dimreepr

There is no shortcut to understanding and AI is the proof... If we assume that AI knows everything, then it's easy to prove that it doesn't understand what it knows... 🤔

Thanks guy's for all the answer's (nice link @MigL)... But the question, assuming one winner, is the difference between buying a ticket or not. I see it as 1 degree of separation (50:50), as in not buying a ticket doesn't mean you won't subsequently, be in possession of one. So given the probability of winning is very large, one toss of the coin at such an early stage of the equation, wouldn't be all that significant in my choice "to pay a voluntary tax on my optimism"...

There's a big difference between a legal technicality and a moral obligation, like intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. If a young girl offered one sex, then it could be argued that one is innocent of the intent to harm; just that one got caught up in one's hormone's. On the other hand, how do we know that she wasn't groomed? One account is believable, two accounts are suspicious many accounts are damming.

The national lottery is currently running an ad campaign (It could be you), trying to persuade us to buy a lottery ticket. It got me wondering if the odds were 'significantly' different, if I don't buy a ticket? It's math above my pay grade, so feel free to work out the number's for me. 🙂

I think so.

OK,but please explain why I'm mistaken?

Probably a stupid question, but doesn't time effectively stop from the POV of the observer at the event horizon?

If he's dead,, why are you wasting our time, trying to defend a man, whom you can't possibly know to be innocent?

Your describing a functioning democracy, all be it a terrifyingly binary knife edge ATM, but what it's not, is a hidden authority; bc of those pesky journo's.

We can't, imagine a two dimensional character living in the clock, it can only say cuckoo when the big hand changes to being fully erect. 😉

Indeed, but maintaining a positive association post conviction is very suspicious, if only for the fact that they feel entitled enough to not care if it's suspicious.or morally wrong.

He's taking a very British approach to foreign policy, talk loudly and slowly and if they still refuse to understand, invade their country and shoot them for being stupid. "The king is dead, long live the king"... Who do you think the king maker has their eye on?

Nish Kumar, on BBC sounds, is far more entertaining... What makes you think that this is an argument?

It also has the benefit of creating the conditions, in which he can excuse the use of actual troop's and, perhaps, martial law; I think his only chance of his third term. @KJW he still has to dance for the people, politically, and the US is still a democracy, however tenuous it's grip; I still have faith in the US massive... 🤙

Indeed, it depends, what algorithm and how does it relate to human thinking?