But you could do a lot better than factoring large numbers
Oh yeah. You can solve any problem in PSPACE. You can basically directly sample the entire space of all programs (with bounded memory).
Screw the lottery. You could make trillions on the stock market. Afterwards sample the entire space of all love letters, send them off to famous movie stars, then detonate only if you don’t get an eager response back. You might need a delegate to read the letter, as you reading it personally would shunt you into particular universes.
I downvoted because of the cynicism expressed in the idea that money can buy love. It read like a bitter complaint that girls (or guys) just want money.
Downvoted you for downvoting me for explaining why I downvoted kodos.
ETA: The cynicism was in saying that money could replace love letters. Also, the original post was about quantum suicide and using it to find the most effective love letter, and the comment about money sort of missed the point, and read like a cheap shot against love.
Downvoted you for downvoting me for explaining why I downvoted you;>
Are you saying that copypasted love letters is an adequate substitute for actual love? That sounds pretty cynical to me. But I still don’t see any inappropriate cynicism coming from kodos
No, it’s not that the letters are an actual substitute for love, it’s more the cynical attitude, “yeah, anyone will love you if you have enough money.”
Second of all, I don’t see the idea of money being able to buy love as being any more or less cynical than randomly generated spam love letters being able to buy love...
Third of all… Blueberry, weren’t you one of the people on the wrong side of the PUA debate? And you don’t see any irony in now acting all holier than thou about cynical attitudes toward mating?
Fourth of all… it was a joke!!!! I mean, seriously people.
Regardless, upvoting both of you back up to 0, cause I don’t think people should be penalized for explaining their downvotes when asked to do so.
ETA: Wow, this is getting ridiculous. I think it’s now safe to say that Human Mating Habits Are The Mind Killer, even more so than politics.
ETA2: LOL@downvoting people in retaliation for explaining why they’re upvoting you ;)
I thought this whole thread was a joke! And I’m sorry for any offense I caused.
Just for clarification: I’m not sure what you mean about the “wrong side” of the debate, but I support PUA and see it as a positive and productive method for helping men and women develop social skills, understand each other, and have better relationships. I see PUA as the opposite of cynical.
More to the point, it’s not well substantiated that the individuals in question would be drawn to riches—there are many people who are, but not nearly 100% of the population. I met a woman who once had a member of The Eagles chatting her up and turned him down.
Oh yeah. You can solve any problem in PSPACE. You can basically directly sample the entire space of all programs (with bounded memory).
Screw the lottery. You could make trillions on the stock market. Afterwards sample the entire space of all love letters, send them off to famous movie stars, then detonate only if you don’t get an eager response back. You might need a delegate to read the letter, as you reading it personally would shunt you into particular universes.
But would you really need the love letters if you had the trillions? I’d think a bank statement would suffice.
ETA: Ok, I’m confused. What’s going on with the downvoting? I’m honestly not concerned at all about the karma, just mystified.
I downvoted because of the cynicism expressed in the idea that money can buy love. It read like a bitter complaint that girls (or guys) just want money.
Upvoted kodos and downvoted you because I don’t see that cynicism in the grandparent.
Downvoted you for downvoting me for explaining why I downvoted kodos.
ETA: The cynicism was in saying that money could replace love letters. Also, the original post was about quantum suicide and using it to find the most effective love letter, and the comment about money sort of missed the point, and read like a cheap shot against love.
Downvoted you for downvoting me for explaining why I downvoted you;> Are you saying that copypasted love letters is an adequate substitute for actual love? That sounds pretty cynical to me. But I still don’t see any inappropriate cynicism coming from kodos
Upvoted you for being meta.
No, it’s not that the letters are an actual substitute for love, it’s more the cynical attitude, “yeah, anyone will love you if you have enough money.”
Wow.… just.… wow
First of all… it was a joke
Second of all, I don’t see the idea of money being able to buy love as being any more or less cynical than randomly generated spam love letters being able to buy love...
Third of all… Blueberry, weren’t you one of the people on the wrong side of the PUA debate? And you don’t see any irony in now acting all holier than thou about cynical attitudes toward mating?
Fourth of all… it was a joke!!!! I mean, seriously people.
Regardless, upvoting both of you back up to 0, cause I don’t think people should be penalized for explaining their downvotes when asked to do so.
ETA: Wow, this is getting ridiculous. I think it’s now safe to say that Human Mating Habits Are The Mind Killer, even more so than politics.
ETA2: LOL@downvoting people in retaliation for explaining why they’re upvoting you ;)
I thought this whole thread was a joke! And I’m sorry for any offense I caused.
Just for clarification: I’m not sure what you mean about the “wrong side” of the debate, but I support PUA and see it as a positive and productive method for helping men and women develop social skills, understand each other, and have better relationships. I see PUA as the opposite of cynical.
More to the point, it’s not well substantiated that the individuals in question would be drawn to riches—there are many people who are, but not nearly 100% of the population. I met a woman who once had a member of The Eagles chatting her up and turned him down.