Hacker News Reader

Comment by dstroot | Hacker News Reader

I love sci-fi! Thanks for sharing. However to destroy humans, violence is not necessary. All you need is the power of language. How many people have died because of a false belief? An AI only has to convince humans to “drink the koolaid” or murder another religion in the name of yours.

View on HN

I prefer Skynet attacking us with robots wielding phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range, instead of behavioral targeted AI bots bombarding you with fake news and dopamine addictive slop. This timeline is much worse, give me the T-800s instead.

Can a 40 watt plasma rifle actually do any damage ? (pre LED light bulbs generally clock in at 60-100 watts)

That's the most lovely adhd question I've read all day, thank you!

Lasers can do eye/optics/arson damage in this power range, see the vid. It boils down to focus and distance. But for conventional plasma rifles, not sure.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=iVrJUbeuG44

Or just invent birth control followed by Tinder.

...doesn't tinder probably produce more babies than no tinder? I can see you making some point about dating culture or whatever, but at the end of the day more sex must still resolve down to more happy accidents!

> ...doesn't tinder probably produce more babies than no tinder?

That's not in evidence, and while I lack empirical evidence to prove this, there are logical mechanisms by which Tinder might result in fewer babies. Namely:

1. A lot of people seem to get an attention fix by talking to people and then ghosting them when meeting in person is suggested.

2. The siloing of the dating pool to different sites (Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, OKCupid...).

3. Lots of false positives of matches--someone looks like a good match on paper and then you show up in person and there's something not quite right--their mannerisms annoy you, they smell bad (to you), etc. There are a ton of ways people filter potential dating partners extremely quickly with in person.

4. The massive waste of time might result in a lot of people just giving up.

My personal experience is that every relationship I've had resulted from meeting people in person, despite spending a lot of time on the apps.

I'd also say there are likely a lot of false negatives as well - some people aren't photogenic or have a bad profile, and there may be chemistry or attraction in real life that doesn't transfer to the digital realm. It also completely bypasses any situations where you may find someone attractive only after speaking to them and getting to know them.

Sure, but none of this really argues that its less because of tinder. The existence of it doesnt in itself preclude meeting people in person, its hard to imagine people going on the app instead of going out to the bar that night!

My point 1 very much is an argument that people meet less in person because of Tinder et al.

Kids are extremely expensive when you have to raise them to 18 with no return. We should have social security, but for the young.

What do you mean by "no return"?

We aren’t an agrarian society so children (and the labor they represent on the farm) are not a financial asset, they are a financial liability.

But couldn't they be considered an investment? For possible support (emotional, financial and other) in old age.

In practice? Very much no.

I strongly disagree. Around me I see a huge difference in old people without kids vs. with kids in how they are being taken care of.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com