Still would be very valuable to be able to read works that shaped western civilization in their original language, since a lot of nuance is lost translating to English. Just see how many crazy readings of the Bible people have (american evangelicals particularly ) because English can’t express the original idea in Greek well enough.

My kids at least are all learning Latin, and later, Greek.

I have a large family, so we buy almost everything at Costco.

When I was kid I was so mortified when my parents suggested to buy clothes at Costco.

Now I think half my clothes come from Costco.

Watch now it’s gonna be like weirdly not including them.

Gonna go and try to have it make me a story about a goblin and a pigeon and a raccoon and see what it does.

It is meant to point out how many people say they would be willing to sacrifice even their very lives for a stranger, but in reality they only sacrifice if they already know others had to sacrifice and now they're forced to.

Like if you took the combined wealth of every person who thinks we should tax people more to help the less fortunate - do they give anything freely? They want others to sacrifice first. I'll believe people would actually press blue in a majority, when I see people who claim we should pay more taxes, voluntarily paying more themselves.

I'd love to live in a world where I was confident a vast majority of people would press blue. But I've literally seen people say they would press blue - then go on to say that in a communist revolution certainly we will have to end the lives of all the bourgeois.

I would most definitely press red, because I don't believe anywhere near half the population are actually that good, and don't think I'm a good enough person to actually think I'd risk pressing blue. (Trump won the popular vote in America, and so based on the rhetoric I hear from my left leaning acquaintances, neither would they)

Sad world really. Also why this question is so good.

All the different ways to frame it and think about it, and the balance between them all.

Saying "I would press blue" is different than actually pressing blue. Many people have insisted if I strike it rich, I'm going to give all my money away, and then... they don't.

Oh and the amount of ways you can ask it differently "If more than 50% vote for Trump/Kamala everyone lives, but if less than 50% all Trump/Kamala voters die" - and then seeing how the responses change. And the way the whole calculus changes depending on what other parameters could be added/presumed.

Once again just such a good rage-bait question.

Though I can't for the life of me figure out why people get so mad at people's answers, unless it's like in secret hitler where someone accuses of me being a fascist, and we get all mad, but we all laugh at the end because it's just a silly game, like this silly but fun question.

I probably just overreact and judge too quickly certain statements from my experiences of people who act like I’m destroying the earth because I have more than 3 kids.

I appreciate reasonable people though, and I should not assume, everyone is a crazy alarmist because they have any concern, so I apologize.

My first thought from that heading was “my company will know where I am at all times”. Though that was not the point thankfully.

The value of plowing ahead and using more energy is worth far more than making sure Florida doesn’t lose some coastline.

The presumptions I see that annoy me with the alarmists, is that they completely negate human agency and ingenuity, and they ignore the economic cost of many of the proposed plans.

Natural gas is far better than coal and should be encouraged rather than condemned. Nuclear power is best of all, is the cleanest and safest energy, and yet is hardly ever the first choice of the alarmists.

I’d rather spend double the energy unlocking breakthroughs in science with the help of AI, and address the problems when they come. I don’t go out of my way to lower my “carbon footprint”, but I also don’t just do things that are wasteful and deliberately harmful to the environment.

AI making us forget how to think for ourselves is a far bigger risk to mankind than climate change. Thanks.

So this is not a good reason to oppose AI. Now the sheer energy it requires does mean we might want to go nuclear though.

Natural gas is nice though because it does pollute the air far less than coal.

You might argue the EPA only repealed that because of political agendas, but the same argument could be made for why it was passed.

A lot of people got very rich off the fear mongering from climate alarmists.

Competition is for losers, is a way to say to go and compete in a super crowded market where it is impossible to differentiate yourself is not going to make you a winner.

But usually people are called idiots because they don’t swallow the progressive propaganda wholesale.

I’m doubtful of some of the article’s claims, that seem to project our modern ideas onto the ancient world.

But I think ancient israel saw there were many “gods”, but they viewed Yahweh as “God most high” or even “creator God”.

It’s like saying “Hinduism” is this singular religion, that is actually full of different gods and different practices, but we just lump it all together as one thing.

We just really like taxonomies.

As a citizen, who doesn’t trust the government, or the media, or giant corporations, I’m also an 8/10 concerned.

That means I’m equally concerned about AI as I am excited, I might be more concerned than someone who isn’t excited at all about AI 1/10, but who is mildly concerned with a 5/10.

For some reason people think having an education is only valuable if it is traded for money. For example I think an educated wife and a mom who never earns a single dollar from an employer is incredibly value to her family.

I hope my daughters get a robust liberal arts education and then just get married young and have kids and be homemakers.