dimreepr

OK, I guess disney has already covered this questionnaire, how to dodge the consequences and live happily ever after... But jokes aside, you've got 3 chances to get your own 'happily ever after', whatever that maybe, and each wish has a team of lawyers, from Yin-yang and partners, trying to find a loophole to get the djinn of the hook. So what do you think the lawyers would make of that? Is that your happy ever after?

My point is, a computer is a machine designed to achieve the objectives we give it, AI is a way to do it better; if you plug in the wrong programme you'll get the wrong answer's and if you plug it in to a machine 10,000 times more powerful, all you'll get is the wrong answer, faster... 😉 Which also covers sentience, because for every mad scientist villain, there's a Batman... 🙏🤞

Have you got a link to that story? I can't comment on the concern without context. How can you tell that your computer/phone isn't already sentient?

It depends on which half/third the Galgemesh decided to eliminate... God damn it, now I'm going to have to listen to"The hitchhikers guild to the galaxy" again. 😆

Am I, what is your definition of artificial?

LOL, how is that supernatural???

I think we have a vastly different interpretation of the word artificial and how we are different from nature. It's you who are playing dumb, I said " the number of humans on the planet" not, the number of potential humans on the planet, for example, a pregnant woman does not equal two human's on any spreadsheet...

And you are assuming that the world is greater than an island, in a world full of islands... Bolded mine: No you can't, you can only input what is known for it to make sense, hence the paradox of "where are they", when you find the evidence there is no paradox...

Well firstly, how did we manage that? Did we keep the fetus' in a box? And AFAIK the only way to artificially alter the number of humans on the planet, is murder and there's A LOT wrong with that. We could ask for volunteers, I assume you'd be first in the queue... 😇😉 He's talking more than that, which also affects the climate. 😉

Imagine you were given 3 wishes, everything within the laws of physics are possible, the wishes have to be specific (you can't just wish for everyone to be happy or rich or etc.). How could we specify the first two wishes, so we don't have to spend the third cancelling the first two? It's not as straightforward as it might appear, if looked at scientifically.

An English man an Irish man and a Scottish man, walk into a bar, and the barman says "is this some sort of joke?"

Good for you, I love dog's. But I have to check, does that put you in the Mistermack camp? Who thinks the problem would be solved if we artificially reduce the odds, by artificially reducing the number of human's? Because I also love, some, humans...

Indeed, in an ideal world this wouldn't even be a question (with proof of concept). And we're back to what we can do, what is affordable to us; I use my wealth, which is essentially a computer and internet connection, to digitally point the finger at anyone who'll listen and ask "how are you using your wealth to benefit others?" (Greta has a bigger audience) having pointed out that ("no man is an island complete and of itself" - Donne) no man is a self made millionaire, and anyone who claims they are, are worse than children, because their ignorance is willfully embraced.

Yes we do, it's a can kicking exercise; it gives them time to think of a new way to kick the can further down the road; all the while sporting a fixed grin, that be lies their hope that it will become someone else's problem before we reach the cliff... Off the top of my head, site the factory next to a big arsed shit farm and use the waste material; making both the shit farm and your company profitable (without taxing the people), worthy of a sizeable investment, no? OK that's fine, we can't predict the future, you might be right, however long the odds are. That's like a poor man spending every penny he will ever earn, on one national lottery ticket to solve his problem's; some people might say that's a really childish way to solve a problem.

LOL, beat me to it, but there's some lovely filth over here: God damn it, now I've got to watch again, which is a sort of recycling...😇

Every generation throw's at least one baby out with the bathwater in our persuit of... mostly leasure, which tends to be conflated with pleasure rather than boredom, for some reason; when I was a kid clothes washing, including nappy's, was a days work with a twin tub, sometimes that was the best day of the week. And every generation think's it's smarter, because Dad doesn't know what google is... But he could fix the plug that feeds it, which begs the question of what's smarter... Greta's not pointing the fingure at them or us, she's pointing the fingure at "the government" who can afford it. My story wasn't about relative poverty, it's about what is affordable; and for me, turning off the streetlights is the starting point of affordable. IIRC shifting the clock's to suite our working hour's, saved millions of candles...

But it doesn't follow they're not as concerned about climate change, just because their focus is on today's survival, why would that mean their not concerned about tomorrow. I'm very poor, my daily survival is a daily budget, but I'm lucky enough to live in a rich country, so I'm relatively wealthy in global term's; I spend that wealth on my carbon footprint, which is this computer and link, a microwave, the cheapest food I can find within walking distance of my very very secondhand caravan. I think I have an argument that my carbon footprint is smaller than Greta's, so I'm with all the other poor, I've paid enough; you first, switch off all the streetlights and we'll talk about my internet connection.

Maybe they're a lapsed buhdist, they do everything a buhdist does, but without a measurement...😉

I don't think this is true, it seems to me that if your premise is true, it's in terms of identifiable species, as in what we can see/find; most of the planet's potential habitable zone's/place's are unknown to us, and bacteria has been found in place's that was previously considered uninhabitable.

And this is another distraction technique, much like "net zero" which as far as I can tell, it means a way that the corporation's can carry on, in largely the same direction and sell it to the customer's as a solution in itself; and we're back to my coach anolog, hoping it runs out of fuel before we get to the cliff.

So what do you think net zero mean's?

That's a similar argument to the trickle down theory in capitalism and we all know that in the real world, it just doesn't work. First you have to define and agree about what net zero actually means. For instance, if you mean one tree = x no. of tonnes (which is by no means a linear or fully understood equation), then a rich country will just pay poor countries to plant x no. of tree's and continue on its merry way patting itself on the back; that's like pooring the same amount shit into the gutter and making it better by putting stilts on the sidewalk. Indeed if by some more than others, you mean the rich more than the poor. The poor have almost no choice about their emissions, it's only the rich that can afford to choose from the alternatives available.

If you're asking for the safest option, ask again tomorrow...

Na, that's more like the "Italian Job", drop the gold or die, you fooking IDIOT...

That's like driving a coach towards a cliff and hoping it runs out of petrol before we get there...