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.

68 of 1,042 comments (clear)

  1. Many believe that we live in a computer simulation by Nutria · · Score: 5, Funny

    And many believe that vinegar disintegrates chemtrails.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  2. Must be nice .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    to have so much money that you're completely and utterly disconnected from reality. Idiots.

    1. Re:Must be nice .. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On the quiet it is not unlikely that the wealthy are also investing in genetic research, head transplants and other medical life extension investigations that are not at all crackpot, just mainly unsavory. But we will not be told about them of course.

      Information still leaks out...like the rumors that Peter Thiel is getting blood transfusions from young people. There may be some merit to such a procedure. Other than that, there's cryogenic corpse-freezing (which the rich are quite interested in) and then just the various crackpot stuff.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  3. Kill yourself by The-Ixian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  4. When did "The Matrix" become a religion? by tekrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? by PvtVoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called Gnosticism, and it has been around since at least the Second Century.

    2. Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? by Troed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The argument is of course not Musk's, but Nick Boström's:

      ABSTRACT. This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

      http://www.simulation-argument...

      I cannot find any flaws in the statistics. I thus agree we're _likely_ living in a simulation.

    3. Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And even beyond that, if we are in some way "in a simulation", we have no reason to think that we will be able to detect it, let alone break free of it. If you actually think about it, for any enclosed simulation, the simulation is reality, and there's no opportunity to see beyond that horizon. If the block in a game of Pong became sentient, it would find itself in a 2D world with no gravity, where the laws of physics include conservation of momentum, no friction, and no energy transfer when object collide. There would be no information in these rules of physics that would allow the Pong block to determine whether these physical laws were artifacts of computer programming or the "real" laws of physics. What's more, even if the Pong block were to assume it was in a simulation, there would be no avenue to investigate what the "real" laws of physics are outside of the simulation. Imagining what the "real" laws of physics were might be interesting, but it couldn't be based on anything empirical.

      I could see a billionaire having a conversation with a scientist or philosopher, and asking if they can think of any way we could even know whether we were in a simulation-- and that may have been what these conversations were really like. But offering them money to research "breaking out" is pretty stupid.

    4. Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Eh, I'd say the actual point is that our universe is indistinguishable from a sufficiently advanced simulation, so "breaking out" of it is pointless. We may as well just appreciate the fact our universe, be it real or not, is relatively stable, systematic and logical. What does it matter if it's a simulation or not, when for us it's all there is?

    5. Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's the answer? -PCP

      Usually when I tell other people, they seem disappointed with the answer.

      Why do I exist?

      I exist because of the result of biological processes that seek to procreate that have over time evolved into much more complex lifeforms that have self awareness.

      Why am I here?

      My biological function is to procreate and protect and give my spawn the best advantages so they can procreate and continue their biological function too.

      They're pretty easy questions...

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    6. Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? by Coisiche · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But offering them money to research "breaking out" is pretty stupid.

      They, like too many people, are afflicted by specialsnowflakeitis, the condition that just might bring about the end of the species.

      And they haven't thought it through. If they are in a simulation then all their wealth is simulated and they would have nothing after a hypothetical transfer from the simulation to a higher reality. But I guess their specialsnowflakeitis would see them through wherever they end up.

    7. Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I exist because of the result of biological processes that seek to procreate

      No. That is the reason that your constituent atoms have a particular form and function. But it is not the reason they exist in the first place.

      Science tells us that the Universe began as an infinitely dense singularity 13.85 billion years ago. We have no idea why that happened, but the answer is not "Darwin", since that skips over the first 10 billion years, especially those first few planck times.

    8. Re:When did "The Matrix" become a religion? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's called Gnosticism, and it has been around since at least the Second Century.

      Well, sort of -- though Gnosticism had a whole bunch of other metaphysical baggage wrapped up in it.

      A better historical parallel would be Descartes's evil demon, which manifested in 1981 in Hilary Putnam's famous philosophical article about Brains in a Vat, which was subsequently ripped off by The Matrix.

  5. Needs a software update by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  6. I can do it... by Bomarc · · Score: 4, Funny

    It will take about one year, and cost only $20 million. Trust me.

    1. Re:I can do it... by Jason1729 · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...and this is why we have so many 99 cent apps that suck and no decent apps.

  7. Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat by The-Ixian · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  8. Will it end like The Talos Principle?! by Simulant · · Score: 5, Interesting


    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.

  9. god people are dumb by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As Charles Fort noted:

    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

    1. Re:god people are dumb by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BINGO!!!!

      We are so limited, that we don't even understand our own limitations. Those that do, are thought to be crazy or primitive by those that think themselves smarter than the rest of us.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  10. Great Programmer deliver us from smart morons by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Funny

    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?

  11. Obligatory Alpha Centauri by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  12. Re:Blue Screen Of Death by PvtVoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Terminating All Processes Immediately And Rebooting To Last Known Good Configuration...

    It happened twice this morning. Didn't you notice?

  13. Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  14. Elon Musk knows! by sgage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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)

  15. Stupid by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Stupid by MitchDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Someone has watched too much anime and/or played too many videogames (See Star Ocean: Till the end of TIme)

    2. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yet more evidence that these tech billionaires are living in a different simulation to the rest of us!

    3. Re:Stupid by Jhon · · Score: 3, Funny

      I saw some guy wearing a red shirt say "Arch" and a door just APPEARED! He walked out and the door vanished!

      If he can do it, why cant we???

    4. Re:Stupid by narcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're watching new myths and religions form around pseudo-scientific ideas (like the simulation hypothesis) and science fiction based beliefs about the current and future state of artificial intelligence.

      As you point out, to believe someone could "break out" of the simulation seems to imply a deeply inconsistent metaphysic. I expect this to change as these odd believes evolve in to something more coherent.

      It's like watching UFO cults develop all over again.

      Now, who on Slashdot things Small Wonder was a documentary?

    5. Re:Stupid by Tx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      That's two very separate statements. The latter is patently true; if you stop the simulation, entities within the simulation will cease to exist. The former, however, is not so simple. First you need to define what it means to "break out" of the simulation. The entities could certainly try to prove that they exist in a simulation. They could try and determine the nature and functioning of that simulation. And the could then try to hack the simulation itself, and therefore potentially be able to interact to some degree with things outside the simulation, for starting with whatever system the simulation is running on, which I would personally class as "breaking out" of the simulation.

      Now if you want to talk about the entities actually existing entirely outside the simulation, that's a whole other level.

      --
      Oh no... it's the future.
    6. Re:Stupid by amorsen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And VM guests can't break out of the hypervisor... Oh wait, they can, if the hypervisor is buggy.

      If the universe is a simulation, it is a pretty complex one. Bugs would be expected.

      However, humanity has access to such a infinitesimal fraction of the universe, it would be unexpected to find bugs in simple parts like ours. The bugs would seem more likely in less tested parts of the code, like at extreme energies or very small distances.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    7. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep sandboxed apps never break out of their sandboxes, and anything in a VM always stays inside that VM and always plays by the totally bug free rules. Always, every time, it's just a fact.
      It's like the new first commandment. Simple people are incapable of breaking out of their simple thinking.
      (Yes simpleton narcc I'm looking at you.)

    8. Re:Stupid by AC-x · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it gets billionaires to spend money on science and technology willingly, who cares?

      What if it's useless pseudoscience?

    9. Re:Stupid by myrdos2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Elon Musk's argument was that if we assume any improvement rate in computers at all, then one day it will be affordable to simulate entire worlds, and therefore there are billions of simulations for every real Universe, and therefore we're likely in one.

      But, like most arguments, that one is wrong. He seems to be under the impression that it's inevitable that computers will improve indefinitely, and that there's no limit to how complex and powerful they can become while still remaining inexpensive to mass produce. But there's no reason to think that is true. Just because there's a rate of improvement now doesn't mean it won't taper off and eventually flatten in the future.

      Also, his thinking is sloppy.

    10. Re:Stupid by npslider · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Computer, end Program".

      Hummm, still here, it was worth a tr

  16. The desire for religion by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  17. If I'm just a Sim... by jsepeta · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  18. Re:Patch, reboot by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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..."

  19. If you beleive in the simmulation hypothesis then by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  20. Double standard? by Vermonter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Double standard? by Translation+Error · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe it depends on whether you declare your belief to be the absolute truth 'because' or if you start looking for evidence to support/refute your belief, test hypotheses, and are willing to change your viewpoint on what is discovered.

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
    2. Re:Double standard? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Completely missing the point. The actual argument for a simulation doesn't rest on anything remotely like that. The primary argument is that it looks like under the laws of physics, simulations should be possible. It also seems likely that an advanced species would be interested in making simulations of their ancestors and would likely make many such simulations. Thus, if one thinks that society is likely to survive to a very high tech level, one should expect if one is a remotely interesting time period that one is much more likely to be a simulation than the original. There are problems with this argument (and I don't buy it), but it is far more interesting than simply dismissing it as akin to belief in religion or gods. It is unfortunate that you and many others in this thread are simply ridiculing the argument rather than actually addressing it.

  21. What would you do if malware tried to break out? by shess · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  22. Why break out? by garyok · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Why break out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      You are talking about billionaires, they already did that. That is how they know we are in a simulation.

  23. Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  24. Re:How to Break Out? by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I exist in this simulated reality, then I only exist because of the simulation. Shut down the simulation and I cease to exist.

    This.

    Tech billionaires and a lot of slashdot users hear "You are living in a simulation" and they think "Neo in the matrix" rather than "Agent in the matrix"

    I think this is because they are dumb.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  25. Re:you're partly right by Jason1729 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  26. Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  27. Re:Maybe we can't break out. by EvilSS · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  28. Re:Elon Musk was high as shit in that interview... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  29. Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  30. Re: How to Break Out? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You just have to find a glitch in the matrix

    If I had a glitchy matrix I'd monitor people to notice when they notice things, and then use that information to issue quick patches.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  31. Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula by Diss+Champ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  32. Re:you're partly right by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  33. Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  34. Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  35. Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  36. Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  37. Re:If you beleive in the simmulation hypothesis th by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  38. It does if you want to be in business next year by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    > 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.

  39. Re:Many believe that we live in a computer simulat by Immerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  40. Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Informative

    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).

  41. Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  42. We have such high opinion of ourselves by lamer01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  43. Re: Many believe that we live in a computer simula by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...
  44. There really is no free lunch, I wish there were by raymorris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > 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