FlowVoid

joined 1 year ago
[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Billions of invertebrates and other small animals are killed during tilling before planting, with pest/weed control during the growing season (even with "organic" or "natural" compounds), and of course during harvest.

This is inevitable, planting requires controlling soil and plants, and this will inevitably kill animals that you don't even see. Do you really think you can pull a weed without killing any of the invisible animals living on it?

Fishing/hunting also kills animals, but you can catch a fish or hunt a deer without restructuring an entire ecosystem. Which means you can feed yourself without killing quite so many animals.

[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Billions of animals are killed wherever crops are grown.

Even if you are entirely vegan, animals have to die if you want to eat.

In fact, if your food is grown on a farm then you are probably contributing to more animal deaths than someone who obtains food from hunting or fishing.

[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I doubt it was much of an added expense. The search was carried out by Coast Guard and Navy personnel, who would be getting paid regardless.

If the sub hadn't gone missing, it's quite likely their time and resources would have been spent on practicing some sort of rescue mission.

[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you are a simulation, then your choice doesn't matter. You will never get any real benefit from the boxes. It's like saying, "there is also a finite possibility that the machine is lying and all the boxes are empty". In which case, the choice is again irrelevant.

Situations in which your choice doesn't matter are not worth considering. Only the remaining possibility, that you are not a simulation and the machine is not lying, is worth considering.

[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But if it's true that the machine can perfectly predict what you will choose, then by definition your choice will be the same its prediction. In which case, you should choose one box.

[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Regardless of whether the machine is right, if you don't believe it can perfectly predict what you'll do then taking both boxes is always better than just one.

[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's much easier if you reframe the problem:

Someone says they've built a machine that can perfectly predict what you will do. Do you believe them?

If so, take one box.
If not, take both boxes.

[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's silly to judge a polling outfit solely on the politics of their CEO.

FWIW, 538 gave Harris a "B" grade with 83% accuracy in 2020. If anything, Harris seemed to overestimate Biden's support (eg they predicted Trump would lose FL and NC).