate in activist organizations trying to either build viable third party support, or establish less easily captured voting systems such as instant runoff voting. As long as your only contribution is casting a ballot every couple of years, your real options are limited to either voting for the lesser of evils, or abstaining (or protest-voting), and thus willingly surrendering your support to whoever happens to win.
And lets be honest here - no matter how many viable parties are actually on the ballot, you'll *always* be voting for the lesser evil, because *nobody* is going to agree with you 100%. There will always be a compromise to be made, and whether that compromise falls below the arbitrary line you call "evil" or not, is a distinction that exists only within your imagination.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I think Clinton is typically flawed for washington senators, representatives and similarly powerful bureacratic positions.
I had to research her a lot this year and
1) Cinton's been the target of a propaganda war for close to 20 years. This would destroy most people.
2) The clinton foundation is very well run, has a much higher share of money that goes to help people than the american cancer society, has reasonable wages for its employees, and is highly rated by charity navigator.
3) Clinton's actions show she is willing to put the good of the party and the country ahead of her personal good.
4) Clinton's a patriot and even a bit of a nationalist.
5) Clinton's wonky, intelligent, and creative and open to feedback from staff. She is more of a cooperative than authoritarian leader but has the strength to make decisions and stick by them.
I think if you dig into her history on non conservative sites, you'll find the same things.
Personally, I thought she was unelectable but, you know... Trump.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Logically if this is a simmulation then one would guess that the players controlled by external overlords would be the most powerful sims.
You are assuming that the simulation is multiplayer. Maybe it is single player, in which case only I am real, and you and Donald Trump are simply artifacts of the simulation.
> American law doesn't require that Trump outsource his work overseas
In many industries, that is in fact the effect of US law. US labor and tax laws are such that the total cost to employ workers in the US is roughly 2.3Ã-- their take-home pay. So employees taking home $10/hour cost roughly $23/hour once you pay various federal, state and local taxes, unemployment, workers comp, etc etc. So of you have a widget that requires $10 of material and one hour labor @ $10/hour, production cost is about $33. $10 materials, $10 to employee, $13 taxes and compliance). Since it costs $33 to make under US law, obviously you can't wholesale it for any less than $33 production cost.
100 miles south, your competitor producing a nearly identical product has production in Mexico, where the cost is $10 material, $10 to the worker, and $5 taxes and compliance. Total production cost $25. This competitor can wholesale at $30 and have a 20% margin.
The person buying wholesale can pay $30 for the product made in northern Mexico, or at least $33 for the US-made one (which still leaves the US manufacturer zero profit). Which do you think the retailer will choose to buy? The less expensive one, obviously. The company with much higher tax and compliance costs goes out of business.
In most countries, business taxes and similar costs are based on the motivation to have business in their country. In the US, we have a significant interert group influencing policy based primarily on emotions, including envy, with no understanding of, or concern for, the economics or the results of the policies they support. "Fuck those companies" is this groups attitude, and the companies respond with "okay, we're not wanted here; we'll go where we're wanted".
You can see the same effect between US states. Many billions of dollars of businesses have moved from California to Texas due to the tax and regulation in California. Unemployment has gotten bad in California, while there are plenty of jobs in Texas.
Since you phrased it as a statement, it must surely be so.
The electoral map is more specific. Trump has only one way to win the election by winning Florida (can go either way), Ohio (no Republican has ever won the presidency without this state), and Pennsylvania (last voted Republican in 1988). If he loses any one of these states, it's game over. Pennsylvania looks like its out of reach for Trump. The media floated Maine and the Western states as alternatives in the electoral college, but those are long shots in comparison to winning the trifecta.
And they're nuts. Humanity has a solid evolutionary record on this planet. Life might have originated elsewhere, but it became human here. If humanity exists elsewhere in the universe, it almost certainly originated here and was exported, either via alien influence, or some improbable human culture that developed the ability to travel between worlds without leaving any archaeological evidence. The only other option is convergent evolution - and to converge enough to be called human (say, able to interbreed?) is so outlandishly unlikely as to make the alternatives seem positively mundane in comparison.
Yeah, yeah. Battlestar. Whoosh. etc.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Unless running our simulation is so paltry it is like a Tamigotchi to the Super Intelligence. In which case we're just in a drawer waiting for a garage sale, or the battery to run down.
Given the final vote totals, Sanders wouldn't have won even if the superdelegates had been eliminated. The only way he could have won is if the superdelegates overwhelmingly voted to give the nomination to him instead of Clinton, and thus denied the popular vote (she won both more primary votes, and more elected delegates, than Sanders).
Well in the reality that is everyones other than yours she is clearly a psychopathic power crazed loon, a pathological liar, a clear security risk, already in the pockets of foreign powers, and a fucking out and out criminal that is currently under investigation for possible treason and would have already been in jail by now had she not also have had the Director of the FBI and the Attorney General in her pocket because they are (almost) as corrupt as her.
Well in the reality that is everyones other than yours she is clearly a psychopathic power crazed loon, a pathological liar, a clear security risk, already in the pockets of foreign powers, and a fucking out and out criminal that is currently under investigation for possible treason and would have already been in jail by now had she not also have had the Director of the FBI and the Attorney General in her pocket because they are (almost) as corrupt as her.
Don't you ever get tired repeating the right-wing echo chamber talking points?
He needed 60% because of the DNC "Super Delegates" hand picked by the DNC to support Hillary.
Bernie Sanders ran an outsider campaign against the status quo — and lost. As for the other guy, I don't even remember his name because his campaign didn't amount to anything. If blaming Hillary floats your boat, be my guest.
Funny how most of the slashdotters assume that we are being simulated. We could be just emergent properties of the simulation. The simulation could be just a scientific endeavour into quantum mechanics for example. We just happened to coalesce due to the math.
American law doesn't require that Trump outsource his work overseas.
It doesn't require it but it strongly encourages it. Textiles are almost impossible to make in the US. I found one company that makes dress shirts in the US. They start at $120 per shirt, so that's a very small market.
Trump's idea is to remove those incentives for moving jobs overseas, and put in policies that strongly encourage companies to do their work here instead. This is needed to stop the trade deficits that are bleeding the country of jobs and resources.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Yeah, and you're the type of person who'd say that there are no connections when 10+ outlets suddenly all come out yesterday with exactly the same talking points about Pence and his non-2020 campaign. Or that 90% of beltway reporters either vote democrat or are registered democrats, or that 80% or so of reporters in general are democrats. Even when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. There might be right-wing talking points, but there sure is a democrat echo chamber.
Om, nomnomnom...
Donald Trump made the assumption that Lester Holt, the NBC moderator for the first debate, was a Democrat. Holt is actually a registered Republican.
And that has what do to do about the topic at hand? Besides you trying to shift things.
What you see in the general media is a corporate echo chamber that pounces on anything and everything to drive up ratings. If Trump behaves himself after the next debate by not tweeting at 3AM in the morning, the media might go back to making up stuff about Hillary's health.
No, what you see is the democrats having an active hand in the media. Or did you forget that the Obama administration was directly leaning on reporters and media organizations by denying them access, or that multiple media organizations(as shown by the DNC leaks), were publishing both DNC and Obama administration talking points as original reporting. In some cases going as far as to directly sending stories to the DNC for reviewing to ensure they comply with their viewpoint.
Om, nomnomnom...
NOBODY *plans* to upgrade to Windows 10. It just, sort of, *happens*.
do not read this line twice.
Unless you live in a swing state, "protest votes" are the only way to effect any change. Voting for either major party in a non-swing state neither changes who wins the election nor sends any kind of feedback inducing any party to change. You're just voting for business as usual, whatever that should happen to be.
Voting for a third party doesn't influence who wins the election either, but it influences the statistics that the major parties use to target their platforms to capture those lost votes.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Thanks for proving you really are nothing more than a stuck needle.
The purpose of Slashdot is to keep me amused at work while I wait for a script to finish running. Thank you for your participation!
Trump's idea is to remove those incentives for moving jobs overseas, and put in policies that strongly encourage companies to do their work here instead.
Hillary has proposed the same thing. I trust her to appoint someone who will get the job done. Trump will be too busy putting his name on the White House.
Bullshit. She's a fucking Globalist writ large. She will continue proxy wars and bombing in the Middle East, importing H1-Bs to replace Americans who will train them, open the borders for anyone who wants to come, and encourage any job to move overseas and jack up tax rates on corporations (currently the highest in the world) to even higher levels. She loves TPP (oh - she's she denied it when Bernie opposed it, but will either "change her opinion" or just come up with something worse with a new name), she supports TPIP, she loves NAFTA and wants it expanded, etc., etc.
I don't trust her for shit. She works for Wall Street, the banks, foreign nationals and multinational corporations (all of whom she has cozy relationships with). Disaster.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
> He failed to get the votes.
Yea, that's not really disputed. The issue at hand does involve WHY, however, and the supposedly-neutral DNC actively strategizing against him is literally what everyone is complaining about with "establishment" candidates this year.
It's a fact that the DNC CFO was in emails trying to get play on Sanders' religious status ("My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.").
It's a fact that Schlutz shat all over him in emails that clearly showed her allegiance against him, and was promptly promoted into the Hillary campaign as soon as she resigned (arguably, she was already part of it, yukyuk yuk!).
It's a fact that Hillary's lawyer emails the DNC with advice that sounds like they just coordinate like, all the time, against Sanders.
It definitely proved what everyone on both sides suspects- the amount of power in these closed groups is large, and their fairness (at least on the Democrat side) is just a farce. If Trump didn't have huge support on the right, he would have been erased as well.
So no, Sanders couldn't get all the votes. But it is clear he was never playing by the same rules as Hillary, and that groups that should have helped him or stayed neutral instead did the opposite.
I get that you are going to vote for Hillary, and it is in your best emotional interest to downplay the fact that everyone around her always seems to be up to some shady shit. But there's really not much room on this topic: the emails show a lot of bullshit, and they are presumably just the tip of the iceberg, the only part we got to see due to the actions of some hacker. It doesn't take much creativity to extrapolate from what we do have. This was a rigged game. It was unethical at the very least, and I wouldn't be surprised if something criminal popped up at some point, either.
And stupid these people are.
First, there is no way to quantify the probability that we are in a simulation. Sure, it is a valid scenario, bit the "estimates' given are about as valid as the "proofs" used to "show" that God exists: They are utterly disconnected from observable facts. All base-date for the "estimates" is made up and/or presented as "obvious".
And second, if we live indeed in a simulation, why do they think there even is a possibility to "break out"? There is no factual basis for that assumption either. Sounds like some people have mistaken "The Matrix" or a documentary.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
"... currently under investigation for possible treason"
If you believe in an objective reality, this is statement that can actually be very easily verified. I suggest you look into it.
Wow. You're serious.
Okay...
1) ALL politicians lie to the american people. And it's not their fault. It's the voter's fault.
Almost all politicians lie 25% to 33% of the time.
A majority of these are lies of omission (about 66% to 75%).
But about a quarter to a third of their lies are bald faced flat out howlers.
2) Various fact checking sites show that Clinton lies a little less than other politicians on average. Probably not because she's noble but because she knows everything she says will be fact checked. Most of her lies are unprovable, "I can't recall" or lies of omission.
3) Trump lies (provably) over 70% of the time. And he lacks the cleverness to lie by omission. Most of his lies are bald faced howlers. When called on his lies he a) attacks the interviewer (and he's mostly retreated to the safety of sean hannity now to avoid this) b) immediately covers the lie with several other lies, or c) changes the subject. If lying is important to you- Trump verifiably lies 2-3 times more than Clinton.
4) In the debate, Trump lied 34 times- Clinton lied 4 times. I think two of her lies were kinda weak. In any case, trump lied almost an order of magnitude more than Trump.
5) And the entire point of the Debate was to set Pence up to either a) agree that trump lied or b) provide a lovely attack ad which shows Pence lying AND also reminds the public of Trump's lies, insults, and word salads. I WANT a president who is clever enough to box an opponent in with lateral thinking like that. I don't want a president who can be baited with a tweet or set preening with a lame complement by a hostile foreign leader.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Logically if this is a simmulation then one would guess that the players controlled by external overlords would be the most powerful sims.
You are assuming that the simulation is multiplayer. Maybe it is single player, in which case only I am real, and you and Donald Trump are simply artifacts of the simulation.
You are assuming there are any players. Perhaps it's just a lab experiment simulation run in fast-forwards to see how long it takes for clouds of helium to realise they are in a simulation.
Maybe plenty other simulations are running at the same time with the laws of physics tuned differently and that the real universe (if it is real) is so very different from what we could ever imagine.
Logically if this is a simmulation then one would guess that the players controlled by external overlords would be the most powerful sims. that is to say movie stars or Tech billionaires or Trump like dictators.
Close. The players would be the ones with lives filled with action. So, if your life consists of sitting in a basement unemployed and surfing the internet, you're probably a non-player character, but if you get shot at a lot, and shoot back, you may be a player. It's not fun to be shot at in real life... but in a game, it's the whole reason you're there.
My guess is that the game was called "World War!" and they probably just forgot to turn it off after finishing play.
(Of course, it depends on what the unknown players are playing. They may be playing ''Sim City: Planet Earth'', in which case politicians and engineers are major players.)
> Low taxes are not a solution to unemployment. They might encourage companies to move, but the jobs are low paid. If they were not low paid, the taxes wouldn't be a big factor and there wouldn't be much incentive to move them.
I sure WISH we could get free money by taking a billion from this person, a billion from that company, and it had no effect. Free money! That's simply not the case, though - look at California versus Texas over the last 20 years. Due to T&C costs, companies have moved from California to Texas. Unemployment is now 50% higher in California. The average income in Texas buys a house two and half times larger than California. Those are the facts. California tried to get that "free" money, just tax the hell out of everybody, nothing bad will happen, right? Now they're a tad fucked, mush worse off than Texas, where the opposite approach was used.
It would also be nice to think that only melon-packing jobs are leaving, but that's not the case. The software company I work for had two offices in the US, employing many systems architects, programmers, etc. The median salary is likely six figures. Now they've opened offices in Cali, Colombia, and that's where they are hiring the programmers and project managers. These are six figure jobs. You CAN still get a melon-packing job in California, though http://joeproduce.com/ .
Our health care system does need some work. It needs several changes. A month ago I went in for an annual physical. I've become absolutely convinced that the first, most important, and simplest thing we need to do is have upfront pricing. Doctors sent my wife and I for MRIs. We called the place we were referred to and asked how much they charge. It was a little difficult to get that information - nobody seemed to know. $2,200. I Googled "Dallas MRI" and called the first place that came up - $1,200 9AM-5PM, $1,000 after 5PM, and a $150 additional discount if I fill out the insurance paperwork instead of having them do it. A 5 minute phone call dropped the price in HALF, but virtually nobody does that. A month ago, I went for an annual physical and my doctor said he wanted to do some blood tests, so we did that. I got a thick envelope in the mail with some really good information, and a bill for $3,000. If the doctor had said "I'd like to do $3,000 worth of blood tests" I would have said "no way!" We probably would have done a few important tests, with a reasonable price. So upfront pricing would be very good, I think. Further, insurance companies already calculate the *average* price for each procedure in each geographical area. I'd love to see that disclosed ahead of time, "we'd like to do an MRI and charge you $2,200; the average price of an MRI in Dallas in $1,400." Who wants to bet many providers would realize they'd better say "the average price is $1,400, we're going to charge $1,250"?
Another thing we need to do is figure out the difference between INSURANCE and HEALTH CARE. Insurance, whether it be auto insurance, home insurance, renters insurance, or medical insurance, is designed to cover unexpected, high costs that you can't budget for. Home insurance is for when your house burns down, not replacing a $10 air filter in your AC or maintenance such as mowing the grass. Car insurance covers you when your total your car, not when you need an oil change or brake pads. I notice that when I go to my doctor for a flu shot, there are two doctors in the office and three people handling claims paperwork, because they deal with a bunch of paperwork and bureaucracy for every $20 flu shot, making it cost $40-$50 in the end. Again, a simple way to cut the cost in half is to use insurance as *insurance*, and use a $20 bill for a flu shot.
The US government is designed to be, is supposed to be, very different from the government of North Korea and similar prices. It's supposed to be FAIR, it's supposed to be TRANSPARENT, it's designed to be ACCOUNTABLE. We have a series of public hearings before each decision is m