I think the tiny size of a nuclear weapon and very short interval of nuclear reaction before "disassembly" mean that even though the energy release is small compared to an asteroid impact the temperatures are probably much higher.
Democracy is also doomed by sufficiently capable AI. When the "meta" military unit was a knight in shining armor, most societies were under feudalism, ie rule by knights. When guns became cheap enough that whoever had the most guys would win a civil war, we got democracy: rule by whoever has the most guys. When whoever has the most robots will win a civil war, what kind of government do you expect?
Follow this reasoning to its conclusion: once humans are no longer part of the most efficient military-industrial "meta build", states that keep them alive will be outcompeted and eventually destroyed by those that do not.
But you sacrificed some of your 33 bits of anonymity to have this setting work as intended. And that isn't strictly necessary: the web could have been engineered so that the selection of light or dark styles takes effect in a way undetectable to a web site.
Making me talk to a fucking robot leaves me with a deep and abiding hatred for your company. I will prefer almost any alternative to doing business with you and hope fervently to read about your bankruptcy.
What percentage of interactions having this result will cancel out your cost savings?
FoundationDB used this (detection of read-write conflicts in optimistic transactions) as its default isolation level since we started building it around 2009. Doing it at the kv store level has the advantage of providing serializability even for predicate and range reads (sometimes at the cost of unnecessary conflicts, so it offers granular control of read conflict ranges also).
a good job is one that brings you joy and improves your creativitiy, they by definition can't be in hell. if you mean well paying, that's a different thing entirely, ditch the fancy car and adjust your lifestyle
I have a fancy car? News to me. I'm just trying to pay my bills and live a sensible and reasonably comfortable life. These days that requires a lot of money.
mind you given the topic of the article I took the jobs in question to mean largely in the software industry, not talking about minimum wage workers here.
But as a programmer I am quite baffled when peers my age, often without kids struggle in this kind of way. My essentials are rent, food, metro card, library card. When I hear people who make what I make say that living requires a lot of money that usually includes two dozen subscriptions, a few grand in useless electronics per year and ordering food most of the week.
So, are you suggesting that an acceptable lifestyle would be an empty studio apartment with nothing inside of it, no pets, no partner, no meaningful possessions?
Personally, I have pets, a partner, and thoughtfully selected and meaningful possessions. I don't collect crap, and nothing I own or do is particularly extravagant. But I'm not exactly living an ascetic life either. A pretty typical lifestyle, I'd say. And I don't consider any of this a moral failure, if that's what you're getting at. Though admittedly it's not as affordable as living like a monk.
I don't advocate living like a monk. I play in a band and play football every weekend, play chess, you can go to church, most of that is practically free.
I'm very much in favour of participating in culture, real culture though. You can ditch the 1k Taylor Swift tickets, Disneyland visits, and high end gym for the 20 bucks local jazz festival.
I think the people who live socially like ascetic monks are ironically the people who build themselves a home gym for 10k and then complain about not having any time for friends because everything is too expensive
I'll be in my home for longer than the recession lasts. Seems a little silly to sell it and walk away from my hard-earned lifestyle (which I quite enjoy) to save some money for just a few years.
“Wilt thou call again thy peoples, wilt thou craze anew thy Kings?
“Lo! my lightnings pass before thee, and their whistling servant brings,
“Ere the drowsy street hath stirred—
“Every masked and midnight word,
“And the nations break their fast upon these things.
“So I make a jest of Wonder, and a mock of Time and Space.
“The roofless Seas an hostel, and the Earth a market-place,
“Where the anxious traders know
“Each is surety for his foe,
“And none may thrive without his fellows’ grace.
“Now this is all my subtlety and this is all my wit,
“God give thee good enlightenment, My Master in the Pit.
“But behold all Earth is laid
“In the Peace which I have made,
“And behold I wait on thee to trouble it!”
I too fear what governments will actually do in this area. But I think you may be underestimating the threat to personal agency.
Imagine you are trapped in a groundhog day like time loop - but you are not the person who remembers previous loops. "Z" is. He tries to convince you to do something, over and over and over, thousands or millions of times, refining his approach based on your reactions while you remember nothing. Are you really confident that your free will protects you from being taken advantage of in this situation?
Now imagine that instead of a time loop, Z has a million clones of you. He tries his persuasion on one of them at a time, refining it until it works reliably before using it on you. You are just as vulnerable.
Now suppose he has a billion people, not identical to you but drawn from the same distribution. He has a harder computational problem, mapping the high dimensional manifold of their responses to create a model of you sufficiently accurate to manipulate you. But with enough data he can approximate the results of the previous case without more than a tiny fraction of his experimentation being visible to you.
Any relationship where one party gets to surveil and monitor not only the other party, but millions or billions of like parties, has the potential to be a deeply abusive one. We should not tolerate such situations whether the surveilling party is a government or not.
It depends on whether people wake up to the threat before or after there is a robot army that can crush them, doesn't it? If humans are economically and militarily useless, it won't matter what they choose.
(I'm not an expert, though, this is a guess)