Total posts: 5,766
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You are saying that these objects should have noticeable gravitational interactions while being within the gravity well of the Earth, is that correct?
I am not saying you are wrong, just making sure I understand correctly so as to avoid an unintended strawman. So... is that what you are saying?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
In fact, the concept of what Newton says gravity is is quite absurd indeed. Does a fat person, if tall and fat enough, suddenly make things near to them pull towards them? If so, i must wonder why the hairs on their bodies show absolutely not inclination either way, surely they'd be pulled in flat... Oh, right, it's all too weak...Nothing is as massive as the Earth itself so therefore it's all too weak to show any sign of gravity to a lesser extent at all... Right...
An absurdly overweight person weighing 250 kg has less than 0.00000000000000000000003% the mass of Earth.
You say "if gravity worked like Newton says then a fat person would have a noticeable gravitational field".
Imagine if I had two magnets of different sizes and I said "If magnetism works the way scientist say it does then this small magnets magnetic field should be noticeable despite being 0.00000000000000000000003% of the strength of the magnet it is adjacent to".
How would you respond to me saying that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
What would you expect that to look like if it was true?
Created:
Posted in:
I wonder what a flat earther would expect a spherical planet to look like from the ground.
Created:
-->
@Undefeatable
Some think the reason Computer Science actually has a Law and Ethics class may be related to trademark and copyright laws. This makes more sense to me than the idea that Computer Science classes are trying to make you a better debater.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I meant to say does legal knowledge help with Computer Science (since that was the thread title) silly typo on my part.
Created:
So legal knowledge would help with online debating... does online debating help with Computer Science though?
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
There are two possibilities:
- They send their spaceships randomly in all directions
- They wait for signs of life and then react
Both of those methods seem outrageously and unnecessarily inefficient. Why not just torch every planet in the galaxy from home without sending ships anywhere? No need to "wait for signs of life" if you can just sterilize all planets in the galaxy in a fraction of the time that it takes for intelligence to develop. A K-2 civilization around a yellow dwarf could do this using just 1% of their economy's energy output and 20th century physics.
Your main problem is that you are thinking inside the box. You can't expect every xenocidal species to do the same.
Created:
Posted in:
If your reason for disliking CRT is because of the word "theory" then you ought to dislike the Theory of Gravity or the Germ Theory of Disease for the same reason.
If your reason for disliking CRT is something else then this focus on the word "theory" is a red herring and it would be more productive to talk about those other reasons.
Created:
Posted in:
Topic: Unconventional Debate Formats Such as That in This Thread Should be Encouraged
Let's get meta.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Eh not necessarily. They could just bombard us from space.
Not sure why they would bother. If they wanted to wipe us out they just need to send a small swarm of RKM's from their system aimed at our planet. They don't even need to enter our system.
Created:
I don't get why you guys are assuming a war with aliens would involve alien fleets and alien soldiers. Are you guys just going with the assumptions given to you by Hollywood or have you just not given the topic much thought?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I think that what you are referring to, is celebrity racism relative to Social Media.
No, I was asking about the general public. You and I had the same answer for number 3 though. Thanks for taking the time to post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Abuse is now applauded if you manage to smile and dance while doing it.
If the "victim" (read: guy getting paid to have a girl pretend to hit his balls) is the one laughing then what is the problem?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
What do you mean "affirmed" it? I have the screenshots lol.
I would be interested in seeing screenshots of the supposed crime that got Wylted permabanned, assuming that is what you are saying you have screenshots of.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you really think the corporations are going to want to keep people alive if they DON'T NEED WORKERS?
How many (for profit) corporations currently provide food and shelter for the homeless?
[IFF] corporations don't try to keep people alive in the future and [IFF] corporations are not trying to keep people alive in the present [THEN] the future is the same as the present.
[IFF] the future is the same as the present [THEN] it is weird to imply that the future will be worse than the present.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you really think the corporations are going to want to keep people alive if they DON'T NEED WORKERS?
Uh... wut?
Created:
Posted in:
There was nothing pedophiley about that exchange unless you were already looking for an excuse to ban him again, which, let's be honest, you probably were.
I haven't actually read the thread that got wylted banned first-hand myself but...
To be clear I thought the allegations against bsh1 for pedophilia were pretty dumb as well
... I did read the thread that got bsh banned and wholeheartedly agree with this statement so would not be surprised if we agree about wylted too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
that gives us the ability to go post-scarcity anyway so from an economic point of view employment is no longer required.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The only point you're missing is that self-driving-vehicles is just ONE EXAMPLE of the massive shift in automation.
Well sure, but if we reach the point where there are literally no jobs left because of AI whatsoever except for a few million software engineers here and there then that gives us the ability to go post-scarcity anyway so from an economic point of view employment is no longer required. You can argue that is a bad thing from a philosophical perspective and many have, but the point is that economically there is no problem. The transition to that point (assuming that point is even in our future) is the delicate part, but taken in gradual steps and given policies to ease the process, possibly including the implementation of a UBI, it is easily doable.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah I remember trying to explain this concept to a few of my friends back when, well... back when I had friends.
I am not sure whether the actual real world time dilation experienced due to relative velocities actually match up to a formula that would give the idea any actual scientific significance but it is an interesting thought experiment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Basically 3RU7AL made a big fuss over self-driving vehicles causing 3.5 million people to lose jobs, but that is only a bit over 2% of the labor market. If everyone in all other fields in the labor market took a 5% cut in their hours scheduled they could make room for those 3.5 million people to move to those fields without causing a huge labor surplus thus keeping wages per hour similar to before. Wages per year would decrease by that 5%, which would be compensated for by the fact that cost of living would decrease dramatically in this example because decrease in transportation costs would have an effect on the price of virtually everything (fauxlaw doesn't seem to understand why a transportation company would decrease it's prices after having such a huge reduction in it's overhead costs but 3RU7AL is perfectly willing to admit cost of living would decrease, he just doesn't understand the rest of what I am saying well enough to realize why this cost of living decrease would not necessarily be accompanied by a decrease in wages per hour).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Like say that caused by automation?
No, I was specifically talking about fields not immediately effected by automation. I was saying that as automation in some labor fields increased workers could move to non-automated fields. Workers in said fields could afford to take cuts in their hours to make room for incoming workers from more automated fields (thus keeping labor hours supplied in those fields relatively stable even with an increased number of workers) because automation in the general market would vastly decrease cost of living by the time there is enough of it to impact the labor market.
Because of the decreased cost of living it provides the end result of automation is less hours in a work week, not less positions on the market.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
drive wages even lower
For there to be a decrease in the value of labor there would need to be an increase in labor supply or a decrease in labor demand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
GOOD FOR CONSUMERS ≠ GOOD FOR WORKERS.
You realize that consumers are workers in our society right?
You still have not responded to my proposal to cut hours in other fields to avoid a cut in wages and avoid a cut in jobs. What do you say to that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Patience, my friends. Rather than respond here, I am making the matter the subject of a debate,
Okay I didn't see this before making my last post. What is the debate resolution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
No, you did not say A & B, other than cost of the load of fruit, is the same
Okay, then there was a misunderstanding. Now that you know this is the case reread post 186 and respond to it again.
I am trying to demonstrate to you why automation would change prices, so yes in my example the automation is the only difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Like I said the selling price, quality, etc. in the example is the same for both A and B. The difference in price was due to the transportation method.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Buy a house; shelter is a necessity. then build another one, and sell it for a profit.
Why does not everyone buy homes then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I think it should be obvious how automation reduces cost of living but if it isn't then let me know and I will explain.Please explain
Supermarket A spends $5k to get a truck load of fruit to market then has to sell those fruits at a price high enough to make a profit.
Supermarket B next door also has to sell their fruislts at a high enough price to make a profit but they spend only $4k to get the same truck load of fresh fruit to market because their fleet of trucks is capable of driving themselves so they don't pay any drivers wages.
Who is selling their fruit for cheaper?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Why cut jobs when you can cut hours? As a car shop owner I can employ 2 full timers and 8 part timers as easily as I can employ 6 full timers without reducing wages. Because self-driving transportation would reduce the cost of JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING it would be easier to make a living wage on less hours, making room for employers to hire more employees. Not all ex-drivers would become mechanics but other fields would open up positions due to reduced cost of living making reduced hours more common as well.
I think it should be obvious how automation reduces cost of living but if it isn't then let me know and I will explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What jobs do you think humans will be performing when self-driving-cars are commonplace?
Car mechanic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
See above post to fauxlaw. I would love to have a more in-depth discussion on the topic of automation and it's impact on the economy in the future if possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Actually I did read your post in full but didn't read all of the post you were responding to until just now and therefore did not realize at the time that you and he were talking specifically about a potential future highly automated society. I would agree with the general sentiment that such anti-automation concerns are over exaggerated at best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You are assuming all that ngs regularly burn energy to tend to their fragile biological body that's tiring and burning energy as it functions in a straightforward manner.
If either of you can show even theoretically how a lifeform could function without burning energy then you have just broken thermodynamics. Start writing a paper, your nobel prize and billions of dollars in licencing fees on the resulting perpetual motion machine await.
having something very different to blood, glucose etc as their way of fuelling their operations, it follows that what we consider respiration to be may be very different for them.
It is true that respiration (a.k.a. energy production) could take wildly different forms than what we have direct experience of but is must exist in some way and assuming the lifeform in question is based on matter that method is describable by chemical formulas and chemical formulas are something biologists have a very good understanding of. Furthermore energy production itself is far from the only basic universal requirement for an element to be a good building block for life. The ability to form a wide variety of complex chemical bonds is essential especially for a world populated by organisms in the first stages of evolution. Without a very versatile chemical base life is not possible. Silicon is the second best option we have in this department on the periodic table and yet is many many kilometers behind our best option, carbon.
The only assumptions being made here are that life is based on matter and that it requires energy. The first seems to be an assumption shared by ILikePie while the second is based on a basic understanding of the most solid law of physics we know of (entropy).
Keep in mind that I am not arguing that non-carbon life is impossible, I am merely arguing against 🥧's assertion that it is unreasonable for us to have a strong focus on carbon in such discussions and his apparent general mindset that "well, anything is possible because really we don't know anything".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
And don't try to pretend all humans will become novelists and screenwriters and artists.Why not?
Because such jobs are only profitable when a small enough portion of the population has them. If everyone has such a job then it is not possible for everyone to be profitable at it.
I already know you are going to disagree and force me to write a paragraph explaining why this is true but I am busy now so I will do so later today. You could save me some time by thinking about it closely and figuring out for yourself why this is the case between now and then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The value of the property and therefore the proportional value of the shares will fluctuate with natural market forces.So if after one year, your complex is appraised at $2 million, then each $800 per month payment would buy 0.04% of the total complex (or 1% of a $40,000 unit, if the units are of equal value).
One problem I see with this is the fact that my example started with me paying full price for a building, what is not stated outright is the fact that I am not Donald Trump and obtaining a small loan of a million dollars is not easy for me and someone like me would have to pay interest on that loan. If all I get back is the value of the house (even if my income is adjusted for real estate market growth) I am still left in the red by however much interest is charged.
I have a problem with how the maintenance costs are handled in your plan but we can talk about that separately.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Okay so they give me enough per month for 2% of the unit and after 50 months they own enough shares to call the unit theirs. At that point they stop paying any money and once 25 people have done this I no longer have any stake and walk away from the deal with just the $1 mil (800 x 25 x 50) from selling the shares.
Am I understanding right? I want to be sure I understand you correct before I respond.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Keep in mind, I'm actually proposing this for something more like an apartment complex.
That's fair, let's use an apartment complex as an example then. I buy a 25 unit complex for $1,000,000 (no idea how accurate this is to the apartment complex market, just using numbers to demonstrate the point) and divide it into 10,000 shares. 400 shares represents ownership of one housing unit in the complex. Someone comes along and wants to live in one of the units. How much do I charge them and how many shares do I give them each month?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
When your tenants pay rent you will give them a share of the building.
Sorry for being obtuse, but I genuinely do not understand the difference between this and renting. Could you give some numbers as an example for how this would look in my current situation? (4 bedroom house with 2 people giving $350 a month each for 1 bedroom each). How would this work differently under your proposal?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am interested in your simpler idea.
I think providing a basic income for people to acquire housing would make more sense than trying to "cut out the landlord middleman" by providing housing directly. It makes no difference to me whether my tenants pay their rent using an employment paycheck or a UBI check, money is money. For some it is simply easier and more convenient to rent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This is not what I am suggesting. I am not arguing that everyone have PRIVATE residences but only adequate shelter.
Okay, then it would be more efficient to take it to the other end of the sliding scale and pack as many people as possible into provided units. This is already done in the case of homeless shelters. If your plan basically boils down to providing more resources to homeless shelter projects I am all for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@3RU7AL
All I am saying is that if the goal is to reduce homelessness to 0% there are simpler ways to do that than trying to increase home ownership to 100%.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Simply fractionalize the property.
This would require a loan for most people, so you are okay with mortgages existing?
Further there are many cases where renting is better than buying. My newest roommate moved in a week ago and plans on only staying for 6 months then he is going back to California. Renting for $350 a month is easier than trying to get a $12,000 loan to buy my room and paying interest on that loan only to have to try to sell it in 6 months and hope that someone happens to be interested in buying it back just as he moves out so he can repay the loan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you are "renting" someone a necessity (THEN) they should receive something tangible in return for their money.
I live in Michigan, a roof over one's head is very tangible this time of year.
(IFF) you want to sell some space in your home (THEN) fractionalize your home and sell the fractions (like shares of stock in a corporation).
I purchased a four bedroom house for $94,500. If I did as you propose then let's say the value of each bedroom to be around $10,000-$12,000 (some value tied up in common areas such as the kitchen and living room). Not everyone has that type of cash laying around.
Of course it makes sense that "single family homes" would have different rules than an apartment complex or other commercial property, but I'm just trying to integrate your example.
The concept is the same. Let's say an apartment complex worth $2 million has 50 units being rented out. Fractionalized, each of those units are valued at about $40,000. Again not everyone has that kind of cash to spare.
Perhaps you could convert your home into a "private club" with a very exclusive membership list that stipulates dues are paid monthly?
This would essentially be renting. All this would do is avoid the stigma of the actual word "rent", which does not seem helpful.
Demand for housing would spikeNaked assertion.while supply at best remains stable,Naked assertion.thus all else being equal property prices would increase.Naked assertion.
I explained why this is the case from an economic perspective in more detail in post 112. Not a naked assertion, just naked facts.
Created: