This kind of thing is found in more than just teenagers

You can’t technically truly prove any of these not to be true, but given that if you reject all the evidence available to you for what the world is with the notion that it could be fake, you end up with nothing left to make decisions with, you might as well just take the world at face value until things are proven otherwise.

Was it even the rights, in a legal sense? I thought it was just a digital receipt of sorts that just links to the jpeg, which isn’t necessary the same thing as including control of the IP?

as to them always having existed, we have old skeletons with stuff like this done to them, Im not sure some implants found with a body would be much stranger.

It’s a valid concern, but considering that quite a few rockets, to include some currently in use, can contain quite large amounts of some truly nasty chemicals already, and apparently can be made acceptably safe despite this, I’d bet that it’s probably possible to manage that risk or find flight paths that minimize exposure in the case of an accident. For that matter, we’ve launched radioactive materials into space before, some space probes use decay heat for a power source.

Nuclear rocket engines. A bit less ambitious than most of the responses, but most things here seem to either refer to technologies we don’t have yet but seem within a century or so of developing, which doesn’t fit the question, or vague consequences that one wants that tech to have without it being clear how our current technology gets there. But nuclear rockets definitely fit the question, because we have built and ground tested them before, decades ago even, we just haven’t bothered to actually use the things. And they should theoretically make developing things like space industry or manned space exploration beyond the moon more viable, by being more efficient than chemical rockets while giving better thrust than ion engines do. They don’t work well for launching from the ground, but since our launch abilities have increased a fair bit in the past decade or so, actually getting the things to space in order to use them should be easier than ever.

That’s called geoengineering generally

Here’s a wiki article about the topic, because it would be a bit much to list it all out in a lemmy comment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism_in_United_States_politics#History

The TLDR is though that its existed since before the country even became independent.

Well no, but I was more referring to the general statement than the notion that it applies to musk. Having the self awareness to see the harm in what he’s done and those he’s supported doesn’t seem particularly in character for him in any event.

I mean, if someone was to argue about that topic they could probably examine like, Oskar Schindler or John Rabe or such, but that’s besides the point I suppose.

I tend towards a variation on utilitarianism, from that point of view energy in a finite universe that could be used to support intelligent life in some way, but isnt, is unethical, and while that might not really demand much action from us right now given that space development is a very, very long term project by nature and we’re already working on developing the most basic forms of the requisite technology, it still seems a bit frustrating to lose that which we cannot reach. Its not just us either, statistically speaking it should be extremely unlikely for life and advanced intelligence to occur once, but only once, so I take it as a given that theres more out there somewhere, but evidently it cant be that common or else hasnt gotten much further than us, given all the stars we can see out there.

I dont really think everything we touch turns to shit, I just think we judge ourselves much more harshly than we judge “natural” things. I dont really care that much if the people that go off to the stars do so because of some desire to harvest them for some kind of profit or put up a space-mcdonalds at alpha centauri or whatever, as long as someone goes. Obviously I would prefer they build a nicer society there than just a rehash of what we have here right now, but in my view even the crappiest society is preferable to a dead rock or inanimate clump of gas, even if it is an aesthetically pleasing rock. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say, and I think we can make beautiful things, or failing that, and least find the beauty in what we do make, if we try.

I get a bit frustrated sometimes to see stars and think of the universe burning away it’s entropy without anyone putting it to useful ends, like most of the universe going to waste before anyone can even reach it.

Im not sure that financial literacy can really be called fighting the power structure tbh. Like, sure, certain companies that make money off debt might make less off you, but for a person that isnt rich, the money saved is gonna end up spent on something else at some point, so every other company except the ones selling debt benefit from you not being in it. If anything, citizenry that are so broke that they cant buy things and struggle to survive are less able to contribute to a consumer economy and might require the government either spend more money on social services so that they can keep stable enough to work, or spend more money on policing to deal with the increase in crime that comes with desperation.

Mercenary/ “private military contractor”, ICE agent, prison gaurd

While I don’t think this scenario likely, something that I can’t help but thinking when this sort of statement comes up is, well, how do we know what it’s doing isn’t thinking? Like, I get that it’s ultimately just using a bunch of statistics to predict the next word or token or whatever, but my understanding was that we have fairly limited knowledge of how our own consciousness and thinking works, and so I keep getting the nagging feeling of “what if what our brains are doing is similar somehow, using a physical system with statistical effects to predict stuff about the world, and that’s what thinking ultimately is?”

While I expect that it probably isn’t and that creating proper agi will require something fundamentally more complicated than what we’ve been doing with these language models and such, the fact that I can’t prove that to my own satisfaction makes me very uneasy about them, considering what the ethical ramifications of being wrong about it might be.

Is this particular image recent? I feel like I remember something like this around covid lockdown, as a “park the wifi bus in a lower income area so that students without home internet can connect to online classes” thing.

I suspect you might get examples of things that sort of resemble a later discovery that someone believing the religion in question might interpret as divine revelation of that thing. Some of the christians in my family like to take the “let there be light” thing and claim that it’s talking about the big bang, anecdotally.

I think I remember some religion out there having a concept that resembles microorganisms, before such organisms were discovered, I think Jainism but I’m not confident about that.

well Ive been wrong, Ive been under the impression for awhile that it was a room for doing art in, for when relatively rich people that can afford rooms for random things happen to also be artists.

Romance. Like I get on an intellectual level why people couple up and all, evolution and all that, and that people strongly desire it, but Ive never been able to imagine exactly what it feels like to want that close of a relationship with someone, let alone a formalized and exclusive one.

I’ve recently come to the position that really, there isn’t truly such a thing as incorrect grammar. There’s grammar that doesn’t fit the norm for the people one is speaking to, and if it’s different enough to impair the ability for the intended audience to understand what you’re communicating it can be impractical or inadvisable, but since grammar isn’t an intrinsic part of the universe outside of human creation, and since the way it’s used changes whenever people “break it’s rules” in numbers over time, it can’t actually be wrong. After all, someone could view something written in a very closely related foreign dialect as another similar language written correctly, or one’s own language written incorrectly, and there isn’t really a non-arbitrary way to decide which is the case.