Have you read the sequences? My response depends on whether you have or haven’t.
frontier64
Karma: 513
Why are you asking this question in a rationality forum and using language that indicates your opinion is based on rationality when it’s clearly not and you admit as such?
but if I’m honest, my direct reason for not wanting to vote for him is a strong negative association I’ve built with him over the past 8 years. Now, why do I have that negative association? Well, hard to know 100%, but I suspect it’s his divisive rhetoric.
If you want some good rhetoric to show you why people vote Trump then go to a local Trump rally near you. You’ll see that the people in attendance are the nicest in America and you’ll have a fun time listening to an electrifying speaker. If you go to 1 or 2 rallies it’ll probably change your vibes and then you’ll understand.
My personal, rational reasons why I will be voting for Trump for the 3rd time are:
-
Trump is less likely to do pure evil stuff like this: https://x.com/cremieuxrecueil/status/1844856866192363630, https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1373236/dl
-
Trump talks about diplomacy with other nations in a way that makes sense. We protect american interests and if those interests align with other countries we work with them. If the interests don’t align then we work whatever we can out through trade. I don’t want to hear about how my country “stands by” other countries. I want to know that the person in the white house is at least trying to support American interests.
-
Trump will be better for lowering taxes. Taxes are evil and destroying all progress. The government has gotten to the point where it’s taking virtually all non-necessary, and now even necessary, profits to support its bloated corpose. More than half the people in America are reliant on stealing large portions of the income from the top 5% of the tax bracket. This is not how a real civilization should operate.
Edit: and I’m open to whatever response.
-
My whole family takes a round of ivermectin every year or so for the same reason. Anti parasitics don’t really have bad side effects (often have good side effects such as -inflammation) so it’s just positives all around.
Thank you for the post, I’ll be watching the video later. The first thought that comes to my mind is why wasn’t there a helicopter search in the area? The paucity of trees on the terrain seems to be perfect for helicopter reconnaissance but I see no mention of that in this post.
Real money prediction markets are biased towards outcomes that increase utility of the bettors.
For an example: there is a prediction market on who will win the presidential race, Alice or Bob. Currently the market sits at 50-50 and the payout for $1 on Alice is $2 and the same for Bob. Our bettor, Charlie, has internal odds that are the same as the market, however he also believes with an incredibly high certainty that if Bob wins the race then the buying power of a dollar will double. Therefore $1 on Bob is worth $4 if Bob wins, but the same $1 on Alice will only be worth $2. Because of this Charlie will bet the market all the way to 66-33 favoring Bob. This is despite the fact that his internal probability that Bob wins is only 50-50.
I’m surprised that anyone here cares about environmentalism. Aren’t any of the far reaching effects of what we do today with the environment insignificant compared to the development of ai? Friendly ai will be able to solve any of the pollution issues we’re creating today. Unless you think we’re going to successfully pause ai for hundreds of years then I just don’t see the point in making life worse for present humans for some speculative benefit to the future population.
Yeah openly admitting that I have a strong case is good for credibility building. One of the most annoying things is when defense attorneys ask,
“Why is Alice is getting a sweetheart plea deal and Bob is getting jail time when they both committed the same crime and both have minimal criminal history???”
“Uh, Alice’s case is almost purely circumstantial while Bob is caught on camera, that’s the difference.”
“But they both did the same bad thing!”
“Do you understand how plea deals work?”
“[Some nonsense showing that the defense attorney indeed doesn’t know how plea deals work]”
I thought the first quote was tongue in cheek and implied that teachers want stupid pupils.
I’m the first one
Yeah I stupidly left out the key point of my comment. Added it in edit.
I think you’re understating how helpful it can be for a client if their pd strongly advocates for them. When a pd is telling me about all these mitigating circumstances and asking me to drop the jail because the perp has kids and the kids are here in court and he’s the sole bread winner and please just walk back for a second and speak to them and look one of your witnesses has two armed robbery felonies so I might actually win this case; that affects me. I like to pretend that it doesn’t but I’ve come down on offers many times after the pd goes to bat for their client. But that’s only because they don’t go to bat for every single client. Sure they ask on most every client for a lower offer but 90% of the time it’s just an ask without much substance. When they’re going to bat for the guy it makes me think that hey maybe the perp isn’t really that terrible and if I can stop from getting bothered then just drop a year of jail.
Edit: forgot to mention that the perp should lie to his pd because on the off chance the pd believes it then the pd might go to bat for him more because he’s actually innocent (rare). Because the pd’s that go to bat the same amount for every client, I don’t care about what they say at all unless it’s a true evidentiary issue.
You can probably walk into a random law office and ask the attorney to tell you war stories. There’s a lot of supply for that and very little demand.
It’s fairly rare for a patent to be granted and only have a few years left, and if it does that’s typically because of patent owner delays rather than uspto delays. The US law specifically gives you extra time post grant based on uspto delays. Also US patent holders have access to pre-issue, post-publication damages for cases where infringers had actual notice of the published patent application.
But even given that, I am 100% in agreement that patent terms should be extended.
I don’t think that solution accomplishes anything because the trans goal is to pretend to be women and the anti trans goal is to not allow trans women to be called women. The proposed solution doesn’t get anybody closer to their goals.
I think the skill expressed by the bards isn’t memorization, rather its on the fly composition based on those key insights they’ve remembered. How else could Međedović hear a 2,300 line song and repeat the same story over 6,300 lines?
So if you gained the skill of the great bards you would be able to read the Odyssey and then retell the story in your own engaging way to another group of people while keeping them enraptured.
it is not in a website interest to annoy its users
It is if the user feels that annoyance towards the regulator instead of the website developer
Is there a reason for that? Is it out of control overconservative legal worry?
Raging against the tyrannical bureaucrats telling them what they can and can’t include on their own website by including the banner in the most annoying way possible? Kinda like the ¢10 plastic bag tax at grocery checkouts that tells the customer exactly why they have to pay the tax and makes them count out how many bags they’ve used.
I doubt that speed limits are helpful at all. The sections of the German Autobahn with no speed limit (roughly 70%) have half the mortality rate per distance traveled of American highways[1]. Granted, the average American driver is probably worse than the average German Autobahn driver but hey.
How about instead of doing some random proposed change with speed limit maximums and what not we do some AB testing and figure out what’s safer?
Of course safety concerns don’t exist in a vacuum. Every second we save on the highway by going fast is another second of life we get to spend doing something actually enjoyable.
Far future people will likely be able to and want to create simulated realities
What about people from universes that are wildly different to our own? I don’t think the simulation hypothesis is restricted to far-future simulators. An entity with the power to simulate our reality with the level of fidelity I perceive is so wildly powerful that I would be surprised if I could comprehend it and its motivations. I always picture the simulating entity as just a stand-in for God. It sits in its heaven, a level of reality above our own, and no matter what we do we can’t understand God’s motivations or perceive his reality. The simulation hypothesis is just intelligent design the same as biblical creationism.
We have very little evidence as to what the reality of the entity simulating us looks like. The concept of dimensions themselves could be foreign to the entity. As an analogy, a self-reflective Sim thinking about the reality that creates and runs him might automatically assume the presence of some tile grid when of course there’s no such concept in our world.
Ok, then my answer is read the sequences.