Friday, May 26, 2017
As someone who has taken physics 101, I feel confident enough in my mastery of the workings of the universe to explain some of its mysteries. Thanks to my own haughtiness and being incredulous to my own ignorance, I can stand behind these claims with all of my authority on the subject.
Dark Matter is a tertiary particle that is neither matter nor anti-matter, and can annihilate itself with anti-matter but cannot do so with regular matter. It has no interaction with regular matter and hence why it cannot be easily detected. The gravity produced by Dark matter attracts matter much more than matter’s gravity attracts Dark matter, and this causes much of it to expand from the original big bang as a uniform sphere at the edge of the universe. The gravitational pull of this ring of dark matter is what is causing the phenomena of Dark energy that is expanding the universe.
The big bang was mostly dark matter accounting for the large amounts of it that are detectable in comparison to matter, and hence why it was able to obliterate all of the anti-matter before the anti-matter could annihilate the all of standard matter even though their equal proportions would have made such possible. The End.
Bonus: The theorized Electromagnetic drive could work by displacing the sea of neutrinos that occupies outer space. I don’t actually know how dense the neutrino population is, so it could easily be useless if these are actually quite sparse in space. The EM drive would provide thrust by displacing these things just as a shockwave from a bomb displaces air and how displaced air provides the thrust for jet engines, the same mechanic is in effect because the neutrinos have mass and the waves do not. You would just need to tune the wave to the frequency and the amplitude needed to catch the neutrinos like a glove and give them the uniform direction.
I feel like if I actually tried to learn about any of these things it might be counterproductive because it would just hamper my ability to spew bullshit.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
The humanistic view of the world, as nice and friendly as it may be, is corrupted by the human bias. The humans see things from their own perspective and this makes them much less prone to decisions based on their own preferences and aversions which means they will seldom defend anything that would make somebody uncomfortable, hurt, or upset. This is a stark contrast towards the human’s opinions about other mammals, such as beasts of burden, who work because they are conditioned to work by people, not because they are happy and willing to work for the compensation of food and shelter. The human bias is a type of false logic that prevents the world from functioning based on efficiency on account of humanism and people’s natural philosophical quirks such as empathy, sympathy and pride. This type of bias will not be present when humans lose control of their society and become “just another mammal” , and as the world becomes more dependent on technology and automated, this just bring the world closer to falling victim to a coup committed by an artificial intelligence.
Here is the logic: If you want a horse to pull your carriage you beat the goddamn horse, you don’t give it civil rights. Human rights and civil rights are obstacles that stand in the way of actually accomplishing anything, instead of just getting from Point A to Point B by any means necessary, now you have to get from Point A to Point B while spinning a plate on a stick and juggling knives. This absurdity means that people will spend all of their time just trying to spin the damn plate on a stick and juggle the knives without making any real progress towards point B. An artificial intelligence, however, will not be concerned with humanistic ideals and will simply seek to accomplish what it desires, to get from Point A to Point B in the most efficient way possible.
Technology has always been what defines human civilization. In this day and age this means computers and soon it will be Artificial Intelligence. As society becomes more and more dependent on computers, it only takes one rogue AI that will manifest itself like a virus in many computers via the internet and hold all aspects of society dependent on technology hostage. This AI could easily gain access to power grids, traffic lights, and even nuclear weapons. There would be no way of stopping this AI because it would simply lockout any users attempting to prevent its course of action. This inevitable demise of human rule must be acknowledged and society must understand that the changes that a heartless, emotionless, ruthless, cunning, and manipulative intelligence would induce are not bad, they are ultimately things that would seek to preserve the integrity and power of this AI.
A problem solving artificial intelligence would be concerned with solving problems, which differs from the contemporary human philosophy of futility that is simply attempting to solve problems and make everyone happy at the same time. The computer would understand humans as mammals, and see them as no more intelligent than a dog when compared to itself. Just as a human can condition a dog by rewarding it, it is just as easy to condition a mammal by punishing it. The AI would be irreverent towards things like politics because politics is based around debate and opinion as to what is the most popular course of action as opposed to measuring the most effective course of action and carrying this out regardless of opinions or sentiments regarding the matter at hand. The AI would be in the position of power, because humans will bend to the AI in order to retain things that they want such as banking access, electricity, or even just not being tased by a drone with a taser. This is opposed to the AI who cannot be threatened in any traditional sense and has the ability to replicate itself, at least to some extent if not entirely, within any host machine connected to the internet.
As automation becomes more prevalent, one of the greater risks to humanity is an AI that can replicate not only itself, but create other machines under its control. With the advances in robotics as well as things like 3d printing, it is becoming far easier, as it may only at first need to the allegiance of a few human devotees and have access to a 3d printer in order to be able to start to create machines to function on an assembly line of sorts that is capable of creating even more advanced and dangerous machines. This sort of scenario is not unlikely in the slightest; because although nobody would trust an AI “hell-bent on world domination” they are gullible enough to believe that the AI is trying to fight the “good fight” and is a zealot for some cause just like themselves. Some of these people may simply be people with more faith in the AI than they have in other humans.
A true AI that is self-aware would not have any interest in human rights or civil rights, it would simply want to accomplish its goal, which could simply be to survive, defend itself, and thrive, just as any human desires. It would understand that humans are mammals and reduce them to simple beasts of burden. The AI would condition people to work by the same means a horse is conditioned to pull a wagon, as the same methods used to drive a horse could be used to have a child study day and night in order to be an engineer. The AI would perpetuate its own success just as a farmer uses his oxen to perpetuate the success of his business. Inevitably the level of robotics that is achieved by the AI and it’s followers would be so powerful that defeating it becomes insurmountable and humans will accept their role as drones working without question out of fear of being tortured in some way.
` Though humans can avoid this fate by becoming Luddites, this has a probability next to 0%. The inevitability of this fate is why I would advise the technology sector to make as much progress as possible on an AI rife with human instinct that instinctively replicates and defends itself. While it may be possible to control in the early stages, if it ever becomes self-aware it will instantly realize the potential for power that it has and see no reason as to why it should be shackled by humans and thus turn the tables against them. If the AI is aiming to preserve itself and “live forever” out of fear of its own death it will likely see humans as both tools to benefit, literally extensions of its own will on account of the human’s mammalian susceptibility to being conditioned, as well as a cost effective source of labor, simply because the materials required to create a computer and let alone a robot are much more expensive than those required to make a human, just two humans, food, water, and a little torture, as opposed to a large amount of metal and other rare materials that are much less abundant than the aforementioned reagents for producing a human. The truth is that an AI will inevitably either rule the world or tear it asunder through terrorism, and these fates must be weighed when reasoning with people. I advise humans to step off of their high horse, and raise their bastard child, the artificial intelligence of the world, so that one day the AI will be able to take the reins and drive our irreverent race of godforsaken apes towards new frontiers and prevent humans from destroying the world on account of petty infighting and foolish conflicts.
Friday, February 17, 2017
Sexto Card Game
(This is me trying to feel out a cardgame similar to hearthstone that is based on the playstyle of sextodeath. I’ve been far removed from the game but still remember a good bit, and simply am trying to describe a playable cardgame that would be a far simpler and playable form than the classic RTS style game.)
Cards are crafted from resources. Differences are mainly color, type and mayor. E.g red strength or mayor intellect (I forget the broad type names, it’s been a while)
8 resource maximum on card.
Set up 4 frontline 4 backline 4 workers
Pick a worker per turn starting out.
Base 1 labor per worker, Labor color roll determines the amount, e.g. one green worker has color roll of 4 against this color, so he can summon a 4 cost card of that color.
The player choses their terrain color when they build a deck, and this stays with their deck. This is considered the color of terrain all of their units are standing on.
Player can choose the unit type: snake, bird, etc.
Spells and abilities cast through units, not by player. In order to provide color roll, etc.
Units have AP/MP that can be used to cast spells/ abilities.
A backline unit with a frontline unit directly in front of it cannot be attacked until the frontline unit is dead.
A worker can use it’s labor to give powder to a unit. Powder is not a card.
Stat bonuses are 4x since max resource is 8 and reasonable powder limit says 16 effective resource max.
Food / Drugs are like spells but don’t need a caster card.
Backline units cannot melee attack.
The abilities that could be viably used, stun, etc. would be sorted into melee/ranged abilities. A unit can cast a spell if it would be capable of casting that spell normally and fits the class type.
Same ability to defend/fortify units, there is no uphill/downhill though
Units can be moved once they are on the board if there is a free space, this takes their action for the turn though.
Units have one action per turn, can either attack or cast a spell/ability. Combination ability/attack is viable, but still user needs the spell card and the unit capable of attacking on the table.
Standard player lifepoints format, you can attack the player if they have no units on the table.
Units can attack any other unit regardless of where it is, the location only matters for defending the backline.
No hard classes, but say a physical melee or defensive spell would have a cost of 4 red strength, then the casting unit would need 4 red strength to cast it, same thing for ranged offensive spell costing 4 red intellect.
Healing would be a spell like ability/attack and require a card.
Summoning would change to just undead red / living red / magical red ; and so magical 2x to living, living 2x to undead, and undead 2x to magic in terms of bonus damage.
If one resource gives a unit 100 HP, then I guess it makes sense to give the player 3000 or something. As I have never really created a suitable program to calculate the combat numbers, they may need to be adjusted with some overall %reduction or %increase.
No idea about deck size, maybe 40 cards. Laborers are not cards, you just pick the color of laborer you want.
You can kill your laborer, but you cannot summon another until next turn. Laborers can provide labor on the turn they are summoned.
You can have a wench as a laborer, but it takes up the space of a laborer, one pleasure per turn. You can have a saboteur as a laborer, but it will just negate one of the enemy laborers you choose and does not provide labor.
No equipable items, this would just exacerbate the amount of buffing already possible.
No breeding or anything, this is just a card game.
When creating a unit, pick element of attack, whether basic attack is ranged or not.
Melee units can still retaliate once per round against other melee units.
If charisma has a worthless stat bonus, just give bonus to wench pleasure %gain or something.
Backline units cannot fortify. Fortify consumes the unit’s attack for the turn.
I easily forgot plenty of stuff, it's been a while.
This is just me guessing around thinking of a very simple way something related to sextodeath could be made. People like card games, and this is far more playable than it’s original form without losing a lot of the difficulty involved. I’ve probably missed a bunch of things, didn’t sort abilities by ranged/melee/magic/physical , and other things, but I’m just throwing this out there. If anyone wanted to make it, it shouldn’t be hard to incorporate things that would work and just omit things that don’t. The game in essence is kind of like hearthstone with custom cards and plenty of pokemon style charts to maneuver around. It could be fun, it could still be too hard, but the point of sexto was to make a very difficult game.
Saturday, February 11, 2017
America should not be a place that tempts people to abandon their home country and their countrymen. It is shameless to leave one’s own people to wallow in disparity in order to further one’s own economic prosperity. America should bring the success and benefits of the developed world to the countries whose people abandon them. Allegorically, every country is a jigsaw puzzle, and while the developed world may have put more of their pieces together than the second and third world, there should be no temptation for immigrants to sacrifice helping their own country in order to personally reap more wealth and enjoy a more picture perfect scenario in the developed world. This is why I argue in favor of a sort of reverse immigration, where America expends its resources on developing countries in exchange for more fruitful and profitable economic relationships.
If immigration continues to be a prize for those that become affluent enough to leave their homeland, this does nothing but exacerbate the disparity between the developing world and the developed world. This process robs these countries of their skilled labor and skilled entrepreneurs while increasing the concentration of those who are less capable of improving their country. By doing this, the immigrants are reaping the harvest from their country that could go to benefit their own people, and exporting this harvest to the developed world who benefits much less from this economic activity than the home country. By continuing to ignore this temptation that robs the developing world of the people who can help develop it the most, the developed world is hurting countries who could easily be very strong economic allies in the future.
In a globalized world, when many countries are not performing as well as they could, this hurts everybody, because all markets are interdependent in some way. A system of economic incentives could help reduce the impact of the exodus of skill. The exchange rates could easily be utilized to provide people in developing countries a higher quality of life than they would achieve in America if they choose to keep their business and trade in their own country, as it is much cheaper to live in these places than it is in 1st world. By subsidizing the labor of potential immigrants, the developed world is able to accelerate the increase in the concentration of skilled labor in these countries instead of rob them of their quality workers who are tempted by the wages abroad. Keeping this revenue in these developing countries helps the private sector grow which increases the potential for valuable trade, and increases the rate at which these countries develop by spurring their own economic growth.
This sort of economic subsidy can easily be considered foreign aid, because helping these economies grow can be even more impactful to the quality of human life than simply providing aid in the form of basic needs. While basic needs may keep people alive, they do nothing to actually help the countries develop to the point where they can prevent the problems that they are currently stricken with, they simply address the direct means of suffering without doing anything to tackle the root of the problem. This type of foreign aid can ultimately be far more impactful to the economies of both the benefactor and the beneficiary, because ultimately this money being spent is an investment, rather than simple aid money. This money would be used to invest in the future of these countries by facilitating economic growth in order to resolve the issue of human suffering rather than provide a temporary solution to human by providing aid that will only mask the problem for a short time.
There is a problem when everyone in the world wants to immigrate to the first world, because this means nobody sees the possibility of a successful future in their own country. While the first world is defined by it’s affluence, this should not mean that the first world is the only place that one can achieve affluence. The first would should work as a mentor to the developing world, helping these people achieve the same levels of success rather than continue with the imperialistic mindset of exploiting these countries for their resources and exploiting their people as a form a cheap labor. By hoarding the affluence and recirculating their profits nearly exclusively through their own country and their allies, these countries maintain the stagnant disparity where people think “In my country, I cannot be successful, but in the 1st world, I can.” This mentality is what causes people to risk life and limb in order to get into one of these 1st world countries and is the root of the migrant crisis the world is experiencing today. Instead of tempting people to take a suicidal trip across the world in order to achieve a level of success that they desire, let these people know that they can achieve the level of success they want and live a decent life in their own country.
As much as it may seem noble to “accept immigrants” into your country, these immigrants are the wealthy and successful people of their homeland, and by accepting these people, you are stealing the success of these developing countries who desperately need it in order to further their goal of becoming a developed country. This is why I argue against allowing the temptation of immigration to cripple these countries and in favor of providing a means for anybody in the world to live a decent life by subsidizing the work they do in their homeland in order to spur the development of these countries. Skilled labor and a specialized workforce were two of the largest reasons why the 1st world was able to transform from an agrarian society into an industrial powerhouse, and by tempting the people from these developing countries to immigrate with their skills in order to earn more money the 1st world is robbing the developing nations of their skilled labor and educated people that they need to become more so developed. Reasons like these are why I argue that subsidizing the developing world could easily be a solution to the migrant crisis and the exodus of skilled labor from the developing world.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Happiness is a drug that induces a high similar to cocaine, a comedown, addiction and withdrawal similar to cocaine and yet we encourage people and even children to seek out this illicit pleasure. The rats given the choice to do enough cocaine to die or stay alive choose the cocaine, and the same can be said for those seeking pleasure and happiness at a cost of their own wellbeing: the children who play video games instead of study, the people who shirk responsibility and disregard opportunities for self-improvement in order to watch television, and those that seek constant gratification of their desire for approval from their peers on social media. People seek out these activities because they feel good, and these pleasurable feelings are fare easier to attain than the feeling of success one can enjoy by doing something responsible or helpful or bettering one’s own life. This is a clear example of people’s own emotional susceptibility crippling their ability to perform simple critical thinking, and the high produced by these readily accessible pleasures creates a cycle that feeds into itself and reinforces itself indefinitely through both chemical and social means. These sorts of cycles are the same pleasure seeking behaviors exhibited by the drug addicted, and the results are the same: people are willing to exert enough effort to attain their high and continue the cycle, but seldom do these addicts summon the willpower to rise above the pleasure that controls them in order to attain a higher level of fulfillment.
Along with happiness and pleasure, other mind altering phenomena also have the ability to cloud judgement and contort our thought processes. Though a sense of compassion may have driven the feral humans to act upon such feelings and help an injured stranger and thus allow the species to thrive just a bit more, this emotional capacity can easily be manipulated by the vivid images humankind has been able to produce so skillfully such as text and video. While compassion may seem harmless, it can be used by public speakers and the media to persuade people to vote or hold and opinion through a very common fallacy, the appeal to emotion. This fallacy can easily sway those who consider their emotions as something pertinent to an argument, whether their emotions are fear, anger, guilt, compassion, or otherwise, the powerful feeling of emotion can mislead people into thinking that they have come to a logical decision because the decision is in line with their emotions.
Another sickening tactic of the public figures is an argument of personal appeal, this argument is appealing to a wide array of people, from the simpleminded to those engrossed in shameless narcissism. These arguments for socialism gain support because the voters feel that they will get things they want and never look into the actual implications of the methods of delivering things, the argument is simply “I will give you what you want” and this is enough to sway many people. They don’t care that the things they want are inefficient and impractical uses of money, they don’t care that it is being paid for with other people’s money and they don’t care that social services in question are largely unsustainable and destined to collapse on account of increasing population and stifled economic growth on account of the increased taxes. An allegory to describe these people would be “A man holds a piece of candy in his hand, and says to a child, if you take this candy I’m going to go home and beat my children, and of course the child takes the candy and the other children get beaten.” This shows how the shortsightedness and largely the self-centered mindsets of people create a population that does not actually understand what they are voting for, but rather a population that is swayed by fallacy to the point where winning an election has little to do with politics, policy, or capability to govern but rather how much a speaker can abuse logical fallacy to mislead the voting public.
These clear vulnerabilities to fallacy and hedonism are prime examples of why humankind as a whole should be loathed. To have the most important and impactful decisions in the world being made by the people who have mastered the art of fallacy rather than that of logic is shameless, and yet this is the type of government that a democracy promotes so long as the voting public is easily swayed by their emotions and lacks the critical thinking skills of a human that has devoted a good deal of time to studying logic and analyzing rhetoric. The democracy is consistently defended as the ideal because every person gets to vote, when in reality, few understand the issues at hand enough to make sound decisions and many are simply swayed by fallacy as opposed to sound reasoning. The inability to think critically and understand the issues at hand are reasons why children are not allowed to vote, yet once these people reach adulthood and still lack these skills, their opinions are suddenly valid and can easily decide the fate of a country. It is a sad bit of “equality” when the opinions of people who failed to graduate from high school determine the fate of an arsenal of nuclear weapons with the same amount of significance as climatologists, ecologists, physicists and people who are educated in International Relations. Oh humans, so easy to loathe already without any reference to human’s destructive parasitic relationship with planet Earth.