Bibi already has a war with Hamas and I don't see potentially sparking WWIII as something that he'd hope to get involved with, yet he must respond in some way. — BitconnectCarlos

He would be interested in it if his goal is to stay in power to avoid jail. However given the significance of starting a regional war that literally nobody wants it seems that may be a step too far even for him and that may explain why Israel hasn't responded yet.

Now Trump is literally saying "blame it on me" if no border bill passes. Though like I said before, the American people are probably not gonna blame him anyways and he knows it.

It's not 'ironic', it's a deliberate tactic. He's furious that if the bill goes any way to addressing the problem, then it will reflect positively on Joe Biden. He wants the problem to be as bad as possible, so he can use it against Biden and then take credit for solving it himself. — Wayfarer

Oh I understand very well his intentions. He's also on record saying he wants the economy to crash and the US to default on it's debt if it means he can score political points. The man doesn't care about anything apart from staying out of prison.

The Senate Republicans and the moderate Republicans in Congress are all furious about it. — Wayfarer

I'm talking about the average American voter.

Thank you, Mr Surge the Borders President. :roll: — jgill

Ironically, right now Trump seems to be holding up an immigration bill in the Senate that would help address the border that the GOP seems to approve of.

Then again I don't expect people to blame him. After all he got off scot free for the recent spike in oil prices despite pulling out of the Iran deal and cutting their supply off from the rest of the world.

The big question is how many American will just stay home. — ssu

So much as they do and hand Trump a second term it won't be like in 2016 where everyone was assured that Clinton would win. Not only are Democrats and anti-Trump independents (with the exception of Biden apparently) convinced that Trump could win, but they think he's likely to at this point in time. Maybe that will light something under them or maybe not, but it's certainly not an easy decision to make.

Well, a generic democrat would have done better against Trump than Hillary Clinton. But the democrats simply ignored how annoying and hated Hillary was among the Republicans. And how disliked the Clintons in general were. — ssu

Yeah that seems to be the problem with the Democrats which is that they seem to love to ignore their base of supporters. The GOP have the opposite problem which is that they let the MAGA supporters dictate everything. And that is why we have Trump v. Biden again.

You can say the same for the Republicans running Trump since as the polls suggest he's also massively unpopular as well compared to a generic Republican. Of course the GOP don't really have much of a choice since Trump's base is pretty much a cult and he's a narcissist, but I would've thought that Biden would be humble enough to step aside instead of risking it all for a chance at a second term. And I would've thought that Democratic leadership would be smart enough to pressure him to bow out, but then again this is the same party that would rather wheel in Feinstein to the Senate instead of getting her to resign a decade ago. And this is after letting RBG stay on the SCOTUS despite being in her 80s with multiple previous experiences with cancer...

The odd thing about this election is that if either side decided to just run a generic representative of their own party then they'd certainly win. Anyone else but Trump would certainly win against Biden and anyone but Biden would certainly win against Trump. But instead we're getting the rematch nobody wanted.

Latest polls on the general election:

Biden 44% Trump 43% (yougove, 10th Jan)
Biden 41% Trump 43% (morning consult, 14th Jan)
Biden 37% Trump 45% (The Atlanta Journal)

I think Biden was way ahead in the polls prior to the last elections, wasn't he? — ssu

He was, and the funny thing is that I think alot of the current polls show a generic democrat leading by the same amount that Biden did in 2020. It's not that Trump is particularly strong, it's just that the Democrats are insisting on running someone who's just as weak, which would be baffling in retrospect if they end up losing this year because the path to victory seems pretty clear at this point.

No one is getting out of bed to vote for Joe, not even Joe. — Hanover

To be fair I don't think anybody did that in 2020 either.

The good news is that I imagine most voters don't like Trump and believe he's a danger to democracy. The bad news is that I don't know how much that will drive them out to vote in November. The Democrats aren't really doing a great job of convincing them, particularly since they're running a candidate who's arguably as unpopular.

The impeachment inquiry into Biden has begun. — NOS4A2

In other news, the government is about to shutdown due to House Republican shenanigans.

We live in interesting times, for better or worse. — T Clark

Indeed, but I'm just trying to hold on to whatever bit of realism is left nowadays.

That seems like a pretty short-sighted view. I can't imagine there won't be significant advancements in the near future. AI as a real thing has only really been out in public for a year or so. — T Clark

It would be a short sighted view if I said it in early 2022 when alot of the immediate advancements were made in AI art on a monthly basis as people explored what technologies like DALLE-2 can do. The better part of a year has passed since then and it doesn't seem like the exponential growth of the past year has carried over which suggests that we've reached a limit to what current AI image generative technologies can do. Even if we can get Midjourney to produce proper hands more often, it's never truly "taught" how to depict them properly every time, and my suspicion is that the same is gonna be involved with text generation (as some of the ones I've tested out mess it up a good portion of the time).

Now of course I'm not saying that some significant advancement will certainly not come soon. We can never accurately predict technological progress and when it will come. However it seems like that would involve some sort of breakthrough in the technology itself, and isn't just a matter of feeding models more data like we've been doing. As for when that breakthrough will come it's not really clear but I don't expect it to come in the near term.

Fair enough, though I have to say that Russia owning most of the nuclear energy stores may not have been as much of an issue prior to the Ukraine war. Germany in particular was widely criticized by many of it's allies for ditching nuclear energy in favor of Russian oil, creating a dependency that bit them later on.

Countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia own a significant chunk of the oil and gas market, so why would Russia dominating the nuclear energy market be a deterrence? Unless I'm misunderstanding you here.

I would like to think you're right. — T Clark

Me too, though part of the reason for me saying that is that it doesn't really seem like AI art has advanced all that much since this year began compared to 2022 when DALLE-2 was introduced. Although generations have gotten more detailed and covered more subject matter as a result (I suspect) of models being fed more data, I don't really see much progress being made in addressing the obvious shortcomings that I've mentioned in my previous post, and it doesn't really feel like feeding it more will change that. My guess is that it's because it doesn't understand the world the same way we do, since (to my knowledge) the way it "learns" is largely a matter of statistics.

Now I could be wrong, and things could change rapidly in the next few months but the more time passes the more doubtful I become of that happening. At this point it just seems like society is settling into a harmonious coexistence between AI and human artists.

I can certainly see why it frightens graphic artists. I can see plenty of applications where it could replace human image-making e.g. book covers, posters, advertisements, book illustrations, comic books… — T Clark

To an extent yes. I can see it replacing low level artist jobs involving stock photography and simple generic book covers, but nothing on the level of full on comic books just yet. With regards to depicting complicated scenes, scenes with context, and subjects consistently, those are areas where the AI seems to struggle, and given how it's been advancing over these past 2 years I'm doubtful that those issues will be solved in the short to medium term, at least barring the possibility of a sudden technological breakthrough.

Would be great — jorndoe

Indeed it would be. Though I expect there to be militant lobbying efforts against fusion once it starts posing an immediate threat to oil and gas. Renewables and EVs weren't as demonized 10-20 years ago as they are today.

I see their new fossil fuel-approved slogan is “China and India need to reduce their emissions FIRST.” — Mikie

And I bet their other slogan is "We can't reduce our emissions because we'll be reliant on Chinese technology now that they somehow got a head start in the industry"...

...Or some other reason why we shouldn't do anything. I've sort of heard them all at this point.

Well a good chunk of Florida is gonna be underwater at this rate so there's that.

That being said, the fact that climate change is now a part of the culture war is even more depressing development than when it was just a political issue. You can't even make energy efficient appliances without being called "woke", which is a term which is increasingly becoming a synonym for "socialism" on the right.

Doesn't change the substance of this hypocrisy argument you want to make.

Do you mean the climate scientists who go on all expenses paid holidays each year (COP) to the worlds top tourist spots to discuss how everyone else should stop flying, etc. Of course the climate scientists fly to get to COP. — Agree to Disagree

Oh wow, now the scientists are the ones flying around in private jets. There are way, way, more people who are concerned about climate change and I assure you not all of them get to fly in private jets or are even saying we should all stop flying.

Then again, perhaps you're implying that anyone who's interested in stopping climate change should live a completely carbon free lifestyle in order to take their scientific concerns seriously. I've seen plenty of climate deniers saying that we can't just "eat bugs", "move to closet apartments", and "completely getting rid of our cars" as if they're not the only people who seem to bring up such silly solutions. Then they'll go on to criticize those same solutions while ignoring the common ones that are being thrown around, like adopting renewables to the power grid and EVs or making our economies less reliant on flying by building out alternative transit (instead of saying that "everyone else should stop flying"). You know, solutions that would do little to disrupt the individual's way of life and would probably upset no one (except the oil giants of course).

I don't think it's a paradox at all. It's only a paradox if one assumes the absolute Newtonian serial time must exist. It's consistent with local becoming. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In the case where people assume there is an absolute time or some absolute reference frame, then one doesn't really encounter a paradox either. One of the two observers or some other third party has it right while the others are just plain wrong.

The paradox seems to come about from accepting the relativity of simultaneity, and not taking it seriously enough. It assumes that we can simply stitch together different presents in order to get the conclusion that everything is present which is where this idea of the future being "fixed" comes from.

This accepts my premise, which is that we're on an inevitable collision course. — Hanover

I don't think anyone here is claiming otherwise. The damage has already been done and we're gonna feel some pain at the very least (though the degree of course is still dependent on present action).

So I take it you accept some action on addressing climate change even if you disagree with certain approaches like tariffs on polluting countries or regulations on fossil fuels? Sorry if I'm being annoying but I just want to get an idea of where you're coming from.

What's your take on approaches that are less regulatory but promote the research, development, and adoption of green technologies (like with the recently passed IRA in the US)?

Unfortunately, these legal struggles will make Trump even more popular with a large number of Americans. — jgill

More popular with his base, that's for sure. It's less certain when it comes to the rest of the country. I like to think they won't elect an imprisoned felon who will likely try to dismantle the justice system from within if he ever becomes president again, but who the hell knows.

WTF is wrong with the Dems? Biden is six years my junior and I can tell you someone that age should not be president. And then there is VP Harris. — jgill

It's a race to the bottom for both sides. Oddly enough I'd feel pretty good about a party's 2024 chances if they just nominated a generic Rep/Dem while the other side continues to do what they do, but it's looking to be Biden vs. Trump again.

Guess Elon is doing a great job taking care of the bot situation.

Gotta wonder how his whole "pander to the right to sell more Teslas to them" plan is working out. Personally I can tolerate the edgelord stuff if it means more EV adoption but personally I'd prefer it if Musk just focused on making cars and spaceships.

We seem to be suffering through a time when using insults is almost a knee jerk, default tactic. How casually you call another an idiot. please stop doing this. Grow up a bit. Use words that convey real concerns. Leave the food fights for the children. — Varnaj42

Given the amount of attention your posts have received and the number of substantive responses pointing out the errors in your arguments, I think people have been more than patient with you.

Also given that people have been debating this issue for decades with the science on manmade climate change only becoming more clear, the urgency to act only becoming more prominent due to the wasted time spent, and the constant moving of the goal posts by likely bad faith actors (like those paid by the fossil fuel lobby) in order to prevent such action I don't blame people for being a little frustrated either.

Yeah I'm well aware of the grandfather paradox and whatnot, but this thread is about physics and implied time travel.

Not sure if this experiment is old news, but has anyone explained it? — TiredThinker

It's been around for decades and as far as I can tell most physicists still don't believe in time travel. A quick google search and look at the Wiki page gave me that information so I'm not sure why this is being asked here.

Now we see your true colors. — Wayfarer

Alot of climate denialism often boils down to dumb politics. Oh, and rich oil lobbyists who profit off nothing being done (for very obvious reasons) who manage to dupe the former into fighting for their interests.

Sadly things being worse than expected is becoming an incresingly common phrase among alot of climate headlines today so I've learned to factor that into my predictions as well.

I can't think of anyone who thought that getting temperatures below 1.5 C would be achieved, given how sluggish progress has been. Sad but not surprising.

That's why I'm concerned about the infiltration of AI. Not that there won't be real art but that no one will care. Art may become (even more) socially devalued. — Baden

The opposite could also happen too. People have learned to appreciate handcrafted products in the wake of the industrial revolution and mass manufacturing and even now we see people starting to appreciate human made art more now that AI art exists. Of course it's hard to predict how people will react here, but that's just my hope.

Personally I'm more concerned about how corporations will treat the new technology. They may see the technology as being "good enough" and lay off their artists in order to cut costs. In the worst case scenario, we may be heading towards a situation where AI art is worse than human made art but "good enough" for companies to not care about replacing their workers, leading to a media landscape that's more soulless and derivative overall.

Race does not exist in any biological sense, though. So it’s a superstition. — NOS4A2

Either this is sophistry or your statement is completely wrong. If you're trying to make some other point then just make it.

The hyphen was to differentiate between the root word and the suffix in order to illustrate what I think is the definition. “Race” means the taxonomy of race. “-ism” means ideology or doctrine. So I intend race-ism to be racism. — NOS4A2

Doesn't really tell me what doctrine is being referred to here. If it simply means acknowledging the existence of different races then that's not what most people mean by "racism".

He mentioned moving to a neighborhood with mostly white people and how it's much better citing Don Lemon:

So that’s what I did, I went to a neighbourhood where, you know, they have a very low black population, because unfortunately, you know, there’s a high correlation between the density, and this is according to Don Lemon, by the way. So here, I’m just quoting Don Lemon when he notes that the, when he lived in a mostly black neighbourhood, there are a bunch of problems that he didn’t see in white neighbourhoods. So even Don Lemon sees a big difference in your own quality of living, based on where he lives and who is there.

That's the part I think is more damning.

Race-ism. The ideology of race. It is the fundamental idea motivating every racially discriminatory act. — NOS4A2

This doesn't tell me anything. What is this "ideology" or "idea" that you're talking about? I don't even know if you intend "race-ism" to be racism.

Have to define what "racism" means here. I usually understand it as the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. Obviously the Nazis were racist by that definition, and so is Adams based on his comments (and no I'm not trying to compare Hitler to the Dilbert guy in case you're wondering). Simply asking a question in a poll about race doesn't qualify as racist from my view.

If that black person also brags about moving to a non-white neighborhood, implying some link between race and societal problems then... well personally I don't believe in cancellation no matter what people say (though private businesses and individuals are free to associate or disassociate with whomever for whatever reason) but that sure is racist by any technical definition.

With how the youth vote turned out to overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats, I hope that this will cause the Republicans to reevaluate their stances on issues such as climate change so as to appeal to the increasing concerns of that demographic. I mean I don't think it will happen (they're already calling for raising the age limit for voting), but one can hope.