TheFogan

True, but the point of the simulations is basically debunking the idea that even when capitalism "works". IE the hypothetical perfect scenereo where everyone starts off with the same, has the same chances of getting good and bad opprotunities, that the the fairness systematically fades out of the system the longer the game runs.

I recall an economics class once where they started out playing monopoly, but giving everyone different starting amounts of money.... and basically demonstrating that well over 90% of the time... the advantages basically determined the game.

Realistically the everyone starts at a different value, is far more realistic to life... but even when you remove that realism, it still ends the same way, one person starts taking a lead... and that that inequality only grows the longer the game continues.

Another simulation... that's mainstream in american society... Landlords Game -- IE what's now Monopoly. By definition everyone starts with the same amount of money, and it ends with one person massively ahead and everyone else going bankrupt.

Agreed, if it's true, I'd have to say if it's true it makes me respect Bruce Willis less. Either way why would anyone care to disrespect her in either situation... unless she were to be making a public figure of herself and claim all poor people are lazy or some crap.

Basically yes, look up additive vs subtractive colors... that's why for a monitor you need RGB, but ink cartrages are Cyan Magenta and Yellow

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/6FSgP38XcxfqQuiYicQx5Z-970-75.jpg.webp

In short, colored light, and pigments work in opposite ways. Basically all visible light mixes together to make white light. Blue paint, basically absorbs the red and green light, allowing only the blue to bounce back... so mixing more colors of paint, means less light. until almost nothing gets out (hence black). But on a light source, more colors = more light, leading towards white.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article283847883.html

Sadly there's a lot of intelectuals that were involved, Lawrence Krauss, Noem Chomsky, Steven Hawking just scratching the surface.

I want the alternate timeline where, rather than just doing it to highlight the bullshit pac rules. Stewart and Colbert actually ran

I think the point is he was attempting to reach out to time travelers... or skeptically making fun of the idea with the time travelers party that no one showed up for.

The point is whether or not it happens, as a parable it's validity is sound. Point is, if even if the current government has nothing but good intentions and would never use the information to do anything you don't agree with, and you are in perfect agreement with the current government. There is always the risk of either the government changing or someone stealing the information from the government that could weaponize it in ways you would never want.

what's crazy to me is the people who defend this type of stuff, are the ones that are also terrified of gun registration... because you know if one day a gun ban were put in place, having a list of where all the guns are would make confiscation easy and legal. But they don't realize that it's just as likely for them to hunt people who spoke out against the government, or were the wrong race.. or hell, just possibly see that you have a gun because you took it home on a ring cam.

Also I do have to worry quite a bit, Didn't both epstien, and one of his victims make very similar statements, before they supposedly killed themselves. Admitted I guess with more public visibility that MTG and Massie have when they did theirs, and the much increased attention of the public on the matter, it should be impossible to kill either of them without multiplying the public suspision by a factor of 100.

Usually, conspiracy theories feed on an absence of information, not a glut. But the Justice Department’s release of more than three million pages, 2,000 videos and 180,000 images has done little to smother baseless speculation or fabrication.

Well duh... it's still the absenses. It's just the glut is highlighting what's intentionally removed.

If I'm reporting a robbery of my convenience store. if I said I had no security camera footage of the event... that's a little weird.

If I report a robbery, and I do have security footage, but there's a mysterious black bar over the robbers face... you might think it's an inside job.

I can't think of anything, that's kind of the options isn't it? Buy your neighbors switchbots or reolink cameras as a gift? Them switching by choice is persuasion... forcing them to switch without giving them a choice is vandalism. I can't fathom a 3rd category, unless you can like... sue the hell out of amazon and force a recall, but pretty sure the legal system doesn't work that way.