She did it for the reason most employees skirt IT rules, she had a job to do and they couldn't give her what she considered to be a practical solution.
There are two things to note here. First, practical solution to what problem? if she wanted to carry around PDAs, there were solutions that would comply with IT rules.
Second, your euphemism, "skirt IT rules" ignores that many of these skirtings were federal felonies. Witnessing classified information being passed in emails on an unapproved email server? It's a felony if you don't report it. Continuing to operate said email server when you know classified information is being passed on it is also a felony. As is instructing someone to strip classified headers off a classified document.
It also appears that a Clinton employee, Sidney Blumenthal without the required clearance level was accessing classified information. That's a felony if you don't report it and a felony if you're feeding said classified information to him. It's also a felony to evade FOIA requests. The only really shifty aspect that might not have been a felony was failure to comply with the Federal Records Act.
Even if she was also trying to dodge FOIA requests (quite plausible) that's hardly evidence of further crimes. Anyone with a passing interest in politics knows how easy it is to take things out of context. Probably the biggest legitimate issue with transparency in the executive branch is that it impacts the quality of advice that people can give, you can't really warn someone that a dignitary from another country is ridiculously corrupt or needs to be kept away from the hookers because that advice might now go public.
There are already exemptions for that and many other things that could legitimately cause harm outweighing the benefit of the increased transparency. The law already anticipates your concern.
Why assume it was tampering? Do you think the US Government is so absurdly competent that it's the only organization in the history of civilization that's immune to making mistakes? And why wide-scale disenfranchisement? Among the list of dirty campaign tricks that's perhaps the most useless.
Because I thought from what you wrote that you had claimed there was tampering on a wide scale. Anyway, the obvious rebuttal to your last statement is that if a lot of voters will vote inconveniently for the wrong candidates, then disfranchisement keeps them from voting for those wrong candidates.
Even if this tampering did occur, how can you show who did it? A number of people over the years would have access to the files.
Clinton's email scandal is a great example of this, sure it's a legit issue but the severity of the crime has been vastly overblown.
It's only a few federal level felonies involving national security and probably is an indication she's hiding bigger crimes. After all, why commit a few felonies over the course of your tenure as Secretary of State which just so happen to shield your email from federal IT personnel and FOIA requests? What was worth that risk? It's really hard to take you seriously when you don't understand the problems.
Time Warner took all the cash and didn't re-invest anything in AOL.
Even if we took your assertion at face value (given that the CEO came from AOL not Time Warner, I don't buy it), how was that worse for AOL? What really was there to invest in on the AOL side? AOL employees stayed employed longer, customers stayed as long as they were going to, and shareholders of AOL stock made out like old-time railroad barons.
Anyway, there is no reason to expect Ted's position on this to change because of Carly. VP candidates typically have zero input on policy.
Biden - *IAA. Cheney - Halliburton. The last two VPs had strong connections to certain lobbies and those lobbies did well during the tenure of those VPs.
Both HP and Compaq stock dropped instantly on the announcement of the buyout. I know because I owned shares in both and my job at HP (I was one of the first wave of laid off HP employees within a week of the announcement as part of the merger agreement) went down near instantaneously. It wasn't a great time financially, but it was a big lesson to me in how apparently independent risks can correlate through a single unforeseen event.
When you have an instant drop on all the involved companies, you know that a lot of shareholders out there are convinced it's a bad deal.
And in hindsight, we still don't see the value of the deal. There's just this hazy assertion that it might have been worse otherwise because HP servers are descended from Compaq servers. All I know for sure is that Fiorina turned the combined current market share of HP and Compaq into less than the market share of HP at the time of the merger.
Canada's Constitution, for example, gives no opportunity to argue over whether a particular action was within the powers of the Prime Minister because it does not actually mention the Prime Minister.
That's not a compelling argument. You just dumped the mess of an executive officer into convention rather than constitution. How do you interpret or alter convention?
Since it also gives the Court system the right to rule on the Constitutionality of theoretical actions, it follows that a Canadian ObamaCare would be declared Constitutional or not prior to implementation rather then requiring years of litigation over the exact details of very specific cases.
I wouldn't brag given the power and in some cases glaring power tripping of Canadian tribunals (the first tribunal which declared that it didn't have jurisdiction, but decided to strongly imply that the defendant was guilty of certain human rights violations just the same (without any sort of proper hearing). In that second link, there was another example of a tribunal officer, Jennifer Lynch making public statements on the same complaint before her tribunal. This unprofessional behavior wouldn't occur in a US courtroom without the judge being taken off the case.
Also by requiring parties to have standing before involving the courts, it cuts down both on the power of the courts and on attempts to waste the time of the courts. The "multi-century old texts" work. That's why they're still around.
Well, at least I can't be wrong, right? My view on this is that no one with a bit of power in the Democrat party is going to tamper with voting at a large scale to undermine Clinton. She's the favorite. So if tampering does occur, then there probably is another reason for it.
No, what doomed Carson was that he lied about a full scholarship to West Point. There are a lot of former military who hate people claiming fake military experience and achievements. Similarly, there are a lot of people who worked hard in college who hate people claiming fake academic credentials and achievements. Carlson got both groups in one swing.
And at least in NY that likely would have disproportionately older people (it seemed to hit people with old registrations more) and minorities (because they always get hit the worst by voting
Funny how Clinton's alleged base are the ones getting the tampering. Maybe they don't actually support her as much as claimed?
Rules Lawyering, based on rigorous adherence to a multi-century old texts is everything here.
We could always do what I say, that would be better. But if for some strange reason you want the benefits of a nation of laws, then you need to live in one.
such as if going beyond earth orbit need LH2/LOX and also raised caution of Ayd Rand policies for space programs.
Sounds like there was a good justification for the flaming. I've run into people who care about the danger that there might be libertarians or objectivists in space. These people are to a man dumb.
Why should we worry more about libertarians in space than progressives in space? Well, aside from the former being more likely to be in space? Har har har.
Also, a lot of the criticism of New Space, SpaceX, and similar topics is rather dumb (you might see a theme here). I don't admire the ability to ignore 60 years of wreckage from the ways that supposedly work better, but never seem to get us anywhere. They don't have that problem, of course. There's always some Emmanuel Goldstein holding us back.
Decades ago, aerospace research was all private, then the government started buying in because it realised the benefit to society. For a while, the government managed aerospace research, and for a while, the US accelerated at a magnificent pace. Then neoliberalism came along, and for no reason at all we're contracting management back out to private industry. SpaceX has the best marketing machine in aerospace.
Sorry, but this is rather stupid historical revisionism. NASA didn't stop "accelerating" because some market enthusiasts or whatnot (the so-called "neoliberals"). They stopped accelerating because their political masters never cared where NASA was going. Once JFK's commitment was fulfilled by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1969, that was it for "acceleration". The entire life of NASA (from birth in 1957) has been theater with a few big photo ops for the involved politicians to exploit.
N.B. This isn't a post against involvement of private industry: one should always choose the best specialist, and they're often found in the private sector. This is what NASA used to do, but the missions themselves were managed centrally - the most efficient and effective approach (by definition).
Sure, any political vote buying scheme, whether it be Social Security or NASA, works best if the politician can show a direct connection from their actions to the largess of the scheme.
But if you want to do something other than buying votes rather inefficiently for yourself, then maybe central planning (which is not the most efficient and effective approach in general nor in definition) is not for you.
You also apparently wrote further down the tree:
For top level organisation, the free market is a great first approximation, but that's all. One moves away from it, not toward it.
Depends what the organization is. SpaceX isn't managed by the market, for example, even though it does have a lot of interactions with markets. Free markets are great for societies, for example. And it is remarkable how a lot of the criticism of free markets comes actually from the breaking of the markets rather than the functioning of the markets. Where else can you be criticized for the things we prevented you from doing?
With space development, the key obstruction has been high cost of access to space. That cost has warped everything that is done in space. The end result is that the costs of objects put in space tends to be between five and ten times the cost of the launch with extremely low cost objects being test launches on a new, risky rocket design and the most expensive launches tending to be high end military and research projects.
SpaceX has the potential to drop those costs by a factor of ten or more (depending where you start). That means you could put around ten times as much mass in space to do something without the hardcore mass shaving, reliability, and other optimizations common to current space projects.
Global warming can produce more extreme weather, due to more energy in the atmosphere.
So what? Not extreme cold. And it didn't produce more hurricanes this decade which was another such prediction. My view is that moderate global warming is occurring and there may well be a slight increase in the incidence of heat waves due to global warming, but the rest is exaggerated a lot.
That may be true of California. Having lived in Florida, Texas, and New Mexico over the last decade and a half I can tell you the biggest consistent differences I've seen is an increased incidence of the extremes. More storms and more intense storms, record lows and highs, etc.
Over in scienceland, we call this confirmation bias. You're not going to get more arbitrary weather records just because there's global warming. Record highs sure. Record lows except in the few areas of regional cooling, no. But we will get more record extremes, just because weather varies and extremes happen sooner or later.
There is this misconception that because many refer to it as "global warming" that the changes you should see in the weather are that it is hotter. The increases in temps are slight, it's how those changes impacts currents, winds, and evaporation compounded across the surface area of the oceans that has a much bigger immediate impact in the weather.
Then where is the evidence for your assertion? My view is that these other effects are just as slight as the change in temperature.
I also have something to say about your response to Karmashock where you respond to his observation about fewer hurricanes:
I said incidents of extremes.
There were fewer incidents of an important sort of extreme, hurricanes and you just blew it off despite claiming there would be "more storms" above. This is exactly what confirmation bias is about: ignoring or distorting facts that don't fit.
I also suspect for the same reason we'll start to see increased fault activity eventually as the crust temperatures adjust and the earth slightly expands but I doubt we are there yet the more recent activity is likely all down to fraking,
You ignore here that we already see no change in earthquake activity from lunar and solar tidal forces which affect a global scale; the thermal expansion of dirt and rock is pretty low; it takes a long time for heat to permeate dirt and rock several km down where the faults lie; generally there will be no change in stresses on a fault because both sides will heat near equally; and there just isn't that much temperature change in the first place.
Sorry, it's babble. If we make a bunch of unwarranted assumptions, then we make a bunch of conclusions that do not follow from the assumptions. That's typical "proof" in the philosophical sense.
Once again, let me outline the problem here. Just from the 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 âoeposthumanâ 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.
There is no sense in which something is likely or unlikely outside of this universe. So when the author says "any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof)", it is not even wrong.
Second, point 1) is completely irrelevant. We're not going to be more or less likely a simulation if 1) is true or false. This also conflates probabilities of events inside our universe with things that are not in our universe. It's another not even wrong thing.
And third, note that the author conflates "ancestor simulations" with "living in a simulation". It seems, heh, "likely" that anything with the computing power to simulate ancestors would also have the computing power to simulate alien universes with alien physics and alien lifeforms. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader whether there are more universes like ours than not.
Finally, we don't know what other ways there are to start up universes or whether simulating a universe even means anything. After all, the simulation may merely turn out to be a connection to an existing universe which would have existed anyway whether or not the simulation happened.
I find it interesting how we originally had a minor problem with a ready solution and now we're deep into a red herring by focusing on an extreme case where everyone chooses to save huge amounts and does no work. It's not going to happen, nor is it something I proposed (you may recall I said "saving or working more"). Saving in isolation doesn't fix the problem, but it is a key part of the solution.
You may recall you then posted "You can't really solve the problem of an ageing population by saving more." Which is incorrect (for example, savings are a great source of no strings attached assets for starting a business or buying tools) then moved on to the extreme case of a savings only strategy as if that was what I proposed.
The very dynamics that devalue savings and increase the value of human labor in an extreme scenario of high savings/low labor participation among a population would encourage greater labor participation and resolve this before it becomes a problem.
My view is that we're actually near the opposite extreme where everyone works and few people bother to save. Saving as a result has heavy incentives.
Lets start with that simple concept. Do you agree with it, or not?
What is there to agree with? You have to establish that such probabilities can be defined in the first place, especially over the space of universes that may exist somehow. Even then, it is very different to speak of probabilities of events in our known universe over which we at least have some knowledge versus probabilities over a large collection of universes we can't observe and thus, have no knowledge about.
And even if we do gain such knowledge, we still have the problem that the space of universes may be large enough that probability is meaningless (not merely computationally impossible) from a mathematical point of view.
Seriously? ** You are not allowed to assume your conclusion! **.
That's silly. I got to choose the measure and thus, I was allowed to that.
Basic premise, summed up: Given the assumption that 1) future people are likely to want to run simulations of the past, 2) the computer power to run simulations of the past will exist, then the conclusion that someone will run such a simulation is extremely highly likely.
By what probability measure again? And I note that you're using two incomparable choices for measures. Whatever probability measure(s) over universes you end up using will have nothing in common with probability measures over our future.
Bottom line is that you don't enough to make statements about probability.
When we look at our universe, we see things that seem to be signs of simulations.
Well, your question #3 is a key aspect. How would we be able to perceive things which can't be explained scientifically? There are strong limits on how baffling the universe can be to us, merely because we exist.
For the first time in the history of technology more jobs are destroyed than created.
The problem with this assertion is that it's wrong. Just because the US or the shittier countries of the EU have trouble with employment doesn't mean that the world does. Instead, we see huge job growth coupled with increasing automation - just as it's been for the past few centuries.
Once again, how about we consider the places that aren't having the problems rather than only the places which are?
Irrelevant. Quantifying the precise probability isn't relevant to this type of proof.
Which is patently false. I decree that the set of universes which are simulations in the sense of Tyson have measure zero. Therefore, it is a zero probability that the current universe is a simulation.
The proof is an case analysis of an equation based on unknown parameters.
How many unknown parameters? Even if we were to assume existence of that "equation", a large number of unknown parameters destroys our ability to say anything about the system. If you have aleph_2 unknown parameters, then you don't have the means to evaluate.
Irrelevant. Plenty of proofs rely on incomputable quantities, like Kolmogorov complexity. For instance, this is why we utilize oracles to explore super-Turing computation.
I didn't say computationally impossible, I said mathematically impossible. It's a whole different level. There are no computational oracles for such.
It's educational to see what impossibilities you get when you assume such an oracle exists and probability measures on your space of universes satisfy any sort of nontrivial, but infinite dimensional transformation rules of non-zero probability sets to non-zero probability sets on such a space. One can construct an infinite probability set say by transforming along those infinite dimensions to get an infinite number of set all bounded away from zero probability by the same common bound and with no common overlap.
You also implicitly assume that the only means for sentience to create new universes is via a particular form of simulation.
What does that even mean? A simulation belongs to an equivalence class. No assumptions are made about the equivalence class of any simulation.
Another indication we're solidly in "not even wrong" territory. It's not my job to define things which can't be defined. And contrary to your assertion there is a huge implicit assumption here which I've been going on about for a while. Namely, that a probability measure exists in the first place. One can't speak of likelihood without that. Nor do we have even a remote clue what your "equivalence class" is supposed to mean.
Imagine an isolated island with a population of young but sterile people. Everything is going great, and they are saving money (made from seashells) in a big box to pay for their retirement. Do you see the problem ? Money does you no good if there are not enough workers. You'll simply get inflation.
That's not the world we live in. It's not saving as we actually do it. It doesn't cover technological advances. And it ignores that most people don't actually save enough for their absence from the workforce to matter.
Slashdot Mirror
She did it for the reason most employees skirt IT rules, she had a job to do and they couldn't give her what she considered to be a practical solution.
There are two things to note here. First, practical solution to what problem? if she wanted to carry around PDAs, there were solutions that would comply with IT rules.
Second, your euphemism, "skirt IT rules" ignores that many of these skirtings were federal felonies. Witnessing classified information being passed in emails on an unapproved email server? It's a felony if you don't report it. Continuing to operate said email server when you know classified information is being passed on it is also a felony. As is instructing someone to strip classified headers off a classified document.
It also appears that a Clinton employee, Sidney Blumenthal without the required clearance level was accessing classified information. That's a felony if you don't report it and a felony if you're feeding said classified information to him. It's also a felony to evade FOIA requests. The only really shifty aspect that might not have been a felony was failure to comply with the Federal Records Act.
Even if she was also trying to dodge FOIA requests (quite plausible) that's hardly evidence of further crimes. Anyone with a passing interest in politics knows how easy it is to take things out of context. Probably the biggest legitimate issue with transparency in the executive branch is that it impacts the quality of advice that people can give, you can't really warn someone that a dignitary from another country is ridiculously corrupt or needs to be kept away from the hookers because that advice might now go public.
There are already exemptions for that and many other things that could legitimately cause harm outweighing the benefit of the increased transparency. The law already anticipates your concern.
Why assume it was tampering? Do you think the US Government is so absurdly competent that it's the only organization in the history of civilization that's immune to making mistakes? And why wide-scale disenfranchisement? Among the list of dirty campaign tricks that's perhaps the most useless.
Because I thought from what you wrote that you had claimed there was tampering on a wide scale. Anyway, the obvious rebuttal to your last statement is that if a lot of voters will vote inconveniently for the wrong candidates, then disfranchisement keeps them from voting for those wrong candidates.
Even if this tampering did occur, how can you show who did it? A number of people over the years would have access to the files.
Clinton's email scandal is a great example of this, sure it's a legit issue but the severity of the crime has been vastly overblown.
It's only a few federal level felonies involving national security and probably is an indication she's hiding bigger crimes. After all, why commit a few felonies over the course of your tenure as Secretary of State which just so happen to shield your email from federal IT personnel and FOIA requests? What was worth that risk? It's really hard to take you seriously when you don't understand the problems.
Time Warner took all the cash and didn't re-invest anything in AOL.
Even if we took your assertion at face value (given that the CEO came from AOL not Time Warner, I don't buy it), how was that worse for AOL? What really was there to invest in on the AOL side? AOL employees stayed employed longer, customers stayed as long as they were going to, and shareholders of AOL stock made out like old-time railroad barons.
She still did better than AOL/Time Warner, then.
It's worth noting in that merger, AOL jumped while Time Warner fell. The merger was great for the AOL side.
Anyway, there is no reason to expect Ted's position on this to change because of Carly. VP candidates typically have zero input on policy.
Biden - *IAA. Cheney - Halliburton. The last two VPs had strong connections to certain lobbies and those lobbies did well during the tenure of those VPs.
Both HP and Compaq stock dropped instantly on the announcement of the buyout. I know because I owned shares in both and my job at HP (I was one of the first wave of laid off HP employees within a week of the announcement as part of the merger agreement) went down near instantaneously. It wasn't a great time financially, but it was a big lesson to me in how apparently independent risks can correlate through a single unforeseen event.
When you have an instant drop on all the involved companies, you know that a lot of shareholders out there are convinced it's a bad deal.
And in hindsight, we still don't see the value of the deal. There's just this hazy assertion that it might have been worse otherwise because HP servers are descended from Compaq servers. All I know for sure is that Fiorina turned the combined current market share of HP and Compaq into less than the market share of HP at the time of the merger.
Canada's Constitution, for example, gives no opportunity to argue over whether a particular action was within the powers of the Prime Minister because it does not actually mention the Prime Minister.
That's not a compelling argument. You just dumped the mess of an executive officer into convention rather than constitution. How do you interpret or alter convention?
Since it also gives the Court system the right to rule on the Constitutionality of theoretical actions, it follows that a Canadian ObamaCare would be declared Constitutional or not prior to implementation rather then requiring years of litigation over the exact details of very specific cases.
I wouldn't brag given the power and in some cases glaring power tripping of Canadian tribunals (the first tribunal which declared that it didn't have jurisdiction, but decided to strongly imply that the defendant was guilty of certain human rights violations just the same (without any sort of proper hearing). In that second link, there was another example of a tribunal officer, Jennifer Lynch making public statements on the same complaint before her tribunal. This unprofessional behavior wouldn't occur in a US courtroom without the judge being taken off the case.
Also by requiring parties to have standing before involving the courts, it cuts down both on the power of the courts and on attempts to waste the time of the courts. The "multi-century old texts" work. That's why they're still around.
Well, at least I can't be wrong, right? My view on this is that no one with a bit of power in the Democrat party is going to tamper with voting at a large scale to undermine Clinton. She's the favorite. So if tampering does occur, then there probably is another reason for it.
No, what doomed Carson was that he lied about a full scholarship to West Point. There are a lot of former military who hate people claiming fake military experience and achievements. Similarly, there are a lot of people who worked hard in college who hate people claiming fake academic credentials and achievements. Carlson got both groups in one swing.
Well, for one thing, that's a major push button issue that shuts off the brains of a lot of voters.
And at least in NY that likely would have disproportionately older people (it seemed to hit people with old registrations more) and minorities (because they always get hit the worst by voting
Funny how Clinton's alleged base are the ones getting the tampering. Maybe they don't actually support her as much as claimed?
Rules Lawyering, based on rigorous adherence to a multi-century old texts is everything here.
We could always do what I say, that would be better. But if for some strange reason you want the benefits of a nation of laws, then you need to live in one.
such as if going beyond earth orbit need LH2/LOX and also raised caution of Ayd Rand policies for space programs.
Sounds like there was a good justification for the flaming. I've run into people who care about the danger that there might be libertarians or objectivists in space. These people are to a man dumb.
Why should we worry more about libertarians in space than progressives in space? Well, aside from the former being more likely to be in space? Har har har.
Also, a lot of the criticism of New Space, SpaceX, and similar topics is rather dumb (you might see a theme here). I don't admire the ability to ignore 60 years of wreckage from the ways that supposedly work better, but never seem to get us anywhere. They don't have that problem, of course. There's always some Emmanuel Goldstein holding us back.
Decades ago, aerospace research was all private, then the government started buying in because it realised the benefit to society. For a while, the government managed aerospace research, and for a while, the US accelerated at a magnificent pace. Then neoliberalism came along, and for no reason at all we're contracting management back out to private industry. SpaceX has the best marketing machine in aerospace.
Sorry, but this is rather stupid historical revisionism. NASA didn't stop "accelerating" because some market enthusiasts or whatnot (the so-called "neoliberals"). They stopped accelerating because their political masters never cared where NASA was going. Once JFK's commitment was fulfilled by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1969, that was it for "acceleration". The entire life of NASA (from birth in 1957) has been theater with a few big photo ops for the involved politicians to exploit.
N.B. This isn't a post against involvement of private industry: one should always choose the best specialist, and they're often found in the private sector. This is what NASA used to do, but the missions themselves were managed centrally - the most efficient and effective approach (by definition).
Sure, any political vote buying scheme, whether it be Social Security or NASA, works best if the politician can show a direct connection from their actions to the largess of the scheme.
But if you want to do something other than buying votes rather inefficiently for yourself, then maybe central planning (which is not the most efficient and effective approach in general nor in definition) is not for you.
You also apparently wrote further down the tree:
For top level organisation, the free market is a great first approximation, but that's all. One moves away from it, not toward it.
Depends what the organization is. SpaceX isn't managed by the market, for example, even though it does have a lot of interactions with markets. Free markets are great for societies, for example. And it is remarkable how a lot of the criticism of free markets comes actually from the breaking of the markets rather than the functioning of the markets. Where else can you be criticized for the things we prevented you from doing?
With space development, the key obstruction has been high cost of access to space. That cost has warped everything that is done in space. The end result is that the costs of objects put in space tends to be between five and ten times the cost of the launch with extremely low cost objects being test launches on a new, risky rocket design and the most expensive launches tending to be high end military and research projects.
SpaceX has the potential to drop those costs by a factor of ten or more (depending where you start). That means you could put around ten times as much mass in space to do something without the hardcore mass shaving, reliability, and other optimizations common to current space projects.
Global warming can produce more extreme weather, due to more energy in the atmosphere.
So what? Not extreme cold. And it didn't produce more hurricanes this decade which was another such prediction. My view is that moderate global warming is occurring and there may well be a slight increase in the incidence of heat waves due to global warming, but the rest is exaggerated a lot.
That may be true of California. Having lived in Florida, Texas, and New Mexico over the last decade and a half I can tell you the biggest consistent differences I've seen is an increased incidence of the extremes. More storms and more intense storms, record lows and highs, etc.
Over in scienceland, we call this confirmation bias. You're not going to get more arbitrary weather records just because there's global warming. Record highs sure. Record lows except in the few areas of regional cooling, no. But we will get more record extremes, just because weather varies and extremes happen sooner or later.
There is this misconception that because many refer to it as "global warming" that the changes you should see in the weather are that it is hotter. The increases in temps are slight, it's how those changes impacts currents, winds, and evaporation compounded across the surface area of the oceans that has a much bigger immediate impact in the weather.
Then where is the evidence for your assertion? My view is that these other effects are just as slight as the change in temperature.
I also have something to say about your response to Karmashock where you respond to his observation about fewer hurricanes:
I said incidents of extremes.
There were fewer incidents of an important sort of extreme, hurricanes and you just blew it off despite claiming there would be "more storms" above. This is exactly what confirmation bias is about: ignoring or distorting facts that don't fit.
I also suspect for the same reason we'll start to see increased fault activity eventually as the crust temperatures adjust and the earth slightly expands but I doubt we are there yet the more recent activity is likely all down to fraking,
You ignore here that we already see no change in earthquake activity from lunar and solar tidal forces which affect a global scale; the thermal expansion of dirt and rock is pretty low; it takes a long time for heat to permeate dirt and rock several km down where the faults lie; generally there will be no change in stresses on a fault because both sides will heat near equally; and there just isn't that much temperature change in the first place.
Climate reparations.
Sure! I have the comic books to prove it. But I can't show you them otherwise it wouldn't be secret any more.
Once again, let me outline the problem here. Just from the 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 âoeposthumanâ 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.
There is no sense in which something is likely or unlikely outside of this universe. So when the author says "any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof)", it is not even wrong.
Second, point 1) is completely irrelevant. We're not going to be more or less likely a simulation if 1) is true or false. This also conflates probabilities of events inside our universe with things that are not in our universe. It's another not even wrong thing.
And third, note that the author conflates "ancestor simulations" with "living in a simulation". It seems, heh, "likely" that anything with the computing power to simulate ancestors would also have the computing power to simulate alien universes with alien physics and alien lifeforms. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader whether there are more universes like ours than not.
Finally, we don't know what other ways there are to start up universes or whether simulating a universe even means anything. After all, the simulation may merely turn out to be a connection to an existing universe which would have existed anyway whether or not the simulation happened.
I find it interesting how we originally had a minor problem with a ready solution and now we're deep into a red herring by focusing on an extreme case where everyone chooses to save huge amounts and does no work. It's not going to happen, nor is it something I proposed (you may recall I said "saving or working more"). Saving in isolation doesn't fix the problem, but it is a key part of the solution.
You may recall you then posted "You can't really solve the problem of an ageing population by saving more." Which is incorrect (for example, savings are a great source of no strings attached assets for starting a business or buying tools) then moved on to the extreme case of a savings only strategy as if that was what I proposed.
The very dynamics that devalue savings and increase the value of human labor in an extreme scenario of high savings/low labor participation among a population would encourage greater labor participation and resolve this before it becomes a problem.
My view is that we're actually near the opposite extreme where everyone works and few people bother to save. Saving as a result has heavy incentives.
Lets start with that simple concept. Do you agree with it, or not?
What is there to agree with? You have to establish that such probabilities can be defined in the first place, especially over the space of universes that may exist somehow. Even then, it is very different to speak of probabilities of events in our known universe over which we at least have some knowledge versus probabilities over a large collection of universes we can't observe and thus, have no knowledge about.
And even if we do gain such knowledge, we still have the problem that the space of universes may be large enough that probability is meaningless (not merely computationally impossible) from a mathematical point of view.
Seriously? ** You are not allowed to assume your conclusion! **.
That's silly. I got to choose the measure and thus, I was allowed to that.
Basic premise, summed up: Given the assumption that 1) future people are likely to want to run simulations of the past, 2) the computer power to run simulations of the past will exist, then the conclusion that someone will run such a simulation is extremely highly likely.
By what probability measure again? And I note that you're using two incomparable choices for measures. Whatever probability measure(s) over universes you end up using will have nothing in common with probability measures over our future.
Bottom line is that you don't enough to make statements about probability.
When we look at our universe, we see things that seem to be signs of simulations.
Well, your question #3 is a key aspect. How would we be able to perceive things which can't be explained scientifically? There are strong limits on how baffling the universe can be to us, merely because we exist.
For the first time in the history of technology more jobs are destroyed than created.
The problem with this assertion is that it's wrong. Just because the US or the shittier countries of the EU have trouble with employment doesn't mean that the world does. Instead, we see huge job growth coupled with increasing automation - just as it's been for the past few centuries.
Once again, how about we consider the places that aren't having the problems rather than only the places which are?
Irrelevant. Quantifying the precise probability isn't relevant to this type of proof.
Which is patently false. I decree that the set of universes which are simulations in the sense of Tyson have measure zero. Therefore, it is a zero probability that the current universe is a simulation.
The proof is an case analysis of an equation based on unknown parameters.
How many unknown parameters? Even if we were to assume existence of that "equation", a large number of unknown parameters destroys our ability to say anything about the system. If you have aleph_2 unknown parameters, then you don't have the means to evaluate.
Irrelevant. Plenty of proofs rely on incomputable quantities, like Kolmogorov complexity. For instance, this is why we utilize oracles to explore super-Turing computation.
I didn't say computationally impossible, I said mathematically impossible. It's a whole different level. There are no computational oracles for such.
It's educational to see what impossibilities you get when you assume such an oracle exists and probability measures on your space of universes satisfy any sort of nontrivial, but infinite dimensional transformation rules of non-zero probability sets to non-zero probability sets on such a space. One can construct an infinite probability set say by transforming along those infinite dimensions to get an infinite number of set all bounded away from zero probability by the same common bound and with no common overlap.
You also implicitly assume that the only means for sentience to create new universes is via a particular form of simulation.
What does that even mean? A simulation belongs to an equivalence class. No assumptions are made about the equivalence class of any simulation.
Another indication we're solidly in "not even wrong" territory. It's not my job to define things which can't be defined. And contrary to your assertion there is a huge implicit assumption here which I've been going on about for a while. Namely, that a probability measure exists in the first place. One can't speak of likelihood without that. Nor do we have even a remote clue what your "equivalence class" is supposed to mean.
Imagine an isolated island with a population of young but sterile people. Everything is going great, and they are saving money (made from seashells) in a big box to pay for their retirement. Do you see the problem ? Money does you no good if there are not enough workers. You'll simply get inflation.
That's not the world we live in. It's not saving as we actually do it. It doesn't cover technological advances. And it ignores that most people don't actually save enough for their absence from the workforce to matter.