dimreepr

I just wondered if he got the joke?

Only if you're a logic gate, but I can't be sure...

By which I assume you mean, because we tried to create what we accidentally created; that's like saying I spoke it to someone and then it magically happened. So no, "tis a silly place".

Would that be because you want to believe?

Content with what I have. (ignoring the strawman) I can't force you to learn, if you can't be bothered to listen, any more than you can force your son to work harder than he is willing to work.

There's a reason thinking is called reasoning, if I can't be bothered to feed myself I can't be around to think, for myself... 🧐

A lot of people can't imagine a role for lazy people in society, but they are many and varied; one of which is, it's gives people a lot of time to think, some of whom can do so while recognising the human condition and are educated well enough to think about it critically and while they're sat on there arse, with access to the internet, can challenge the thinking/biases' of all the hard working people, and with such a large audience??? Not every Idea, from a lazy git, is worthwhile; but with enough of us, one or two is worth listening to, and if one or two of us is challenging enough to change the mind of a hard working person or two; they can take it from there... 😉 🙏 If that's my reason for being lazy, how is it an excuse? An excuse would be, I can't do that because my leg hurts.

I was pondering this when I read the aliens and FBI thread, and didn't want to steer it that far of topic. I mean supposing an alien had an FLT spaceship, could they go home for reinforcements and get back in time for the battle?

There is, unfortunately it's culturally dependent; that's why we couldn't understand a lion, even if it spoke english correctly...

You don't seem to understand the difference between an excuse and a reason, what you define as a genuine excuse is what I define as a reason. I'm very lazy, if I can get away with not doing something I will, it's not an excuse it's the reason I chose not to do a thing, that you think I should do. If I'm happy to live in a house full of shit, who are you to judge? Sure, if you live next door and my action results in your house being infested by rats, then you have a reason to be angry and judgmental; but if you don't, then it's just an excuse to bitch about something you don't like. Interesting statement, can you clarify please, I don't understand it's relevance to this thread.

My point is, programming an AI is just as difficult as predicting what is best for humanity; a trite answer might be, we work together to achieve a common goal, the reality is, the common goal is culturally dependent.

Maybe it's not an excuse, there has to be a reason not to do what we did yesterday, if yesterday I successfully fed, sheltered and entertained me and mine. That behaviour isn't good for humanity in and of itself, but neither is working hard; for instance, miner's work hard to dig out the coal that may well turn out to be humanities end. The OP is akin to programming an AI; for instance, we tell it to look after our children, feed them, keep them warm and comfortable and etc. Then one day we forget to replenish the food cupboard and the children are hungry, the AI decides the family cat is edible, without understanding that, the kid's going hungry for a day is less valuable than the cat; so you tell it to recognise cat's and not kill them, forgetting about dogs and gerbils and the postman and etc. I didn't, I said "We should start by asking, "what's best for humanity?"; only then, can we design a human friendly future..." Besides, I asked you to define your success, which of coarse is subjective...

Define your success...

We should start by asking, "what's best for humanity?"; only then, can we design a human friendly future...

Another important aspect of science is, I don't know; maybe our fundamental understanding is wrong and more stories are required to fill the gaps.

It's not just a question technological advances, if our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics are correct; it's a question of time.

When did I suggest that??? What I'm suggesting is, it's up to the Ukrianian to decide what to fight for; what I'm proposing is, we wait and see if the reason, is just another excuse...

Not only the same planet but the same (political/physical) hemisphere; for instance, the truth about tobacco battled its way through, possible, the biggest politically monetary economically inspired excuse for a war. Even the antipode is experiencing the same phenomena; for instance, China, the most restricted and surveilled populations on the planet, the people ALWAYS find out the truth; it's just a question of time... Which loops back to the topic. 🧐

Where did the lab get a virus?

They are far more of a threat if they're hungry, the only question is, who's the enemy: If we're the one's that squeezes the economy to the point of hunger, there's nothing easier for the leadership than to point the finger and cry enemy, because they'd be right and the people can see it. If we're the one's that gives them a sandwhich, they'd still be hungry but with the knowledge of who tried to help. Even in china, some of the people know what's killing them. Luckily, every pawn on the board can become a threat to the King, what they truly believe depends on what side of the board they're on. Even luckier, we have journalist's who will swim in the rankist shit pit to sniff out the truth and wisper it to every pawn that will listen. Fortunately, it's profoundly resistant too.

But that's my point, if we squeeze to hard it's not them who suffers, it's just the pawns and the more pawns we feed/keep onside the better our chances. That's the equation they (hitler, stalin, putin et al) don't understand and why they always fail, they don't think they need pawns, so why protect them. Both sides use propaganda in the theatre of war, historically, the trick to telling the good from the bad is, who started it. So, unless you have extraordinary evidence to present, I'm just going to ignore you... 🤒 People only "go" to war for one reason, they're being attacked... The excuses for "going" to war, are many and varied...

We have to be just as careful with economic warfare, too much pressure (we force them (and potentially us) into taking sides because of empty belly's and/or a less comfortable life) has a habit of backfiring. If we hand out more sandwhiches than bullet's, eventually we'll have more live allies than dead friend's...

I'm not saying he shouldn't be held accountable, I'm saying we personally (as a country) can't do it. So, given that; shouldn't we at least give trying to understand him a go? And let the diplomats take it from there. That would be my definition of military intelligence...

We should start, by finding out why we find violence so entertaining... 🧐

I wasn't there when he met his end, so I can't rate his dignity in the face of death; is it bravery though? Being brave is about doing something, by choice, that you're afraid to do; he just put on a brave face about something he couldn't control, and that's just acting. So no, it doesn't follow that he wasn't a bully. No, he was just a frightened little boy, who was taught to think like that... Isn't that the MO of a bully? This is an interesting question, who's feeding on who? I think he should be given, back, enough money to live on; and what if the bookie is Trump? My point is, "war is bad-mkay" which costs more than just lives and if you want to stop a war (which no one's ever won or lost), first understand your enemy opponent, second scare persuade them enough to stop.