1. interstellar travel is never feasible for any civ, no matter how advanced,

I like the idea behind the concept of the Great Filter, but that point does not seems logic as it would imply that irregardless of how advanced a civ is, they would not be able to build anything that can even make just a one way travel to a star just a few year light far away. Right, it is not simple, but a civ even just a couple centuries head of us should be able to do it.

Also, probably nobody capable of traveling the stars wants to settle a planet. Once you figure out how to make huge spaceships (which you’ll need to travel interstellar space) you’ve essentially learned how to make cities in space.

I don’t think it is a valid point. Yeah, if we can build a ship that take us to Alpha Centauri it would lool like a small city, but that does not mean that it can last forever and the traveller would never need to settle on a planet. And looking what the humans did in the past, it seems logic that while a part would want to continue to explore, another part would want to settle on a planet.

Our solar system would support a lot of people if we just used the resources available for space habitats, and by “lot” I mean in the quadrillions. And it turns out that all you need to support that population is a star to provide energy, and some planets to source materials from.

So with that in mind, why bother finding another habitable planet?

Because it is habitable and can be used as a transit point, advanced outpost, refuelling base or any other use you can do of an habitable planet where to do things you have not to fight even with the environment (tourism for example).

Maybe the services that don’t need to sell your data to be in the black.

More than the charging infrastructure it is the city infrastructure: when you have condos built without any planning 50 or more years ago, even if you pass a law that every home need to have a charging station in these condos it is physically impossible to do it. Charging infrastructure comes after you solve the problem where to put 70 or more charging station for every condo in the district.

Hybrids: the worst of both worlds.

If you want to keep relying on gasoline then just buy an ICE car

Maybe I can use a hydrid: short trip (to the train station/mall/small affairs in the vicinity) go in electric, longer trip use gasoline.

Not everyone has a charging station at home and in many places you cannot install it, be because forbidden by some old laws or because there is not the physical option.

Wait, they give Europol access if and only if a swiss judge order it. They protect your privacy but neither you or them are above the law.

Perfect is the enemy of good.

I agree on this.

If it is worth doing, it is worth getting it done, even if we aren’t 100% certain or ready on a lot of things.

From the article it seems we are not even 10% certain. In summary, we don’t understand (yet) the problem, we have no clue on how complex is, we have no hard number to tell us how big it is.
I agree, something need to be done. But for now the “something” is just to try to understand better the problem, or at least how big it is.

Doctors don’t wait for the worst before starting treatment.

True, but they start treatment when they know what they need to cure or at least they have solid evidence that indicate something, not before.

Specially if corrections carry none or way less risks than what is currently being done.

Hard to decide that corrections carry lower risks of something we don’t understand.

Ah yes, the usual method of waiting until the issue becomes confirmed and also way too severe to fix instead of acting on precaution and harming profits of private companies.

No, but as even them don’t understand what the complications are and how much the damages could be, maybe to wait to have at least some hard number looks like a good idea.

What could go wrong?

And what could go wrong if we start to fight a problem that we don’t understand how big it is, maybe using the wrong solution on a wrong scale ?

They didn’t just vote for the right wing though, they voted for Nazis. So yes, they are literally bigoted, racist, homophobes. If you support people who admired Hitler, guess what? You’re a fucking asshole of a very high degree.

Listen here, as long as people like you don’t understand that AfD (and all the other extreme right wings) are the consequence and not the cause, you will never solve any problem.
People voted AfD because they are the only one, as bad as it is, that at least aknowledge the problems people have (or think to have).
Do you really think that when someone tells you that they see [something] as a problem the better course of action is to insult them, consider them as part of the problem and then call them nazis when they voted for someone else ? Because that is what everyone else except the extreme right is doing.

Yeah, it is bad, but do you really think that people will always continue to vote for the side that they see as the cause of what they see as a problem ?

Being poor or troubled doesn’t make you an asshole.

True

My parents grew up in extreme poverty in El Salvador, and they didn’t become extreme racists. I was in extreme poverty in university in the USA, I didn’t suddenly start voting right wing either, let alone extremely far right. I hated the democrats over there, but knew the right wing wouldn’t solve it because bad people don’t go good things.

The point is how much you should endure before you become an idiot. Yeah, to vote for the bad guys do not solve the problems, but also to continue to vote for the cause of the problem do not solve it.

You don’t end up voting for genuinely bad people who admire one of the most atrocious regimes in human history because of frustration.

True, you end up voting for genuinely bad people because the supposed good people are the one that in your view are the cause of the problem and you do not see any other option (if not do not vote).

You only do so because you either already have a broken moral compass, or are extremely ignorant and stupid. In Germany though, it’s more likely to be the former rather than the latter considering their history. And it’s that recent history that makes it that much more shameful for Germany, and that shows that Nazism was still not extinguished.

Nazism will never be extinguished, you cannot. But you can relegate it to the point that it is irrelevant. But what are you still missing is the cause.

You don’t deal with an intolerant group like Nazi or AfD by excusing them or reaching out to them. You don’t tolerate the intolerant (paradox of tolerance), because otherwise it’ll only be a matter of time before you or someone else is no longer tolerated. And that’s something history has proven repeatedly.

True. You deal with intolerant groups like Nazi and AfD removing the causes that make them rise before they can rise.

Thank you for your reply. I think there is little point in continuing this thread as we are unlikely to agree.

Too bad, but it was a nice discussion.

Yes, it is somewhat true that the AfD addresses people’s problems - at least they make it seem that way. But their rhetoric also ensures that people blame the wrong groups for these problems.

More than that, they target the consequences instead of the cause.

The conservatives in the USA do the same, as do the right-wing populists in other countries. The Nazis in the Third Reich also did exactly that - it’s nothing new.

All these are consequences of something else, not the cause.

AfD rises because people see problems that the other parties did not even aknowledge to exist and not because they create the problems.

Believe me, I have tried to understand why so many people don’t see through these simple tricks and even allow themselves to be misled into voting against their own interests.

That’s easy. People are more worried of the day by day problems than some hypothetical future problem so they voted for the side that at least say they will resolve it.

However, I am not prepared to abandon a fact-based political discourse just because some particularly loud and snivelling people make life too easy for themselves. So I don’t think that the left should also spread lies, rely on sub-complex explanations and blame some make-believe enemies. Nor do I think that is even possible.

Fine, but the fact-based political discourse should be on both sides. Currently the only one looking at the facts are AfD. Granted that they then bend them to their agenda, but the Left simply ignore the facts as for now.

So I must honestly say that I have lost faith in the functioning of democracy.

That is something that it is always said by the people that think to be better than the other when they lose, I am sure you are better than that.

The AfD will always remain unelectable for me - if only because of its openly fascist rhetoric and the associated ideas, which I reject as immoral and inhumane. The claim that the AfD is not a dangerous radical right-wing party is simply false - see Björn Höcke, for example, who is obviously a Nazi with links to various anti-constitutional groups.

I agree and I never said that AfD is not dangerous. What I belive is that people did not become nazis overnight, I don’t belive that people wake up one mornign and say “you know what, from today I will be a nazi”.
I understand and respect your point but what I am seeing is everyone talking about the AfD (and the right wing in generale) that increase their power, that they are a danger to the democracy and so on but nobody ask the simpler question: why ? Why the right wing is getting all these new votes ?
Until the left wing politicians don’t start to ask themself this simple question and are honest giving the answer, the right will continue to rise, that you, me or everyone else like it or not, because they (the left) are missing the point.

And the point is that, for better or worse, the right wing are listening to the people and promise to solve the problems the people have (or that the people think to have: a perceived problem for a person is a real problem, even if the problem itself does not exist in the first place) while the left wing, at least in Italy, is only able to insult me when I express my doubt or ask a solution for what I see as a problem.

In addition, their EU election manifesto denies climate change, wants to limit freedom of movement in Europe and wants to abolish the euro as a common currency as well as the GDPR alongside other protectionist, anti-European demands across the board. In my opinion, all these demands are completely absurd and only show how little substance the AfD really has.

Yeah, and that is why I said that some of their ideas are not that bad (at least in principle) while other are beyond stupidity. They know that they will never be able to act on their plan, but they are reading what more and more people are thinking and act accordingly. The main problem is that nobody else is doing the same.

The right wings win because the left, often, are too busy to keep some sort or moral superiority and fighting for irrelevant details instead of focusing on the real problems.

All they are doing is profiting from the fear-based mood towards immigration that they themselves have helped to create. I can’t understand how anyone can vote for such a party.

Simple, because they have an answer to the people’s problems. Wrong but an answer.

What I mean is that the right-wing parties in Germany have focused their entire election campaign on the issue of migration - even the moderate conservatives (CDU). I think this one-sided explanatory approach is wrong and dangerous. On the one hand, I think it is a case of problem shifting.

Evidently migration is seen as a problem from at least some of the people.

Important issues such as economic and energy policy or climate protection take a back seat to this one, disproportionately presented issue.

Got your point, but I suppose that what can happen next year is more “urgent” than what can happen in 10 years. People can think about what happen in 10 years if they are relatively sure of what will happen next year, nobody will sacrifice the imminent times for a possible gain so far in the future.

On the other hand, I think that the isolationist policy advocated by the extreme right (in Germany, the AfD) is an outdated approach, as it does not solve the problem of illegal migration, but merely creates a counterproductive negative mindset towards immigration. And this is precisely what I consider to be very problematic: due to demographic developments, Germany urgently needs workers from abroad - not only, but especially in so-called low-skilled jobs such as nursing.

Yes, it is outdated. But the alternative we have seen until this point it is worse than the problem. I am pretty sure that the people are not afraid of the Italian nurse that come to work in a German hospital but they are afraid of the illegal immigrants who comes to Germany. AfD simply took advantage of this and of the missing answer from the other political parties.

This fact is being completely overlooked in the political debate, which in this country is characterized by xenophobic and even openly racist rhetoric. In short, I believe that the focus of right-wing parties on migration policy is nothing but empty polemics that is based on attributing blame instead of constructive proposals for solutions - we have other problems that need to be solved. I assume that the situation is similar in other European countries.

I think you are wrong. Yes, AfD focus on migration policies but it is more than empty polemics, they intercepted what the common people are starting to think, more and more, that these migration policies and the de facto concession to every minority has the right to do whatever they want even violating the country’s laws are simply unacceptable.

It would be fool to simply think that all the people who voted for AfD (and the right wing in general) are suddently become fascist without any reason and such reasoning will only end in AfD (and the right wing in general) to gain even more power since the left wing are ignoring what the underlying message really is: “we have these problems, solve them or sooner or later someone will, in a way or another”

Ok but the AfD is literally just modern Nazis.

True, but people (and politicians) still don’t understand (or don’t want to admit) that like the Nazis, AfD are the consequence, not the cause.

Calling people who voted for them stupidity is the extremely charitable label, because malicious and vile would be more accurate in that case.

Why ? Just because they voted for the Right wing that promise to solve what they see as a problem while the Left wing call them bigot, racist and homophobe, if they even acknowledges what people see as a problem ?
Yeah, maybe the problem is only perceived and I am pretty sure that AfD has no way, other the easy slogan, to solve their problems, but do you really think that ignoring (or worse, insulting) the people who ask you to solve a problem is the right way to get their vote ?

It is not that all the people who voted for the right wing became suddently fascist, it is simply that the other side has no answer to what people are asking, so people go for the only side that has an answer, even if stupid.

Only problem is the fascists are smarter this time and are pushing everywhere, so this time might not have nation states on the good side.

Putting that way is stupid. Yeah, maybe what you call fascist this time are smarter but on the other hand what should oppose them is dumber.

I had somewhat hoped that my fellow countrymen in Germany would not fall for the obtuse populism of the right, but that is exactly what has happened.

Maybe if you (in the generic sense) stop to say that the people who vote for a certain party is (basically) stupid, we all can start to solve problems. The people who voted AfD, like the people who voted for the Right in every other country, are simply saying that they have (or they think to have) a set of problems. Are they real problems ? Maybe, maybe not. But not even acknowledge what these people are saying cannot end in nothing different.

I’m afraid there’s nothing left to counter this, because voters obviously no longer care about rational arguments and don’t even want to acknowledge the real problems of our time.

Voters don’t care for rational arguments because the Left throw them out o the window.

Speaking for Italy, the right wing is in government exactly because the Left wing tried way too hard to lose. If the only thing the Left wing can offer is a multi-gender (whatever it means) leader who dont’ even speak about what the people’s problems are (or, again, what the people perceive as a problem) why someone should vote for them ? Rationally, why I should vote for a person that don’t even talk about what I see as a problem instead of a person that at least talk about it ?

And I think that in Germany it is the same thing, even if for different reasons.

They make it easy for themselves and just blame everything on illegal migration or whatever - just as the right-wingers tell them to do.

Yeah, and the problem is that when the right wing say “the illegal migration is a problem” and people say “the illegal immigration is a problem” the only thing the left wing say is “we need to get more illegal migration”. See how the left wing is basically let the right wing win and on easy mode ?

It’s about the big, long-term picture. Companies spend money on branding and advertising because it works. You create the perception that your product is for a certain type of person, which makes them more inclined to buy it. By making cigarettes boring, you make them less appealing, and on average less people will smoke.

Fine, but if that the point, a more honest (intellectually) thing to do would be simply ban cigarettes advertising. The way it is done seems to me something like “I want to ban this but I don’t want to be the one that do it”.

Tobacco companies fought it tooth and nail. Kept arguing it wouldn’t stop people from smoking.

They are right, people will not stop smoking only because the packaging is dull.

Well then why are you lobbying so hard against it? Obviously the only reason they will ever fight anything is because they think it will hurt their revenue. So whatever they oppose, I support.

Because they lost advertising opportunity.
People recognize the brand by the packaging before even reading the brand name. This way your country just make any type of advertising for the cigarettes useless. And maybe as a collateral effect some younger people will not start to smoke since they will not see the advertising, but as far as I know people don’t start to smoke because the package is cool.

The fine is just the first step. They could also block entirely from operating in the EU.

EU: Hello OpenAI, what do you think about the choice “Follow GDPR or here is the fine” ?