Author, philosopher, programmer, entrepreneur, father and husband.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Don’t be so gloomy! You’re an individual number too! 😜
Shun the nonbeliever!
If I’m not mistaken, their inflation and interest rates are already crazy high, nearing 20%. Yes, they can print even more money, but it won’t give them more resources from abroad, and they’re already nearing the point where they might spiral into hyperinflation.
Saying that people are corruptible doesn’t imply they are corrupt. Thankfully we live finite lives and plenty of us can make it to the end before we corrupt ourselves.
Given the right luck they could only mirror the elite, not change their structure.
This is quite literally pretending the Age of Enlightenment never existed. We can change structures and have throughout history.
5% at the end of the decade is quite a pessimistic take 😉
Looking at the graph 1% was crossed mid/late 2021, while 2% was crossed mid 2024, so almost 3 years later. Now 3% is crossed a little more than a year later. Next year we would be likely to have crossed 4% and 5% should be no later than 2027, even if it doesn’t speed up much further.
I’m not sure I agree with the “no one claimed” part, because I think the proof is specifically targeting the claim that it is more likely than not that we are living in a simulation due to the “ease of scaling” if simulated realities are a thing. Which I think is one of the core premises of simulation theory.
In any case, I don’t think the reasoning only applied to “full scale” simulations. After all, let’s follow the thought experiment indeed and presume that quantum mechanics is indeed the result of some kind of “lazy evaluation” optimisation within a simulation. Unless you want to argue solipsism in addition to simulation theory, the simulation is still generating perceptions for every single conscious actor within the simulation, and the simulation therefore still needs to implement some kind of “theory of everything” to ensure all perceptions across actors are being generated consistently.
And ultimately, we still end up with the requirement that there is some kind of “higher order” universe whose existence is fundamentally unknowable and beyond our understanding. Presuming that such a universe exists and manages our universe seems to me to be a masked belief in creationism and therefore God, while trying very hard to avoid such words.
The irony is that the thought experiment started with “pesky weird behaviours” that we can’t explain. Making the assumption that our “parent universe” is somehow easier to explain is really just wishful thinking that’s as rational as wishing a God to be responsible for it all.
I’ll be straight here: I’m a deist, I do think that given sufficient thought on these matters, we must ultimately admit there is a deity, a higher power that we cannot understand. We may as well call it God, because even though it’s not a religious idea of God, it is fundamentally beyond our capacity to understand. I just think simulation theory is a bit of a roundabout way to get there as there are easier ways to reach the same conclusion :)
The original quote is a horrible take, trying to make people with suicidal thoughts feel guilty about themselves, as if they don’t feel shit enough yet.
The thing is, suicide is only an out if the pain is beyond a single person’s capacity to bear. Yes, the act may inflict pain upon others, but generally not to the same amount, or most suicides would set off a chain reaction. So chill out and don’t try to blame those are already feeling down.
Of course none of this is an endorsement of suicide. If you’re having these thoughts, please find help. Here in the Netherlands you can call 113, and other countries might have their own support lines. Hell, shoot me a DM if you feel the need.
I did have a friend of mine commit suicide many years ago. It’s not an experience you wish upon anyone, and I’m talking about both the experience of the suicidal as well as the survivors. But I do believe a large part of the pain can be prevented by sharing your thoughts, so that you can get out of the negative spiral you may reinforcing on yourself. So talk to someone. Anyone.
It’s possible yes, but the nice thing is that we know we are not merely talking about “advanced people with vastly superior technology” here. The proof implies that technology within our own universe would never be able to simulate our own universe, no matter how advanced or superior.
So if our universe is a “simulation” at least it wouldn’t be an algorithmic one that fits our understanding. Indeed we still cannot rule out that our universe exists within another, but such a universe would need a higher order reality with truths that are fundamentally beyond our understanding. Sure, you could call it a “simulation” still, but if it doesn’t fit our understanding of a simulation it might as well be called “God” or “spirituality”, because the truth is, we wouldn’t understand a thing of it, and we might as well acknowledge that.
As a parent, I can say with confidence it doesn’t have to be that bleak. My wife and I work 4 days a week and don’t own a car. Our kid’s school is nearby, so we don’t spend a lot of time travelling, and we both work from home a fair amount. We get to spend plenty of time with each other as a family and we’re certainly not working only for the sake of it.
That said, we are in the Netherlands, so depending on where you live things may be harder or even easier. In general I would say it is good to think about the kind of life you want to live, and the choice where you raise kids is an important one in that.
I’m agreeing with you, but I don’t think the phrases have to be condescending, smug or detached?
They surely point to a disagreement, but can’t they be used from such a position in a genuine capacity without implying the person is being condescending or smug about it?
Of course it’s easy to see how when those things are said to you, they may be perceived as smug or condescending, because the other person doesn’t want to agree with you. But that doesn’t necessarily make them so.
Not a native English speaker though, so genuinely curious about the nuances here.
Okay, I’ll spend one last reply on this, because I don’t appreciate getting a strawman assigned to me. I didn’t say getting “every character’s expressed desires being instantly granted” is the main thing making fiction interesting. I said it’s seeing actions play out that you normally don’t is what it makes it interesting. That’s quite a different thing.
And no, I still don’t think it’s a major plot point. It’s a plot point, yes, but the movies also left it out without real impact to the plot. That’s not a major plot point to me.
that’s a reason to have Beverly suggest it. Not a reason to have it actually happen.
Sorry, but that's just silly. If it were brought up as a suggestion that didn't happen, that would be even weirder than it actually happening. As a writer, you don't go around finding reasons to block your character's ideas, because that's a horribly anti-climactic thing to do, teasing your readers for no purpose, but worst of all, you don't get to see how the action pans out if it does happen, which is the primary thing that makes fiction interesting to begin with.
And no, not every action needs foreshadowing either. In the grand scheme of things, this whole scene that people fuss about isn't a major plot point in the book. I read the book twice (though even the second time was a while ago), and I had pretty much forgotten about it, until I saw people complaining it. But it still seems as if you think King has some moral obligation to guard and guide the actions of his characters. He doesn't, and thankfully he doesn't, because his books are more interesting for it.
As a writer, I disagree. Writers often write thinking from the perspective of their characters. If something makes sense from the character’s perspective, they’ll write it. It’s not an endorsement by the writer, it just makes for a natural and believable progression and that’s why the book is better for it.
I can bet you King never decided that he should include such a scene because it would make the book better. He did it because he was writing from her perspective, and it popped into his mind as something that made sense for her to do.
It’s not a fantasy, not an endorsement, and not a post-rationalisation either. And knowing his writing style, upon reflection he probably felt it belonged for shock value alone. Writers do have a knack for pushing boundaries, and he’s certainly got a taste of it.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
I think there is an objective good. That goodness is Life itself. So long as we treat all Life with respect and try to live a life of balance, that makes us good. You are right though that this is still a very simplified view, and what it means to "live in balance" can depend on the situation or environment. But it's a starting point at least.
As for forgiveness, it's a choice. If someone makes an honest mistake, it should be easy to forgive them, as whatever harm they caused was not intentional. But if someone makes a wilful mistake, it will be harder to forgive them. And yet, because forgiveness is a choice, we can look at the reasons why someone acted in a manner that was harmful, and still decide to forgive them, especially if they repent.
As for consequences, those are results of our actions, whether intentional or unintentional. They are not strictly related to the concept of forgiveness, but generally speaking, we find it easy to forgive someone if their actions are harmless, or if the consequences don't affect us personally. But if someone's actions do affect us, we find it harder to forgive, regardless of whether something was an honest mistake or not. But the key to forgiveness, in my opinion, is that we need to look beyond the consequences and look beyond how we were personally affected. Forgiveness is a choice, and that choice is easier to make if our emotion is not muddied by consequence.
No worries, I understood that you were playing devil’s advocate somewhat. And indeed I don’t like it either, and fwiw, I’m not American either (European, so I don’t really have skin in this particular issue).
But when you say it’s a “rather valid decision with its motivations and reasons”, then yes, that’s basically what it means when I say it’s justified. But then you still have to ask the question as to who it is justified for. If you say it makes “sense on an economical and geopolitical level”, that’s well and good, but which economical and geopolitical level are we talking about? A deal such as this is unlikely to benefit the economy as a whole, so who are the beneficiaries? That’s the question of perspective. Probably this benefits Trump and his billionaire friends, hence why it’s justified from their perspective. But Average Joe, or the Argentinian equivalent, are unlikely to ever see a benefit from this.
I think you’re both right. The problem in this discussion is that “justified” really depends on perspective. I agree with the other guy it is justified… from Trump’s perspective. I agree with you it is not justified for the American people.
Silver actually interacts horribly with and ruins the flavour of some foods. There’s a reason why silver cups often have gold plating on the inside to not ruin the taste of wine.
I’d stick with the steel any time.
That’s not just pedantry, that’s unnecessarily narrow-minded. Ever heard of the corrupted heart? According to your definition, that’s an impossibility, unless the heart belongs to someone in authority, or something, I guess.
The point is, there is more than a single interpretation of things, and there is not a singular definition of corruption. Anyone can be corrupted, and giving examples that show that lawlessness permeates every level of society is a great way of showing that corruption is likely endemic in the culture.
I’m Dutch too, and I used to work 8h/day 4 days a week. And my productivity became even better than when I worked 5 days a week. I could kill it those 4 days, and be rested enough the next week so I could kill it again. It worked wonders.
I like the rhetoric, because it means that my employer got something out of it too. But I don’t think it implies that was the only reason it should be given. I obviously enjoyed the time off for my own reasons.
I am literally wrapping up a novel where the protagonist is the antagonist at the same time. I’m not the first one to write such a story of course, but holy shit did I have to work through some internal trauma to write that story to a suitable ending. I understand why many people may not want to bother…