Rubinsalamander

I think it will probably kill the current Business Model of the VA Industry. Having the ability to generate as much audio content as you like without the risk of the VA not being available anymore (dead, booked out,...) is just too good to pass up.

Instead we will probably see licenses for generated voices. And in case for games the game developer could make the voice model freely available for mods of his game.(The mods are already using assets from the game, why not also audio?)

I would also find that very creepy and it would probably keep you from moving on. I think there is a big difference between remembering what happened by looking at a photo or hearing an audio recording and having newly generated "content" from a deceased loved one.

Massively reducing costs for Voice Over in Video Games. This should make it even feasible to create mods with audio which would be great :)

Thanks!, that show sounds interesting. Will look into it.

Immortality is maybe the wrong word for what i have in mind. Its more eternal youth but you can still be killed. Best analogy would be the elves in lord of the rings.

My hope would be that the higher life experience combined with a healthy body would allow us to be better as a species.

Media seems pretty dystopian and dark in general right now. I think that may influence the outlook of many regarding the future. Certainly could turn out that way but i think there is also a big chance it will be way different and better then we think right now.

Didnt look too much into it but my gut feeling based on the price says its too cheap to be able to keep the lights on for centuries.

I would rather do a one time payment because they sure wont get money from me when i am dead. So a one time payment must basically be big enough to generate enough interest/stock market returns to make it worth their while too keep the lights on forever. I dont see this with a 50€ Subscription. Maybe they would do it like an ETF Investment Account which signs you up for Cyro Preservation after reaching a certain size. The money would have to be withdrawable while being alive though.

Dictator could pay more for it but would probably be to paranoid to actually do it until its proven technologically. So my bet would be on the Noble Prize winner because of curiosity and good connections to the people working on the technology.

If the technology first emerges you could probably get it quite cheaply because its not proven yet. Afterwards there will be a scarity due to everyone wanting it which will drive prices up. In the long run it becomes a free commodity due to being a net saving for governments.

But even if the rich and ruthless get it first, that doesnt matter much in the long run. Medical improvements tend to get cheaper with time. The incentives are there to provide it to everyone. And especially so in a democracy.

And also would be great for organ donations.

I think about it this way, although i dont have the money to sign up yet.(and don't want to do a rate plan while being young).

Basically every religion has some hope of afterlife/reincarnation. So for non religious people this also kinda provides this hope. And if it doesnt work out it is just a expensive funeral. If your dead body is burned, frozen or buried doesnt really matter in this case.

Stranger in a strange land also sounds incredibly exciting to me. Funny how a con ist pro argument depending on your view point.

It would not only be for the rich. Healthcare cost are incredibly expensive especially later in live so governments have a strong inventive to provide it for everyone. Also people wont have to retire anymore (also great for government) The most expensive part about it would probably be research, but since every person on the planet is a potential user and there a big savings in Healthcare and Pension i don't see costs being a problem.

Humans dont progress in terms of biological evolution anymore but instead technologically. The increased lifespan would allow scientist to master multiple fields which would be great for progress.

While it would be sad to see so many species dying, i dont think it will affect the survival of humans.

If really needed bacterias and plants would be enough for humans to survive. Wouldnt be pleasant though, so we should try our best that it doesnt happen.

I just dont see the apocalyptic prophecies coming true.

Go Karts have relative weak engines and you have to accelerate a lot after curves. Low weight is a big Advantage. So at average women have an Advantage

My point was: Are people who live in an area for a long time happy if a low immigration area turns into a high immigration area.

High immigration(besides nearby catastrophes) usually means something good happended to the area. So people can have the same overall happiness but for different reasons.

For example: Job opportunities are better now, Property prices are rising(Great my home is worth more), but it feels less at home then before.

The exorbitant rents were the reason i didnt move to Munich, but Nuremberg. Rent is a Gatekeeper though, only "succesfull" people can afford to live there. The conflict seems to be more about gentrification.

Also i personally dont know anybody who got negatively affected (besides closed school Gyms) by the refugee crisis, but many worry anyways. Probaly Social Media makes it feel worse then it is,similar to people feeling less safe now despite way lower crime rates.

Which kinda makes sense. Why would you life in an area with high Immigration if you dont Like/Support it. You would have to look at the data of people living in areas where Immigration just begins/recently started to see if they are happy about it

Guess they would have to scatter the metal so that the algae have more iron surface area. Would make it hard to remove if it turns out bad

That large band exists only for mediterran regions. Some regions are already living on the hot/cold edge

Rises the question which temperature is the "right" one. Assuming we can control climate change at some point in the future

Like having a clima-council which votes to lower or rise the temperature. Would definetly cause conflicts between very hot and cold nations

Two well informed people can come to different conclusions on the same topic despite both having access to the same information. Its their underlying believes that makes both feel their opinion is right and logical.

If you want to change opinions you have to change the underlying believes that form them. And you have to do it in a way that they feel they figured it out on their own.

If you do it in a "push down the throat" way it will just make it worse.

In that light i dont think the ban was a good idea...

The Euro (Not directly but by risk sharing) also gives these countrys artifically low interest rate.

Thats why they still can borrow cheap money despite being basically broke

If you have a Bias about something you dont have to "spend" as much brainpower to reach a conclusion. Its what allows us to function in our life because thinking everything over again would be too taxing. We would get nothing done. So we rely on social cues(thats the way most people do it...) our own experience in the past( biased data..) to make decisions.

So biases are kind of the necessary. But in some instances the extra effort for unbiased decisions is worth it. Ignoring "Educationism" as a recruiter should be one of it. But to eradicate a bias is kind of Impossible. Its just possible to change or replace it with another one.

As long as they can fill open jobs with somehow suitable canditates they have no real reason to change their established process. They dont need perfect but good enough. So even if they miss some good canditates it doesnt matter and they dont know which person they missed in hindsight.

If they have problems finding qualified workers they are much less strict with requierments and more creative

Another reason to prefer easily measured established values like experience is to justify yourself against higher ups if something goes wrong

Stock Market and Casino both have Fees/House Advantage.

The difference is that Casino is more or totally based on luck while there is a skill factor involved in the stock market. Also the stock market isnt a zero sun game because of economic growth

In the end Casino has nearly the same odds for everyone while in the stock market there is much more variance. But i would inclined to say that for most casino is the better option

Depending on your skill, opponents and in some cases alcohol tolerance Poker would be a better and definetly more fun option.

Roulette odds are 47,37% for doubling. So if you are not confident that your investment can beat that dont bother.

Otherwise use high leverage products in the stock market which will amplify your wins/losses. Best case would be to make a strategy write it down and stick to it. Your biggest Problem there is psychological strain if the 100K means a lot to you. You will at best have a miserable time and at worst panic sell in the wrong moment. So if you cant afford to lose most or all of the 100K dont invest it especially not in high risk products.