You are so entirely certain that overpopulation is the reason they can't feed themselves that you can't even consider you might be wrong about that? Well, you're wrong about that.
So yes, it is the third world that needs population control
That's just, like, your opinion man. Seriously, people otfen to make this claim that "foreign cultures are living entirely the wrong way" without even the slightest though about it.
Of course people from a different culture aren't active optimally according to your values: they have different values. That's what "culture" means! It's not a different kind of food at a restaurant, dammit, it's a different set of values.
I'm contently amazed by how easily people claim those in a different culture must be stupid or simply children incapable of making adult decisions, because they clearly make the wrong decisions according to the speaker's values. Well, of course, they're (probably) making the right decisions according to their own values. This is a constant refrain on both sides in US politics.
But that's not an interesting claim, is my entire point. Such broad handwavey proclamations are about as scientific as "it will be warmer in the summer than the winter".
The only question is how much and what we should do about it
Yes, that is the only question. And on that question, no models have yet to prove themselves through a track record of surprising, falsifiable predictions that turned out to be true. The fact that models agree with one another couldn't possibly matter in the least: do the models agree with reality?
That however is a very weird thing to say about material that is published.
That's my single biggest complaint/concern with climate science. What's published is (normally) not enough to reproduce the model, because the source code for the model is what's being monetized for funding, and if you make that public it's no longer your advantage. To the extent that happens, that's a broken approach to science, and every bit as bit a scandal as all the false published biotech synthesis claims.
That's pretty normal in Europe too, as I understand it, with only occasional problems where the job is in a brothel or somesuch. But I've heard stories of:
Gov: Ok, here's money. And here's a job. They go together. Your call. BTW, the job pays nothing. You: but I have an internship, in my field, and it's paying a little and leading me to real work. Gov: We don't care, go dig ditches for free.
What is a non-GMO food anyhow? Aren't all of our modern foodstuffs heavily modified through centuries of selective breeding? Labeling food with made-up categories doesn't seem to help.
Let's face it: what the hipsters really want is food labeled "not associated with any Evil Corporation", as if inefficiency were something to be proud of. We already have the "Organic" label for you losers, can't you be content with that?
I'll say to you what I say to everyone who suggests "reducing the surplus population": you first.
Somehow though it's always the "third world" that needs population control: you know, those foreigners, those threatening not-quite-people who we could do with fewer of. I get tired of seeing such BS.
By theoretical physics principles, time travel is possible
Only in the sense of "not proven mathematically impossible", not in the sense of "it's a consistent model for observed data needing explanation" nor even "it's possible with stuff we no exists, and it's just a question of engineering". The only theoretical model for time travel requires either a wormhole held open with fictional "exotic matter", that could exists in theory but there's no evidence for, or a non-standard model of general relativity. Very far-fetched stuff.
I see that as we come up with concepts and try to prove them, we come up with new concepts and new methods of proof. Science is all about progression, and if you say "don't do that one" it really needs good reason other than "I think its nuts".
With limited resources you have to choose what to fund. Priority goes to stuff that there's some evidence for, or some other strong reason to believe is true. Mere creative writing not yet proven impossible must be given lower priority. I didn't think that was at all controversial.
While you do of course blame Males, and blame The Rich, you're don't even try to blame Christians nor Whitey/Colonialism for anything, and only partially and vaguely blame people who can't accept gays. 2.5 out of 5 points. Try harder, or you'll never pass this class.
For extra credit next time, also be sure to use the word "bullies" to describe those with heteronormative expectations, and do try to use the word "privilege" at least once in every post.
Almost no one is left today with a job as a farmer, soldier, or manufacturing worker - the trio that everyone thought of as "workers" in the late 19th century. But most of us have jobs. There will always be "something constructive to do", and automating away the last few manufacturing jobs won't affect that.
China's an odd anomaly. For the most part, people choose to have fewer children the first generation after industrialization (and the concurrent drop in mortality of the young). Population is not leveling out because of central authority, but because technology has reversed the incentives.
Of course, there's a growing and serious problem with demographic implosion in modern and densely populated regions. Just like Universe 25 predicted, the combination of crowding and "malaise" certainly seems to cause us to lose the social ability to reproduce, at least to reproduce above replacement rate.
Well, we have to test the sexbot firmware upgrades on someone - any volunteers? No? OK then, round up some "volunteers" for testing someplace where no one will complain if they go missing.
Actually, most of the specific claims of specific models that are 15+ years old have been falsified, to a degree that should be embarrassing. Are current models vastly better? Maybe so, but the specific details of models are usually kept secret so how can we judge (until those models are old enough)?
Time will certainly sort the good science out from the bad, but IMO that hasn't happened yet, and structurally this area of research sure seems to shy away from the usual public culling of specific models by specific falsifiable predictions. "Average worldwide temperature increases, over a sufficiently long measurement period" doesn't cut it as a prediction - that sort of hand waving isn't science. merely fortune-telling. It's easy for a clever man to explain how Nostradamus's vague predictions were all accurate as well. Specificity is a requirement for falsifiability.
lgw: "Physics puts time travel in the same bucket as God: we can't prove it's impossible" s.petry: "_YOU_ believe that God and Theoretic Physics are in the same bucket"
So, no, that's not what I wrote. It's all the difference in the world.
Also, throughout I was clear on the distinction between theoretical exploration "purely theoretical exploration of the math around time travel is valuable," and experimental. You still seem unclear on the distinction.
The point of theoretical physics is to go nuts, exploring the details "where theory describes oddities are often the most productive areas to investigate". It's the filtering process for experimental physics, where there are "quite limited experimental resources, so a higher bar than "we can't quite prove it impossible" is required".
You missed the first line of what you were replying to. What happens if a powerful government declares this software fork is the legal bitcoin software, not the current software?
Bitcoin is very much based on the threat of force, BTW. If any powerful government wanted it to cease to exist, only the threat of force by another power would prevent it. It benefits parasitically from unrelated agreements between nations not to settle disagreements by force, but that doesn't change the fact that force could eliminate BTC, and only the threat of force makes that impractical.
What are you smoking? Barter was the norm for medieval England and Europe. Only the wealthy used any sort of currency, the serfs simply never had coins or tokens of any sort.
Currency is simply "the most readily exchanged commodity". It is not necessarily a store of value, it merely needs to be a "unit of account": something that it's straightforward to represent how much of it you have with a single number.
You also seem to be confusing or conflating fiat currency with fractional-reserve banking, but the concepts are orthogonal.
Once someone invents a sexbot, all progress will grind to a halt. As a matter of fact, I think that's why intelligent species never progress to interstellar travel. Once they have the sexbot, they never leave the house.
Nah, that's a brief stumbling block. Eventually most species figure out that you can put a sexbot on a space ship, and interstellar travel is appealing again. That's also why we don't see aliens all over the place - they just have great technology to insure a little privacy when it's most needed.
That's the joke, but it doesn't actually work out that way. At least, in every still-primitive society we've been able to observe, if the tribe has the ability to support just one person in a specialized trade (that is, not gathering his own food, but performing work in trade for food), it's a shaman of some sort.
Can you define "discoverability"? Didn't think so.
When I moved to WIn7 from XP, a bunch of stuff had moved around, but I could explore and eventually figure everything out, mostly be right-clicking on every new widget and discovering what the new things were. It was actually kind of fun.
When I tried to move to Win8, it was a fucking nightmare. I didn't know how to do the most basic of tasks, and I had no way to discover anything. Weird bars would arbitrarily pop out with weird symbols, with no apparent connection to what I was clicking on. Right-clicking wasn't particularly helpful. I was utterly lost.
Why, it's like they expected me to read a book on their UI, or watch a video or something - to learn an interface! It was like the bad old days of command lines with no "help" command, so you had to be shown each new thing by someone who already knew. I can't imagine what they were thinking. That's not how computers work any more.
I'm willing to have sympathy for someone effectively forced into a job by the government, much like I'd only hold a drafted soldier responsible for behavior inappropriate for a soldier, not for the fact there's a war in the first place.
OTOH, I find it quite shocking that in the UK being forced into working some job you didn't choose (over a job you were actually doing, the way I hear it) is apparently a thing. I mean, all of us not independently wealthy are forced by circumstance to earn a living, and our options are limited by our skills, but that's a far cry from having a single job dictated to you.
I think that your statements need clarification. _YOU_ believe that God and Theoretic Physics are in the same bucket. _YOU_ believe that contemplating philosophical questions that we can prove today is "nuts"
Wow, way to argue against a post you completely made up instead of the post I actually wrote.
"Theoretic Physics" is precisely what says "we can't quite prove time travel impossible, but everything makes sense without it". As I said, pursuing the math in hopes of learning more, one way or the other, is normal theoretical physics, but experimental science is simply not in the Invisible Pink Unicorn business.
There are unlimited fanciful ideas about reality, and quite limited experimental resources, so a higher bar than "we can't quite prove it impossible" is required.
That's basically correct. Another idea is that of "protected history", where time travel is possible but can't change the timeline at all, because the quantum dice only get rolled once, so the time traveler was always part of the timeline. That one holds up quite well mathematically, as it turns out.
But you're correct overall: there's no "you can change small things, but not big things" anywhere outside of fiction - it's all or nothing.
Physics puts time travel in the same bucket as God: we can't prove it's impossible, but it's not needed to explain anything. Spending resources looking for time travelers is a bit nuts. OTOH, purely theoretical exploration of the math around time travel is valuable, because the areas where theory describes oddities are often the most productive areas to investigate.
I'm assuming in the UK that no one is actually forced by the government into this line of work? (I'm actually unsure about this, after hearing stories of people legally forced to work unpaid "internships".) If they chose this job, they deserve everything that comes from it. I'll stop before I godwin the thread.
Slashdot Mirror
You are so entirely certain that overpopulation is the reason they can't feed themselves that you can't even consider you might be wrong about that? Well, you're wrong about that.
So yes, it is the third world that needs population control
That's just, like, your opinion man. Seriously, people otfen to make this claim that "foreign cultures are living entirely the wrong way" without even the slightest though about it.
Of course people from a different culture aren't active optimally according to your values: they have different values. That's what "culture" means! It's not a different kind of food at a restaurant, dammit, it's a different set of values.
I'm contently amazed by how easily people claim those in a different culture must be stupid or simply children incapable of making adult decisions, because they clearly make the wrong decisions according to the speaker's values. Well, of course, they're (probably) making the right decisions according to their own values. This is a constant refrain on both sides in US politics.
How can I be a longstanding enemy of a 7-digit UID? Anyhow, I don't recall seeing your username before yesterday, and it's a bit distinctive.
the earth is warming due to human activity
But that's not an interesting claim, is my entire point. Such broad handwavey proclamations are about as scientific as "it will be warmer in the summer than the winter".
The only question is how much and what we should do about it
Yes, that is the only question. And on that question, no models have yet to prove themselves through a track record of surprising, falsifiable predictions that turned out to be true. The fact that models agree with one another couldn't possibly matter in the least: do the models agree with reality?
That however is a very weird thing to say about material that is published.
That's my single biggest complaint/concern with climate science. What's published is (normally) not enough to reproduce the model, because the source code for the model is what's being monetized for funding, and if you make that public it's no longer your advantage. To the extent that happens, that's a broken approach to science, and every bit as bit a scandal as all the false published biotech synthesis claims.
That's pretty normal in Europe too, as I understand it, with only occasional problems where the job is in a brothel or somesuch. But I've heard stories of:
Gov: Ok, here's money. And here's a job. They go together. Your call. BTW, the job pays nothing.
You: but I have an internship, in my field, and it's paying a little and leading me to real work.
Gov: We don't care, go dig ditches for free.
What is a non-GMO food anyhow? Aren't all of our modern foodstuffs heavily modified through centuries of selective breeding? Labeling food with made-up categories doesn't seem to help.
Let's face it: what the hipsters really want is food labeled "not associated with any Evil Corporation", as if inefficiency were something to be proud of. We already have the "Organic" label for you losers, can't you be content with that?
I'll say to you what I say to everyone who suggests "reducing the surplus population": you first.
Somehow though it's always the "third world" that needs population control: you know, those foreigners, those threatening not-quite-people who we could do with fewer of. I get tired of seeing such BS.
By theoretical physics principles, time travel is possible
Only in the sense of "not proven mathematically impossible", not in the sense of "it's a consistent model for observed data needing explanation" nor even "it's possible with stuff we no exists, and it's just a question of engineering". The only theoretical model for time travel requires either a wormhole held open with fictional "exotic matter", that could exists in theory but there's no evidence for, or a non-standard model of general relativity. Very far-fetched stuff.
I see that as we come up with concepts and try to prove them, we come up with new concepts and new methods of proof. Science is all about progression, and if you say "don't do that one" it really needs good reason other than "I think its nuts".
With limited resources you have to choose what to fund. Priority goes to stuff that there's some evidence for, or some other strong reason to believe is true. Mere creative writing not yet proven impossible must be given lower priority. I didn't think that was at all controversial.
Very poor post, gets an "F".
While you do of course blame Males, and blame The Rich, you're don't even try to blame Christians nor Whitey/Colonialism for anything, and only partially and vaguely blame people who can't accept gays. 2.5 out of 5 points. Try harder, or you'll never pass this class.
For extra credit next time, also be sure to use the word "bullies" to describe those with heteronormative expectations, and do try to use the word "privilege" at least once in every post.
Almost no one is left today with a job as a farmer, soldier, or manufacturing worker - the trio that everyone thought of as "workers" in the late 19th century. But most of us have jobs. There will always be "something constructive to do", and automating away the last few manufacturing jobs won't affect that.
China's an odd anomaly. For the most part, people choose to have fewer children the first generation after industrialization (and the concurrent drop in mortality of the young). Population is not leveling out because of central authority, but because technology has reversed the incentives.
Of course, there's a growing and serious problem with demographic implosion in modern and densely populated regions. Just like Universe 25 predicted, the combination of crowding and "malaise" certainly seems to cause us to lose the social ability to reproduce, at least to reproduce above replacement rate.
Well, we have to test the sexbot firmware upgrades on someone - any volunteers? No? OK then, round up some "volunteers" for testing someplace where no one will complain if they go missing.
Makes sense to me!
Actually, most of the specific claims of specific models that are 15+ years old have been falsified, to a degree that should be embarrassing. Are current models vastly better? Maybe so, but the specific details of models are usually kept secret so how can we judge (until those models are old enough)?
Time will certainly sort the good science out from the bad, but IMO that hasn't happened yet, and structurally this area of research sure seems to shy away from the usual public culling of specific models by specific falsifiable predictions. "Average worldwide temperature increases, over a sufficiently long measurement period" doesn't cut it as a prediction - that sort of hand waving isn't science. merely fortune-telling. It's easy for a clever man to explain how Nostradamus's vague predictions were all accurate as well. Specificity is a requirement for falsifiability.
lgw: "Physics puts time travel in the same bucket as God: we can't prove it's impossible"
s.petry: "_YOU_ believe that God and Theoretic Physics are in the same bucket"
So, no, that's not what I wrote. It's all the difference in the world.
Also, throughout I was clear on the distinction between theoretical exploration "purely theoretical exploration of the math around time travel is valuable," and experimental. You still seem unclear on the distinction.
The point of theoretical physics is to go nuts, exploring the details "where theory describes oddities are often the most productive areas to investigate". It's the filtering process for experimental physics, where there are "quite limited experimental resources, so a higher bar than "we can't quite prove it impossible" is required".
You missed the first line of what you were replying to. What happens if a powerful government declares this software fork is the legal bitcoin software, not the current software?
Bitcoin is very much based on the threat of force, BTW. If any powerful government wanted it to cease to exist, only the threat of force by another power would prevent it. It benefits parasitically from unrelated agreements between nations not to settle disagreements by force, but that doesn't change the fact that force could eliminate BTC, and only the threat of force makes that impractical.
What are you smoking? Barter was the norm for medieval England and Europe. Only the wealthy used any sort of currency, the serfs simply never had coins or tokens of any sort.
Currency is simply "the most readily exchanged commodity". It is not necessarily a store of value, it merely needs to be a "unit of account": something that it's straightforward to represent how much of it you have with a single number.
You also seem to be confusing or conflating fiat currency with fractional-reserve banking, but the concepts are orthogonal.
Once someone invents a sexbot, all progress will grind to a halt. As a matter of fact, I think that's why intelligent species never progress to interstellar travel. Once they have the sexbot, they never leave the house.
Nah, that's a brief stumbling block. Eventually most species figure out that you can put a sexbot on a space ship, and interstellar travel is appealing again. That's also why we don't see aliens all over the place - they just have great technology to insure a little privacy when it's most needed.
That's the joke, but it doesn't actually work out that way. At least, in every still-primitive society we've been able to observe, if the tribe has the ability to support just one person in a specialized trade (that is, not gathering his own food, but performing work in trade for food), it's a shaman of some sort.
Can you define "discoverability"? Didn't think so.
When I moved to WIn7 from XP, a bunch of stuff had moved around, but I could explore and eventually figure everything out, mostly be right-clicking on every new widget and discovering what the new things were. It was actually kind of fun.
When I tried to move to Win8, it was a fucking nightmare. I didn't know how to do the most basic of tasks, and I had no way to discover anything. Weird bars would arbitrarily pop out with weird symbols, with no apparent connection to what I was clicking on. Right-clicking wasn't particularly helpful. I was utterly lost.
Why, it's like they expected me to read a book on their UI, or watch a video or something - to learn an interface! It was like the bad old days of command lines with no "help" command, so you had to be shown each new thing by someone who already knew. I can't imagine what they were thinking. That's not how computers work any more.
I'm willing to have sympathy for someone effectively forced into a job by the government, much like I'd only hold a drafted soldier responsible for behavior inappropriate for a soldier, not for the fact there's a war in the first place.
OTOH, I find it quite shocking that in the UK being forced into working some job you didn't choose (over a job you were actually doing, the way I hear it) is apparently a thing. I mean, all of us not independently wealthy are forced by circumstance to earn a living, and our options are limited by our skills, but that's a far cry from having a single job dictated to you.
I think that your statements need clarification. _YOU_ believe that God and Theoretic Physics are in the same bucket. _YOU_ believe that contemplating philosophical questions that we can prove today is "nuts"
Wow, way to argue against a post you completely made up instead of the post I actually wrote.
"Theoretic Physics" is precisely what says "we can't quite prove time travel impossible, but everything makes sense without it". As I said, pursuing the math in hopes of learning more, one way or the other, is normal theoretical physics, but experimental science is simply not in the Invisible Pink Unicorn business.
There are unlimited fanciful ideas about reality, and quite limited experimental resources, so a higher bar than "we can't quite prove it impossible" is required.
That's basically correct. Another idea is that of "protected history", where time travel is possible but can't change the timeline at all, because the quantum dice only get rolled once, so the time traveler was always part of the timeline. That one holds up quite well mathematically, as it turns out.
But you're correct overall: there's no "you can change small things, but not big things" anywhere outside of fiction - it's all or nothing.
Physics puts time travel in the same bucket as God: we can't prove it's impossible, but it's not needed to explain anything. Spending resources looking for time travelers is a bit nuts. OTOH, purely theoretical exploration of the math around time travel is valuable, because the areas where theory describes oddities are often the most productive areas to investigate.
I'm assuming in the UK that no one is actually forced by the government into this line of work? (I'm actually unsure about this, after hearing stories of people legally forced to work unpaid "internships".) If they chose this job, they deserve everything that comes from it. I'll stop before I godwin the thread.