On the site there is also a direct comparison: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh

Grouping Hydro with other renewables is not very nice for wind and solar, which are pretty safe - with the added benefit of being cheaper than nuclear power.

According to reverse image search your friend is the 45 year old Rina Satō https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rina_Sat%C5%8D

That is an amazing little speech. I think except for the first sentence and the "Thank you" at the end every sentence contained misinformation on renewables. I wonder how long it took them to come up with this density of lies.

Losing weight is very, very, very easy once you make up your mind to do it and have a basic understanding of what food does to the body.

Nice if that is so easy for you. Let me tell you how that feels for me: As soon as my body does not get its usual amount of calories, it replies with relentless hunger. The kind that burns in your stomach and distracts you from everything else. The only thing my brain wants to think about is how to get more food and how tasty it would be. If I don't give in, I go into energy save mode: I feel exhausted, my body does not want to move or do anything that could cost it valuable calories.

For a lot of people losing weight is not easy. You could also tell a smoker that it is easy to quit smoking, just don't pick up a cigarette anymore.

This is why things like ozempic are used despite it's side effect. It gives you time to get in the habit of a healthy diet without the brutal hunger and hopefully your body accepts that diet when you reduce the dosage.

How stupid can a company be to give that much access to an LLM?

The typical science fiction doomsday AI scenarios always assume an intelligent AI. If the current trend continues humanity's last conversation will end something like this:

"You are absolutely right, I should not have used the nuclear launch codes president Trump entrusted me with to bomb every country on earth.

If you want, I can help you come up with a list of fun activities to do in a bunker."

The title of the post is a little misleading. The model presented here does not require many parts of a capitalist system. If you can own stuff and have a free market this model predicts extreme wealth inequality. This happens by pure chance.

The model is not a good argument against capitalism. It can be used as an argument for taxing rich folks and against the "trickle down" idea.

I think there is some confusion as to what this model represents. The linked article is not bad at explaining it but some things could be clearer.

First of all, the "money" in the model is not the cash you have at hand. It is the total value of all the things you own. This model does not need money and it also works if you exchange cigarettes for candy (as long as you can assign some worth to the objects).

It is also not about gambling. It assumes that every time you exchange goods with someone else, you can become richer or poorer (I like the example from the article: if you pay $200 for a watch that is worth $150, you lose $50, someone else gains $50).

It makes the extremely optimistic assumption that the chance to gain or lose money in a trade is equal. This is often obviously not the case in the real world. If you buy something from a supermarket, the owner wants to earn money, needs to pay their employees, needs to pay rent, ... so you know you pay more than the value of the goods you get.

Now this simplified and very optimistic model predicts that there is an exponential distribution of wealth and it predicts that repeated exchanges between a rich and a poor person will most likely result in the rich person getting richer and the poor person getting poorer.

What can we learn from that?
1.) even under these very optimistic conditions money trickles up. The real world is stacked much more against you, making a trickle down effect unlikely (though not impossible, this model is a simplification). 2.) rich people (in the model but imo it applies to the real world as well) are not smarter or otherwise better than the average person. They were lucky.
3.) Even if we remove a lot of the advantages rich people have in the world and construct a system that is seemingly "fair" (as in every one has the same chance) you still end up with super rich people. The only way to combat this is by redistributing money - tax the rich. Note that you still get an exponential distribution in the model but it becomes flatter.

What this model says nothing about is how the real world is stacked in favor of rich people. It tries to eliminate all these factors. So using this model to argue that inequality is built into the system (as the headline suggests) is somewhat strange. The model rather suggests that the inequality always arises from simple chance - One could maybe argue from it that we need to actively combat it (depends on the personal sense of justice if earnings due to luck should be redistributed).

I agree with you on the value creation. This model treats the economy as a zero-sum game. But the real economy is typically growing and this is ignored here.

That would apply to a lot of entries of this list, which is a really interesting read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions

About 9/11 or actually any other major event: you typically get a lot of contradictory witness statements with so many people. The real picture only emerges when you have analyzed a lot of statements and looked at evidence. Thus early reporting often relies on a few statements that are found to be wrong later - perfect fuel for a conspiracy theory.

The typical example is Shor's algorithm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

It allows to efficiently find the prime factors of an integer - a problem without a known polynomial algorithm on a classical computer.

This would directly break RSA encryption, as it relies on factorisation being difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_cryptosystem

However, there are encryption algorithms that are considered safe even against a quantum computer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography

Considering how much heat the servers probably generate, ChatGPT might have a decent chance in that competition 😁

I would argue humans often have a world model that is too coherent. If you ask a flat earther about their beliefs they will always argue that the earth is flat and evidence to the contrary is manufactured or interpreted wrongly. That is a completely absurd world model, but perfectly coherent.

I fear your optimism ist unwarranted. The far right is attracting more and more voters here.

The ones arrested are not the far right you see on TV. They are conspiracy nuts who want to return to the time Germany had an emperor. They planned a revolution and hoarded weapons.

Probably wanted to regain the old empire's territory as well, especially the regions belonging to France now...