jj4211

It's a bit more taboo for men to seek that care, for one.

It's 100 billion, if you actually heard million, someone misspoke. Don't listen when Dr. Evil talks about amounts of money.

Broadly speaking, I'd say simulation theory is pretty much more akin to religion than science, since it's not really testable. We can draw analogies based on what we see in our own works, but ultimately it's not really evidence based, just 'hey, it's funny that things look like simulation artifacts...'

There's a couple of ways one may consider it distinct from a typical theology:

• Generally theology fixates on a "divine" being or beings as superior entities that we may appeal to or somehow guess what they want of us and be rewarded for guessing correctly. Simulation theory would have the higher order beings likely being less elevated in status.
• One could consider the possibility as shaping our behavior to the extent we come anywhere close to making a lower order universe. Theology doesn't generally present the possibility that we could serve that role relative to another.

A practice run, to refine their strategy to declare "election I don't agree with* into insurrection. If it can work, get ready for it to get rolled out like crazy in 2026.

But that sounds like disproving a scenario no one claimed to be the case: that everything we perceive is as substantial as we think it is and can be simulated at full scale in real time by our own universe.

Part of the whole reason people think of simulation theory as worth bothering to contemplate is because they find quantum physics and relativity to be unsatisyingly "weird". They like to think of how things break down at relativistic velocities and quantum scale as the sorts of ways a simulation would be limited if we tried, so they like to imagine a higher order universe that doesn't have those pesky "weird" behaviors and we are only stuck with those due to simulation limits within this hypothetical higher order universe.

Nothing about it is practical, but a lot of these science themed "why" exercises aren't themselves practical or sciency.

Though passkeys are now commonly shared across devices. That was one of the changes they made. For example, chrome will gladly do all the passkey management in the Google password manager. Under Linux at least there's isn't even a whiff of trying to integrate with a hardware security device. First pass they demanded either a USB device or Bluetooth connection to a phone doing it credibly, or windows hello under windows, but now they decided to open it up.

There another option, you believe only the local rich employer can help you.

Grew up in a small town with only one big employer. If they said bigger taxes would mean layoffs, will the town hated the idea of bigger taxes., because the employer was seen as the only things keeping a respectable and comfortable lifestyle possible in the community.

Welfare was both inadequate and shameful, and other than that, they didn't see upside to government spending. The big projects they see were things like building a big bypass for a big city to have better traffic. Meanwhile all the infrastructure spending closer to home was less dramatic. The roads thanklessly kept drivable without any dramatic news coverage. The local medical center kept afloat by federal spending without anyone really highlighting that. Easy to make the narrative that big government takes your money and gives it to city folk, and anything the employer does to the community is forced by big bad government.

If only they had made this research before they made the Abyss, that could have been a more interesting concept..

Technically the truth, but an argument can be made that 2FA was mostly more secure by virtue of how bad password security is, and selling a switch to passkey as a convenience is a big security win.

Also with passkey, you'll be commonly be forced to do some sort of device unlock making it generally the "thing you have" require either "thing you are" or "thing you know" so it becomes effectively 2fa.

If a service were going to passkeys for sake of law enforcement or works be so much easier for them to just comply with bypassing auth to access the user data altogether. Passkey implementations originally only supported very credible offline mechanisms and only relaxed those requirements when it became clear the vast majority of people couldn't handle replacing their devices with passkeys.

For screen lock for the common person it was either that or nothing at all. So demanding a PIN only worked because most of the time the user didn't have to deal with it owing to touching a fingerprint or face unlock.

People hate passwords and mitigate that aggravation by giving random Internet forum the same password as their bank account. I wouldn't want to take user passwords because I know I have a much higher risk of a compromise somehow leading to compromise of actually important accounts elsewhere.

Butt breathing, third form....

When will they cover this in Demon Slayer?

So first is to accept this is more philosophy/religious sort of discussion rather than science, because it's not falsifiable.

One thing is that we don't need to presume infinite recursion, just accept that there can be some recursion. Just like how a SNES game could run on a SNES emulator running inside qemu running on a computer of a different architecture. Each step limits the next and maybe you couldn't have anything credible at the end of some chain, but the chain can nonetheless exist.

If U0 existed, U1 has no way of knowing the nature of U0. U1 has no way of knowing 'absolute complexity', knowing how long of a time is actually 'long', or how long time passes in U0 compared to U1. We see it already in our simulations, a hypothetical self-aware game engine would have some interesting concepts about reality, and hope they aren't in a Bethesda game. Presuming they could have an accurate measurement of their world, they could conclude the observed triangles were the smallest particles. They would be unable to even know that everything they couldn't perceive is not actually there, since when they go to observe it is made on demand. They'd have a set of physics based on the game engine, which superficially looks like ours, but we know they are simplifications with side effects. If you clip a chair just right in a corner of the room, it can jump out through the seemingly solid walls. For us that would be mostly ridiculous (quantum stuff gets weird...), but for them they'd just accept it as a weird quirk of physics (like we accept quantum stuff and time getting all weird based on relative velocity).

We don't know that all this history took place, or even our own memories. Almost all games have participants act based on some history and claimed memories, even though you know the scenario has only been playing out in any modeled way for minutes. The environment and all participants had lore and memories pre-loaded.

Similarly, we don't know all this fancy physics is substantial or merely superficial "special effects". Some sci-fi game in-universe might marvel at the impossibly complicated physics of their interstellar travel but we would know it's just hand waving around some pretty special effects.

This is why it's kind of pointless to consider this concept as a 'hard science' and disproving it is just a pointless exercise since you can always undermine such an argument by saying the results were just as the simulation made them to be.