Kewkky t1_j87ddf4 wrote

I'm not gonna lie, I read it, went to the math, literally read through the descriptions, and read the conclusion. I even looked at the references and who Nick Bostrom was. This is literally just philosophy, and despite what it says in the actual webpage, it's not rigorous.

He made up the equations with no reference to anything else except three possible future scenarios in his argument: (1) humans go extinct and don't become post-human, (2) humans become post-human but don't care about simulations, or (3) humans become post-human and care about simulations. All the way to his conclusion, he also never proves that we're living in a simulation, he just states that we're either (1), (2) or (3), and that the chances of any of those 3 being true are completely even, and we'll never know.

Personally, I find this proposition to be dumb. He narrows down all potentialities to only 3: (1) we'll never get there, (2) we can get there and don't want to simulate, or (3) we can get there and we want to simulate. It reminds me of the argument about God existing: Non-existence is a sign of imperfection, but God is supposed to be perfect, which means that he can't be non-existent, and therefore God exists. It's a non-rigorous argument that can never actually prove the proposition itself and is completely philosophical in nature. It also reminds me of the doomsday clock, in that it's treated as this scientific observation of when nuclear war will break out, but all it is is just a bunch of people moving the clock forward at different speeds and slowing it down at the last "hour", and I can guarantee you that once nuclear war actually breaks out, they'll fast-forward the clock to midnight and be like "See? We could totally predict it!". The "math" in the simulation website is also extremely basic, it's just basically treating the 3 possible scenarios as fractions of a 100%, which literally proves nothing except that those 3 scenarios make up 100% of his argument. I wouldn't consider it math, since there's no actual operations happening.

I do greatly appreciate you linking that website to me though, so here's my upvote.


Kewkky t1_j0tjwd8 wrote

You should learn to mind your own business and focus on what you know about. You don't know anything about the homeless situation in San Diego except whatever fantasy you got going on in your head. The VAST majority of homeless here are definitely mentally unstable, and a lot of them are on drugs. Crimes committed by homeless has been on the rise, and the ones that do crazy shit like this are, to no surprise, part of the crazy homeless population. The ones that are homeless and sane own cars, have dogs, etc. Before you go blindly defending someone who straight up stole construction equipment worth thousands then didn't understand how he did any wrong, think about what it would take for someone to do that just to pull a car up to help someone change the wheel of a car.

Signed, a San Diego resident.


Kewkky t1_iue7es9 wrote

Reply to comment by r3eezy in Monster in the closet [OC] by ToothyBjComic

The landlord is scarier than the monster when she comes around looking for rent, but we were expecting the monster to be scary because it was terrifying the child.

Also, the author's name.


Kewkky t1_ir1utvh wrote

Obviously if the technology community develops something better we'll swap to it legally. Laws aren't set in stone for all eternity. It's bullshit that you have to own so many cables of different connectors just to be able to charge all your devices at home. if anything, THAT'S what's causing waste.

Also, as an electrical engineer, there's only so much improvement you can do to plugs and cables. Most of the improvement is with the devices themselves. If you need to use more pins in a cable, then add them in there but keep the shell of the plug the same. Most of the time plugs don't even use all the pins they have available. As long as you can connect a USB-C cable to any device that uses USB-C and it works, then innovate within those bounds.