Linkey

Currently I don't understand the point. If their task is to simply name three bits each, why can’t they, if the judge tells them the third row and the third column, name the option not based on this picture, but so that everything matches? For example -1,+1,-1 in the third row and +1, +1, -1 in the third column?

I suppose, people here have heard about the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester and the counterfactual definiteness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur–Vaidman_bomb_tester https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness I have a question: can this experiment be performed at the level of countries for avoiding a nuclear war? Let’s consider, that in 2300 A.D. there is a country with a dictator Kim 8, who oppresses the people, exports some resources and controls the overbomb which can totally destroy the planet. He is loosing power because of the sanctions, and decides to use a weird strategy – threatens that he will annihilate Earth if the sanctions will not be lifted. He does not want such a scenario, but he has a chance to win if the states will fulfill his demands because of fear. What can the humanity do in this situation? They can annihilate the country of Kim firstly, but this is the violation of all international laws (the nuclear bombs can me used only in response). However, I think that theoretically, one more scenario is possible: the states can create a superposition of two Earths (two universes), in the first the apocalypses does not occur, and in the second Kim pushes the button. Like in the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb experiment, the information that Kim had done this in the second universe, will be accessible in the first universe, and this will give the states the right to annihilate the country of Kim. What do you think?

The possibility to initiate a referendum is not a "power" in common sense. For initiating a referendum, simply a sufficient number of "likes" must be gathered (and not too many "dislikes"), so many people like celebs or bloggers will be able to use that. Ok, I didn't know that. But strange.

I think - yes) If any celebrity in the USA had the possibility to initiate and online referendum, the world would become much better. For example, currently, as far as I can see, the USA has a strange situation: when Rep president is in power, the shale oil rigs are activated, when a Dem president is in power - the rigs are closed, and so on. The USA needs simply a referendum on the question of rigs closing, and it does not matter who will initiate this referendum.

This is simple - any decision in the country must be made through a referendum. Now, it is possible to perform referendums online, so the humanity has a possibility to build a quite good democracy. I also have an idea, that in a really ideal democracy, one more principle must be implemented: each person should mention the importance of the decision on vote for himself, and this information must be honest. I mean, with modern democracies it is theoretically possible, that 90% will vote for making the remaining 10% slaves. This was impossible if the voters indicated (honestly) on a ten-pointed scale, how important is this decision for themselves.

For me, this is a too simple explanation. I believe that in a theoretical ideal democracy the civil wars are inpossible - the people in different regions of the country would simply vote for some compromise decision.

It seems strange for me, why the American Civil War happened in the 19th century. I mean that, as far as I can see, civil wars and “Smuta” are an attribute of an authoritarian society, not a democratic one. I understand the mechanism of the Time of Troubles in Russia in 1612 or the Three Kingdoms in China: this situation occurs because any aristocrat wants to become a monarch, and the legitimacy of power is determined not by elections, but by the fact that the ruler is in power. Why then did turmoil also occur in the USA? My question is: when the southern states seceded from the northern states and mobilized, was that the decision of the people of those states? Did people in these states vote to secede? Or was secession simply the decision of the ruling governors? I heard that the American Civil War was in some sense the second American Revolution, please clarify this.