In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
There are ample supplies of essential materials in the world. But without abundant fresh water and clean cheap energy all of it doesn't matter.
material scarcity being solved means close to infinite energy being available as well ofc.
And with close to infinite energy you have infinite fresh water
material scarcity being solved means close to infinite energy being available as well ofc.
And with close to infinite energy you have infinite fresh water
I think "close to infinite" is probably going a bit too far, as advances in energy generation will likely reach an equilibrium where recycling existing materials provide sufficient clean cheap energy for the required processes to achieve quality of life in perpetuity.
IRT infinite fresh water, close to infinite energy availability is not on the critical path towards achieving abundant fresh water. Of course one could do foolish thing to create fresh water, such as atom smashing at huge scale. But that would be a huge weste and not very smart , as much more efficient processes are available.
What is required to achieve abundant fresh water will be decisions made to start that process, and using cheap clean energy is certainly on that critical path.
Technology to produce abundant fresh water and clean cheap energy is available now. This is not a pipe dream waiting decades or centuries to happen.
I think "close to infinite" is probably going a bit too far, as advances in energy generation will likely reach a point where recycling existing materials provide sufficient clean cheap energy for the required processes to achieve quality of life in perpetuity.
IRT infinite fresh water, close to infinite energy availability is not on the critical path towards achieving abundant fresh water. Of course one could do foolish thing to create fresh water, such as atom smashing at huge scale. But that w
with close to infinite i mean something like 1000x the energy available currently.
IF actual AGI comes in 2040, in 2042 you have, in one day, design for nuclear reactors that is far better than the best we currently have, AND robots under AI supervision building it 24/7/365 with no security issues so what, 1/10 if not less of the time? so by 2044 you have alone from that one order more of energy available which you use to mine more minerals to build more reactors and that alone already solves energy scarcity.
And that's without imagining any other technology for energy entities far smarter than the smartest human than ever lived can devise.
And those entities *do get smarter with time*
You are talking another scenario, normal life goes on, i am talking if actual AGI comes
with close to infinite i mean something like 1000x the energy available currently.
IF actual AGI comes in 2040, in 2042 you have, in one day, design for nuclear reactors that is far better than the best we currently have, AND robots under AI supervision building it 24/7/365 with no security issues so what, 1/10 if not less of the time? so by 2044 you have alone from that one order more of energy available which you use to mine more minerals to build more reactors and that alone already solves ene
AGI is not required to achieve abundant fresh water and clean cheap energy. Like I said above the required technology is available right now.
AGI is simply a diversion to delay the decision making to get this going. There is no need to wait 20+ years.
IRT future technology curing what might happen between now and then, I can imagine several scenarios where that is not true. Of course improvements in technology will make processes more efficient, but that will not be a "game changer" because we already have the required technology to produce what is required to achieve quality of life.
Either case, it's utterly irrelevant to sacrifice present day quality of life for anything 50+ years down the line (society-wise).
imo this is just as big a disqualifier for leadership as kamala's "free elective cosmetic surgeries for detained illegal immigrants"
i like you in general, you're a good catfish to keep the cod from getting lethargic, but this position imo is not only immoral but also untenable
what this policy will look like 50 years into the future should be the starting point for consideration of adoption
there's many instances where it's gone too far, such as environmental lobbyists in california being why they can't build high speed rail, but to just disregard what water quality will be like in 50 years time because right now there's a profitable industry that creates a lot of wealth situated on the river bank is not feasible
i say this as someone who grew up on the housatonic river, what was once some of the best fishing in america and is now a superfund site costing 576 million to clean up after GE polluted it to the point where nobody would dare swim or fish in it anymore
Many people do not even agree that quality of life is a reasonable goal.
The point is abundant fresh water and cheap clean energy are both required to attain quality of life.
With those two elements everything else can be derived.
Of course people in power could screw things up even with those two elements, but without those elements we are all doomed.
imo this is just as big a disqualifier for leadership as kamala's "free elective cosmetic surgeries for detained illegal immigrants"
i like you in general, you're a good catfish to keep the cod from getting lethargic, but this position imo is not only immoral but also untenable
what this policy will look like 50 years into the future should be the starting point for consideration of adoption
there's many instances where it's gone too far, such as environmental lobbyists in california being why they
Rick try to discuss the argument. Argument is IF - THEN.
IF you believe AGI will come soon THEN the conclusion you are disagreeing with is actually objectively correct.
It's similar to someone who knows for a fact that is going to either become immensely rich , or die, very soon (let's pretend you know that for a fact). It would be absurd for him to save for his pension before the dichotomic event.
It is not immoral to disgregard the long term if you know that in the long term you either won't be there anymore as a species, or be equipped with tools that will guarantee you to achieve any outcome you can think of today (and many more) with extreme ease.
If you think something like "we should plan for the in-between event anyway" OR "i actually think AGI probably won't come", then fine. Doesn't touch my claim though
There is no reason to assume that AGI will force decisions to be made that achieve quality of life.
There is no reason to defer making those decisions.
Why prevent (or delay) society from obtaining quality of life, when it can be obtained now?
Very strange how, like Maui where houses with blue roofs and other blue items miraculously survived the wildfires, now we're seeing items with a blue color miraculously survive the CA "wildfires".
Let's see how long it takes for this story to disappear. Maybe that will tell us there's something more to it.
Blue VW Van survives!
Rick try to discuss the argument. Argument is IF - THEN.
IF you believe AGI will come soon THEN the conclusion you are disagreeing with is actually objectively correct.
It's similar to someone who knows for a fact that is going to either become immensely rich , or die, very soon (let's pretend you know that for a fact). It would be absurd for him to save for his pension before the dichotomic event.
It is not immoral to disgregard the long term if you know that in the long term you either won't be
luciom, i know you are a devoted father, i simply refuse to believe that you'd be ok with the city of bologna allowing industrial practices which means your children would not be able to safely live in bologna without your grandchildren all having birth defects because you allowed some baloney company to use a toxic chemical in their processing that was cheaper than the alternative and boosted profits but leaked into the soil and then the aquifers
luciom, i know you are a devoted father, i simply refuse to believe that you'd be ok with the city of bologna allowing industrial practices which means your children would not be able to safely live in bologna without your grandchildren all having birth defects because you allowed some baloney company to use a toxic chemical in their processing that was cheaper than the alternative and boosted profits but leaked into the soil and then the aquifers
i am not because I don't think AGI is guaranteed to come soon.
btw why pollute with toxic waste near one of the richest cities in your country? let them open those in poor areas or better yet in foreign country you buy from, which... is already what happens
check Taranto cancer rates and ILVA (steel company) there is plenty around on that.
one of the very few reasons to keep a country whole and for rich areas not to secede is to dump all the negative externalities you can on poor areas, otherwisenwhybthebhell would you ever want to keep areas that are poor within your borders???
i am not because I don't think AGI is guaranteed to come soon.
btw why pollute with toxic waste near one of the richest cities in your country? let them open those in poor areas or better yet in foreign country you buy from, which... is already what happens
check Taranto cancer rates and ILVA (steel company) there is plenty around on that.
one of the very few reasons to keep a country whole and for rich areas not to secede is to dump all the negative externalities you can on poor areas, otherwisenw
i now better understand why a lot of posters here view you as a monster
this is an untenable position imo
i now better understand why a lot of posters here view you as a monster
this is an untenable position imo
I know they do but fact is this is how life was and is arranged currently in most places, revealed preferences tell me and you, most people think like me.
I agree most people don't like to admit it, doesn't change anything though.
Americans on the left learn about the atrocities in Flint and what do they do? they donate 1.5 bln do Kamala Harris which has no power to do anything there, 1.5 bln would have fixed Flint.
btw you are mistaken if I think I would allow toxic waste to be dumped around with no intervention.
tort law exists in my model when you can find a causal claim going from an action and a damage. what I refuse is the regulatory model because it gets captured every time and at the end it always does more damage than good
btw i meant to include a smiley face after the monster comment, i don't hold that view of you and agree that in their hearts of hearts, most people calling you a monster secretly agree with you
the same people who say we need to take in all the immigrants wouldn't even rent out their guest room to one let alone open it up for free
btw i meant to include a smiley face after the monster comment, i don't hold that view of you and agree that in their hearts of hearts, most people calling you a monster secretly agree with you
the same people who say we need to take in all the immigrants wouldn't even rent out their guest room to one let alone open it up for free
for reference to the above, property rights are still sacred in my model. and some property can be public, including water.
dumping stuff in public water (or land) can be a crime, that's not regulation, that's property rights.
regulation would be what you can or cannot do in and with your property.
and it's dumping in the water even if it starts on your land but then goes down into someone else water.
so I am not sure why it would be easy to pollute with toxic waste in my model, when you have the death penalty for every single decision maker involved in the company decision if it ends up, through tort law, their actions violated the life of others and caused their death.
What would be the process for that recycling bin in that position to end up melted?
for reference to the above, property rights are still sacred in my model. and some property can be public, including water.
dumping stuff in public water (or land) can be a crime, that's not regulation, that's property rights.
regulation would be what you can or cannot do in and with your property.
and it's dumping in the water even if it starts on your land but then goes down into someone else water.
so I am not sure why it would be easy to pollute with toxic waste in my model,
Man you must have a nice esteem about China society .
And yet they are communist …
That is a bit funny to me .
It’s not that bessent is necessarily wrong in theory about minimum wages but yet for taxes purpose it doesn’t apply and see the purpose of state wide and local disappeared ?
That doesn’t make sense to me .
Both elements should Be tied to the hip .
It’s about income hence they should follow the same factors ….
In China the determination of courts depend on the government will, that's the communist part.
Not the death penalty which was a staple, greatly successful technique used by all the most important western nations for millennia.
The nations that built the entire edifice of our culture, the whole reason we live better than we did in the past (the Romans, the British empire and so on) used the death penalty a lot, because it works to fix problems.
In China the determination of courts depend on the government will, that's the communist part.
Not the death penalty which was a staple, greatly successful technique used by all the most important western nations for millennia.
The nations that built the entire edifice of our culture, the whole reason we live better than we did in the past (the Romans, the British empire and so on) used the death penalty a lot, because it works to fix problems.
What problems does it fix exactly?
You are funnier by the minute.
I imagine Lucia waking up, coffee in hand and telling himself in front of his mirror :
This is gonna be a great day, I'm gonna go through all my tabs and own these noobs
the same people who say we need to take in all the immigrants wouldn't even rent out their guest room to one let alone open it up for free
The non sequitur to end all non sequiturs.
What has inviting a stranger to live in your house to do with inviting people into your country into their own house?
