I'll give you a hint: I was disabled, and literally did not have enough money for food. I went to the government for help. I was rejected, while other people (of a more politically favored class) that were not disabled at all were given money.
Eventually, I found a job were I could work somewhat. I then had to pay taxes to support those favored by the government, when I could barely afford rent.
You trust the government, because you have never been abused by it. You're probably also pretty good at getting others to give you what you want by talking.
I sucked at that, though I got better. The government, and unions, help a certain class of people by harming everyone else.
To me, you union/government guys guys are simply either inexperienced or insane. The path you chose has never worked. It has been proven mathematically impossible via simple, well understood economics. Yet you persist in believing that if only we gave all the power to "person X", whether a union boss, a President, or a scientist, everything would be better.
Anything that does not increase production hurts the majority, and only benefits a more powerful minority.
2) If someone is willing to do your job as well as you for less money than you, they should have the job.
If the world followed these simple rules, people would quickly shuffle to the job where they produce the most benefit for society. Society as a whole would be better off, including the displaced workers once they find their niche.
When you have protectionism, such as unions, by definition you are stealing jobs from someone that needs it more. The whole argument about pay going up or down is a red herring; if pay decreased globally, then prices would also decrease globally. If pay rises, prices rise in step. The only thing that can make society better off as a whole is increased efficiency and increased production. Anything else is just theft from those weaker than you.
What you are missing is that the collision is happening at extreme hypersonic speeds. That means that when the first atoms to collide hit, they literally cannot get out of the way of the next line of atoms. (The speed of sound is basically the fastest the atoms can move to get out of the way.) So that matter hits and is stopped, and is unable to get out of the way of the rest, etc, etc. So you end up with everything smashed to incredible pressures (higher than the inside of the sun) which causes incredible heat (vaporizing an approximately equal amount of impactor and impactee). Then that cloud of super-heated gas interacts with the stuff around it for a very short time.
No, the real problem with socialism is not the harm it does to the economy due to the direct action of taking money from savers and giving it to spenders. That is bad enough, but the true problem is that those transfers due terrible things to the human psyche:
If you change the reward structure of society and make it random, moral behavior stops. If you take from workers and give to non-workers, not only do people stop working they also start stealing, raping, and killing at higher rates.
Socialism is the death knell of human societies.
On a side note, the intuition that transferring money from the rich (or savers) to the poor (or spenders) helps the spenders is false. It seems true because if you personally steal money from someone, it does make you better off. But the fact is that if everyone like you stole a million dollars from the Fed, the number of pizzas you could buy would not change. The number of pizzas being created per year cannot fluctuate that easily, but the price can. So when you take money from savers and give it to spenders two things happen:
1) There is inflation of the prices of things the spenders like to buy in order to soak up the money (you haven't increased supply, you haven't changed demand, so the only thing that can change is the price) 2) There are fewer savers, at the very least because you have confiscated some savings. This means fewer jobs available.
So, socialism is not good for anyone, even those it supposedly helps!
A bungled robbery NEVER results in a double tap to the back.
In a bungled robbery, the gun goes off while the victim and perp face each other most often, and there is not a second shot to confirm death. That's the whole point, the perp panics and forgets to take the stuff - he doesn't calmly put another round through the heart.
The space shuttle sonic booms were lethal, but only in a contained area over the ocean. That's why they had to clear that area of ships before launch.
The issue is that the shuttle (like most rockets) didn't fly straight up, it went in a curve. That creates a focus point for the shockwave, which makes it MUCH bigger.
You are, of course, completely wrong in every respect.
Gun control laws were put in place to take guns away from black people. Democrats didn't want the blacks to be able to defend themselves when they had lynching parties. Republicans disagreed. (https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html)
If you really believe that cops are "out to get" African American people (most cops were I am seem to be African American themselves?), black people having guns is even more important. Cops are a lot more respectful when the suspects and witnesses might be armed but are behaving themselves...
To add to this, if you program the car to drive off a cliff to avoid running over a pedestrian, you are going to find yourself flying off a cliff because a car saw roadkill in the road in nowhere utah but thought it was a kid lying down in the road.
Seriously, in order to get that data you would need an economic system of some sort. The best one we have is capitalism. So if you want people to vote the strength of their preference, charge per vote and allow multiple votes.
If you don't want the voting biased towards people that are successful at making the economy work, give everyone 100 votes when they are born, and 10 votes per year.
This, a million times this. Humans cannot think logarithmically, they are linear creatures. We always aim too high in the short term, and too low in the long term, since that is how nature lets us convert logarithms to linear problems.
In two hundred years we will be terraforming Mars, not worried about the paradise park called Earth. And we will be using 0.0001% of our resources to keep the entire planet "perfect", or whatever the guys in charge think is perfect. "Rain is on Tuesdays, people, close your dang windows!"
In addition, consider that if Gawker had done something evil/illegal to you (a person that cannot afford a lawsuit), a person in Thiel's position may decide to bankroll your lawsuit for their own purposes.
So this isn't only good for the rich, where Gawker like companies can't piss them off: it is good for the little guy, because hurting the little guy illegally can now get you sued even if the little guy can't afford a lawsuit.
So rich get a benefit of 5x, but the poor at least get a benefit of x. This is a win-win, I don't see the issue. (Though I agree it would be better if the little guy could defend themselves without a rich benefactor)
OK, people seem to be getting down on Elon here...
Personally, I don't think we are in a game. I think that the primary use of such simulations will be to have "children" (those under the age of 1,000) experience the "bad old days" back when resources were bounded. So this is school, not a game. I guess we'll know if I'm right in about 50 years, on average.
As for those that think this level of simulation is impossible, it isn't. There may be limits to hardware that prevent exponential increases from going on forever. But there are no such limitations for software. You can optimize the simulation by doing things like dropping information whenever you don't need it (quantum mechanics), and removing redundant calculations (as in, after a quadrillion people go through the same sim, it is unlikely they are actually coming up with anything original...)
Um, do the math: 1/3 the fuel for 20 times the people is an advantage of 60 times! A 747 maxes out at 570 mph. Are you suggesting that the cruise ship maxes out at 10 mph? (Hint: it doesn't)
A CCTV can prevent the second murder, not the first. But preventing the second murder is arguably better than preventing none at all.
It depends on your assumptions. You seem to be basing your reality predictions on the premise that all people are equally likely to commit murder. Most measurements of objective reality seem to indicate that a tiny minority of the population commit most murders, and most crimes are committed by repeat offenders. A CCTV can prevent a repeat, or at least decrease the frequency of repeat, as the pattern seems to be murder -> arrest -> jail -> release -> murder -> arrest -> jail -> release -> murder -> arrest -> jail -> release -> etc...
I've never understood the argument that minimum wage increases increase unemployment.
It is a simple math/statistics argument. We have an economy, where every day someone is thinking of starting a company. They look at their expected returns. These expected returns will (taken across the economy as a whole) form a Gaussian-like distribution. If the expected return is greater than zero, they will start the company.
You then increase one of the costs (can be taxes, can be labor, whatever). This shifts the distribution by some amount. The area under the distribution where expected return is greater than zero has now decreased. So fewer companies get started, which means fewer jobs created.
So in the short term, you would expect little effect - existing businesses are sunk costs, so they don't shed jobs quickly. But long term, fewer companies are started so fewer jobs are created.
People on minimum/low wages spend all of their money, and usually locally. (discussion about spending habits)
The key point that negates all of this is that the number of widgets in the economy has not changed, so you can't be making anyone better off. More concretely: let's say you have 100,000 people in the economy, and the economy produces 100,000 hamburgers that cost $10 each. On average, each person also earns $10 each. So everyone gets 1 hamburger.
Now Congress passed a law mandating a $15 minimum wage. And let's pretend that no one loses their job, because subsidies! OK, now you have 100,000 people earning $15. But you still only have 100,000 hamburgers, because that is simply how many hamburgers 100,000 people can make. So what is the cost of a hamburger? $15.
Most government mandated actions like this can only either end up in inflation ($15 hamburgers) or unemployment (1/3 of the people lose their jobs, and the remainder have 33% taxes to prevent that third from not getting a hamburger). Money is not value, it is a metric we use to measure value. Giving away money destroys the metric, and doesn't help the recipient.
Well, first off, we only know about it after it hits - it is going 30km/s, after all. These are too small to detect all of them.
For an example of the effects: The Little Boy atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 exploded with an energy of about 15 kilotons of TNT. So this is a tiny bit smaller than that, with no radiation. Direct deaths from the Hiroshima bomb (ignoring radiation deaths), about 80,000 out of 350,000 population. About 70% of the city's buildings were destroyed, and another 7% severely damaged.
So, to translate that to a direct hit on New York: about 1.8 million dead, all of downtown gone. If you find that hard to believe, consider the effects of 2 buildings collapsing on 9/11 - it destroyed a much larger footprint than just that of the building, and did a very complete job of destruction. We just do not build to withstand asteroids, just don't let them hit you...
What will really happen? Society will be so rich that it will decide to feed and house everyone on earth, just because. Those that want jobs will be able to make themselves almost gods. Those that prefer not to work will not starve, or get ill, etc, etc. To achieve today's standard of millionaire living, you will need to work at least 2 hours a week in the "gig economy".
No, this is just looking at the issue completely incorrectly! I don't know what went wrong with this new generation that they are back to communism and central planning.
"Nobody knows what their real plans are" indeed! Did someone know Henry Ford's plans? Did Henry Ford know them at the beginning? Did Rockefeller tell everyone "OK, this is the plan, here we go!"
That is not how things get made. The real world works without plans for the most part - certainly without plans by committee. That is what the central planners always miss - you cannot tell beforehand which crazy venture is the one that will succeed and change humanity forever. You have to have 100 companies fail in order to get that one that changes everything. And government funded companies tend not to fail - they just become zombies.
The entrepreneur that brings humanity into the space age will almost certainly say "I note that the government funded all my competitors - and I still beat them!"
You are aware that almost all KKK members were democrats, right? And that the "party of Lincoln", also known as Republicans, fought a civil war to end slavery?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll give you a hint: I was disabled, and literally did not have enough money for food. I went to the government for help. I was rejected, while other people (of a more politically favored class) that were not disabled at all were given money.
Eventually, I found a job were I could work somewhat. I then had to pay taxes to support those favored by the government, when I could barely afford rent.
You trust the government, because you have never been abused by it. You're probably also pretty good at getting others to give you what you want by talking.
I sucked at that, though I got better. The government, and unions, help a certain class of people by harming everyone else.
To me, you union/government guys guys are simply either inexperienced or insane. The path you chose has never worked. It has been proven mathematically impossible via simple, well understood economics. Yet you persist in believing that if only we gave all the power to "person X", whether a union boss, a President, or a scientist, everything would be better.
Anything that does not increase production hurts the majority, and only benefits a more powerful minority.
1) The world does not owe you a living
2) If someone is willing to do your job as well as you for less money than you, they should have the job.
If the world followed these simple rules, people would quickly shuffle to the job where they produce the most benefit for society. Society as a whole would be better off, including the displaced workers once they find their niche.
When you have protectionism, such as unions, by definition you are stealing jobs from someone that needs it more. The whole argument about pay going up or down is a red herring; if pay decreased globally, then prices would also decrease globally. If pay rises, prices rise in step. The only thing that can make society better off as a whole is increased efficiency and increased production. Anything else is just theft from those weaker than you.
How about the most common side effects being anger and depression - for someone with nuclear missiles and world ending power...
http://www.tbiguide.com/angerd...
What you are missing is that the collision is happening at extreme hypersonic speeds. That means that when the first atoms to collide hit, they literally cannot get out of the way of the next line of atoms. (The speed of sound is basically the fastest the atoms can move to get out of the way.) So that matter hits and is stopped, and is unable to get out of the way of the rest, etc, etc. So you end up with everything smashed to incredible pressures (higher than the inside of the sun) which causes incredible heat (vaporizing an approximately equal amount of impactor and impactee). Then that cloud of super-heated gas interacts with the stuff around it for a very short time.
No, the real problem with socialism is not the harm it does to the economy due to the direct action of taking money from savers and giving it to spenders. That is bad enough, but the true problem is that those transfers due terrible things to the human psyche:
http://econlog.econlib.org/arc...
If you change the reward structure of society and make it random, moral behavior stops. If you take from workers and give to non-workers, not only do people stop working they also start stealing, raping, and killing at higher rates.
Socialism is the death knell of human societies.
On a side note, the intuition that transferring money from the rich (or savers) to the poor (or spenders) helps the spenders is false. It seems true because if you personally steal money from someone, it does make you better off. But the fact is that if everyone like you stole a million dollars from the Fed, the number of pizzas you could buy would not change. The number of pizzas being created per year cannot fluctuate that easily, but the price can. So when you take money from savers and give it to spenders two things happen:
1) There is inflation of the prices of things the spenders like to buy in order to soak up the money (you haven't increased supply, you haven't changed demand, so the only thing that can change is the price)
2) There are fewer savers, at the very least because you have confiscated some savings. This means fewer jobs available.
So, socialism is not good for anyone, even those it supposedly helps!
A bungled robbery NEVER results in a double tap to the back.
In a bungled robbery, the gun goes off while the victim and perp face each other most often, and there is not a second shot to confirm death. That's the whole point, the perp panics and forgets to take the stuff - he doesn't calmly put another round through the heart.
The space shuttle sonic booms were lethal, but only in a contained area over the ocean. That's why they had to clear that area of ships before launch.
The issue is that the shuttle (like most rockets) didn't fly straight up, it went in a curve. That creates a focus point for the shockwave, which makes it MUCH bigger.
You are, of course, completely wrong in every respect.
Gun control laws were put in place to take guns away from black people. Democrats didn't want the blacks to be able to defend themselves when they had lynching parties. Republicans disagreed. (https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html)
If you really believe that cops are "out to get" African American people (most cops were I am seem to be African American themselves?), black people having guns is even more important. Cops are a lot more respectful when the suspects and witnesses might be armed but are behaving themselves...
To add to this, if you program the car to drive off a cliff to avoid running over a pedestrian, you are going to find yourself flying off a cliff because a car saw roadkill in the road in nowhere utah but thought it was a kid lying down in the road.
The annoying thing, of course, is that he blamed the robot.
World with robot: 1 extra alive dude
World without robot: 0 extra alive dudes
You can argue that the robot should have picked the girl, but getting mad at the robots existing is stupid.
So you are advocating allowing vote-buying?
Seriously, in order to get that data you would need an economic system of some sort. The best one we have is capitalism. So if you want people to vote the strength of their preference, charge per vote and allow multiple votes.
If you don't want the voting biased towards people that are successful at making the economy work, give everyone 100 votes when they are born, and 10 votes per year.
It's actually a dark matter generator. It generates dark matter, and throws it out the back.
This, a million times this. Humans cannot think logarithmically, they are linear creatures. We always aim too high in the short term, and too low in the long term, since that is how nature lets us convert logarithms to linear problems.
In two hundred years we will be terraforming Mars, not worried about the paradise park called Earth. And we will be using 0.0001% of our resources to keep the entire planet "perfect", or whatever the guys in charge think is perfect. "Rain is on Tuesdays, people, close your dang windows!"
In addition, consider that if Gawker had done something evil/illegal to you (a person that cannot afford a lawsuit), a person in Thiel's position may decide to bankroll your lawsuit for their own purposes.
So this isn't only good for the rich, where Gawker like companies can't piss them off: it is good for the little guy, because hurting the little guy illegally can now get you sued even if the little guy can't afford a lawsuit.
So rich get a benefit of 5x, but the poor at least get a benefit of x. This is a win-win, I don't see the issue. (Though I agree it would be better if the little guy could defend themselves without a rich benefactor)
OK, people seem to be getting down on Elon here...
Personally, I don't think we are in a game. I think that the primary use of such simulations will be to have "children" (those under the age of 1,000) experience the "bad old days" back when resources were bounded. So this is school, not a game. I guess we'll know if I'm right in about 50 years, on average.
As for those that think this level of simulation is impossible, it isn't. There may be limits to hardware that prevent exponential increases from going on forever. But there are no such limitations for software. You can optimize the simulation by doing things like dropping information whenever you don't need it (quantum mechanics), and removing redundant calculations (as in, after a quadrillion people go through the same sim, it is unlikely they are actually coming up with anything original...)
Um, do the math: 1/3 the fuel for 20 times the people is an advantage of 60 times! A 747 maxes out at 570 mph. Are you suggesting that the cruise ship maxes out at 10 mph? (Hint: it doesn't)
But driving to Hawaii is a lot of fun anyway, even if it takes forever to get there...
A CCTV can prevent the second murder, not the first. But preventing the second murder is arguably better than preventing none at all.
It depends on your assumptions. You seem to be basing your reality predictions on the premise that all people are equally likely to commit murder. Most measurements of objective reality seem to indicate that a tiny minority of the population commit most murders, and most crimes are committed by repeat offenders. A CCTV can prevent a repeat, or at least decrease the frequency of repeat, as the pattern seems to be murder -> arrest -> jail -> release -> murder -> arrest -> jail -> release -> murder -> arrest -> jail -> release -> etc...
Of course, Trump will run with the Trump/Hillary ticket. Minds will explode.
I've never understood the argument that minimum wage increases increase unemployment.
It is a simple math/statistics argument. We have an economy, where every day someone is thinking of starting a company. They look at their expected returns. These expected returns will (taken across the economy as a whole) form a Gaussian-like distribution. If the expected return is greater than zero, they will start the company.
You then increase one of the costs (can be taxes, can be labor, whatever). This shifts the distribution by some amount. The area under the distribution where expected return is greater than zero has now decreased. So fewer companies get started, which means fewer jobs created.
So in the short term, you would expect little effect - existing businesses are sunk costs, so they don't shed jobs quickly. But long term, fewer companies are started so fewer jobs are created.
People on minimum/low wages spend all of their money, and usually locally. (discussion about spending habits)
The key point that negates all of this is that the number of widgets in the economy has not changed, so you can't be making anyone better off. More concretely: let's say you have 100,000 people in the economy, and the economy produces 100,000 hamburgers that cost $10 each. On average, each person also earns $10 each. So everyone gets 1 hamburger.
Now Congress passed a law mandating a $15 minimum wage. And let's pretend that no one loses their job, because subsidies! OK, now you have 100,000 people earning $15. But you still only have 100,000 hamburgers, because that is simply how many hamburgers 100,000 people can make. So what is the cost of a hamburger? $15.
Most government mandated actions like this can only either end up in inflation ($15 hamburgers) or unemployment (1/3 of the people lose their jobs, and the remainder have 33% taxes to prevent that third from not getting a hamburger). Money is not value, it is a metric we use to measure value. Giving away money destroys the metric, and doesn't help the recipient.
For reference, a human's breathing is about half a ton per year of CO2.
Well, first off, we only know about it after it hits - it is going 30km/s, after all. These are too small to detect all of them.
For an example of the effects: The Little Boy atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 exploded with an energy of about 15 kilotons of TNT. So this is a tiny bit smaller than that, with no radiation. Direct deaths from the Hiroshima bomb (ignoring radiation deaths), about 80,000 out of 350,000 population. About 70% of the city's buildings were destroyed, and another 7% severely damaged.
So, to translate that to a direct hit on New York: about 1.8 million dead, all of downtown gone. If you find that hard to believe, consider the effects of 2 buildings collapsing on 9/11 - it destroyed a much larger footprint than just that of the building, and did a very complete job of destruction. We just do not build to withstand asteroids, just don't let them hit you...
This, a thousand time this!
What will really happen? Society will be so rich that it will decide to feed and house everyone on earth, just because. Those that want jobs will be able to make themselves almost gods. Those that prefer not to work will not starve, or get ill, etc, etc. To achieve today's standard of millionaire living, you will need to work at least 2 hours a week in the "gig economy".
Everyone will be better off.
No, this is just looking at the issue completely incorrectly! I don't know what went wrong with this new generation that they are back to communism and central planning.
"Nobody knows what their real plans are" indeed! Did someone know Henry Ford's plans? Did Henry Ford know them at the beginning? Did Rockefeller tell everyone "OK, this is the plan, here we go!"
That is not how things get made. The real world works without plans for the most part - certainly without plans by committee. That is what the central planners always miss - you cannot tell beforehand which crazy venture is the one that will succeed and change humanity forever. You have to have 100 companies fail in order to get that one that changes everything. And government funded companies tend not to fail - they just become zombies.
The entrepreneur that brings humanity into the space age will almost certainly say "I note that the government funded all my competitors - and I still beat them!"
You are aware that almost all KKK members were democrats, right? And that the "party of Lincoln", also known as Republicans, fought a civil war to end slavery?
Please go ahead and continue to shout the lie...