Also, yes, we do buy more than we used to buy. That is called keeping the economy running, and if we weren't buying all those gadgets and trinkets and things *you* don't think are necessary our economy would be in even worse shape. As for the credit card debt, if wages were at least keeping even with what they have historically been people wouldn't have to fall back on so much credit debt now would they.

So what happens when credit cards are all maxed out and people have to lower their spending? Why companies will have to lay off people, leading to even less demand, leading to more layouts, and so forth until the economic tailspin turns into an outright economic and social collapse. Yet no company can unilaterally rise wages to ward off this disaster, because even if it made them more competitive due to a workforce that wouldn't hate them quite so much, the shareholders would complain, since the money could be going to them instead.

If only there were a party who could simply order everyone to rise wages, like it or not, to meet some kind of minimum standard high enough to keep the market working. Or, even better, simply pay a minimal income unconditionally to everyone.

Hawking, who appeared via hologram,

Wait, what?

A terrorist has a nuclear weapon in his backpack and is 10 blocks away from where he plans to set it off. He also plans to die, so if you confront him, he'll just set it off anyway.

The sniper who is supposed to shoot the bad guy has his shot blocked by a girl on her daddy's shoulders. He doesn't have a clear shot.

Do you shoot through the girl to hit the bad guy in that case?

Well, the girl is less likely to die from a bullet wound than a nuclear bomb going off right next to her, so it's not really an ethical dilemma, any more than performing a risky medical operation to save that girl's life afterwards would be.

The problem is, this entire ridiculous scenario is an example of an idea - that ethics can be set aside if needed - fighting for existence. Ideas aren't passive things; they're encoded by living neural cells in human brains, and neurons have a basic drive to be used. So once you accept the idea of ethical exceptions in principle, that idea will always whisper in your ear in every situation, even ones that don't involve any immediate danger.

So the question is: given two imperfect options - absolute ethical commandment and a slippery slope - which one is likely to cause less destruction?

So what you are saying is that it's up to Hollywood to dictate what is acceptable in society?

How do you learn what is acceptable in a society? By watching people do stuff and get praised or reviled for it. What does Hollywood do? Show people doing stuff and get labeled heroes or villains. They're an efficient propaganda machine, for good or ill.

Just like gravity causes two objects to attract each other, right up until some fellow shows the force sometimes repels.

Yes.

But in that case, what's the advantage of implanting it?

It gives the powerful yet another way to assert their dominance over the less so. And because the powerful are only so because of a system that backs their baseless claims of superiority, and can only continue as long as the powerless keep buying the lie, new ways to propagandize are always needed. All the little ritualistic humiliations society is so fond of, from drug tests to getting groped by the TSA, ultimately come down to the same message: "you are nothing and must obey your masters."

It's a sick, if fascinating, game. It's also one that can't go on forever, since effecively crippling people cripples their society too, yet that society still contains a very strong cultral leftover from feudalism. So what we really have here is a narrative of equality fighting a narrative of hierarchy, leading to very confused people doing completely irrational things - like wiretapping everyone in the name of freedom - without really understanding why.

Obviously a good person is not going to sell it to black hats.

You mean a law-abiding person. A good person does not prey on innocents, but Corporate America provides plenty of food satisfying any reasonable standard of sufficient sinfulness you care to set to qualify as an acceptable target.

It's why movies that want robbers seem heroic often use casinos as targets: no one's going to shed a single tear when those who exploit people's dreams to fleece them get victimized in turn.

Sure, if you want to kill someone, you're right. I think the argument against drones is that if you push a button and someone dies on the other side of the Earth and you didn't have to go to war to do that ... well, fast forward two years and you're just sitting there hitting that button all day long. "The quarter solution" or whatever you want to call it is still resulting in deaths and, as we can see here, we're not 100% sure whose deaths that button is causing. Even if we study the targets really really hard.

No, no we don't. You might say "Al Queda hit us now we must hunt them to the ends of the Earth" but it doesn't mean that diplomacy and sovereignty just get flushed down the toilet. Those country borders will still persist despite all your shiny new self-appointed world police officer badges. Let me see if I can explain this to you: If David Koresh had set off bombs in a Beijing subway and then drones lit up Waco like the fourth of July and most of the deaths were Branch Davidians, how would you personally feel about that? Likewise, if Al Queda is our problem and we do that, we start to get more problems. Now, that said, it's completely true that Pakistan's leadership has privately condoned these strikes while publicly lambasting the US but that's a whole different problem.

Yep, think of the children -- that's why we should use drone strikes, right? Look, war means death. Death doesn't discriminate and neither does war. If you're hung up on it being okay to take a life the second that male turns 18, you're pretty much morally helpless anyway. War is bad. Drone strikes are bad. There's enough bad in there for them both to be bad. This isn't some false dichotomy where it's one or the other. It's only one or the other if you're hellbent on killing people.

News flash: you can argue against drone strikes and also be opposed to war at the same time. It does not logically follow that since you're against drone strikes, you're pro war and pro killing children. That's the most unsound and absurd flow of logic I've seen in quite some time.

So you're saying everyone knew she was lying about her charity donations as well? Or was it only the charities that knew that? From the article:

So you're saying the 300,000 downloads are by people that knew they were downloading the app architected by a liar? And they were paying $3.79 to Apple and this liar for a recipe app that contain recipes that someone lied about helping her cure cancer? And you're saying that everyone at Apple that featured her app on the Apple Watch knew they were showing a snake oil app on their brand new shiny device? And that the people at Penguin did all their fact checking on any additional information this cookbook might contain about Belle Gibson's alleged cancer survival? And that everybody involved in these events know society's been parading around a fucking liar and rewarding her with cash money while she basically capitalizes on a horrendous disease that afflicts millions of people worldwide ... that she never had?

No, this is not the same as "water is wet" and it needs to be shown that holistic medicine is temporarily propped up on a bed of anecdotal lies ... anybody who accepts it as the sole cure for their ailment is putting their health in the hands of such charlatans and quacks.

That's because the elderly suffered much more stringent brainwashing as children that leads them to say that they "support those who fight for our freedom" while also promoting a police state worse than Orwells worst nightmare.

It's questionable if even North Korea is worse than Oceania. And the US, where government wiretapping is actually debated publicly, is neither a police state, dystopia nor an Orwellian nightmare. No state that let's you make such claims about them unpunished is, by definition.

Why can't we simply treat the US as an ordinary nation that's mostly benevolent but has its darker side, rather than trying to pretend it's either the Messiah or the Devil? Both titles are already taken.

I get that it's a business decision and that sometimes you have to make the hard call, but that doesn't mean you have to be a douchebag about it.

Sure you do. Being a douchebag to your victims inhumanizes them and thus makes you feel less guilty about mistreating them. It's why it's such a common practice of various corrupt security forces the world over.

And if people are willing to risk their lives and freedom to get an illegal drug that just makes them high, what makes you think laws will prevent them from getting a drug that makes them more money?

People risk future revenue in order to get high. Getting high is an end in itself, money is just a means towards an end. So you have the relative priorities backwards there. Not that getting temporarily smarter couldn't be a very pleasant high...

Also, drugs that get you high are almost impossible to stop because they're either made by nature, like cannabis, easy to make, like meth, or ridiculously potent (so a single good chemist is capable of supplying the entire world), like LSD. Custom-designed nootropes would likely have very complex structure and thus require a pharmaceutical company, and a high-end one at that.

You don't think I should be able to cancel that buy order due to the new information?

No, you shouldn't. You tried to profit from random events going your way, so now you just have to deal with the fact that your lottery ticket was empty.

Partners have always had the power in law firms -- but how long can they maintain power when their underlings are so much smarter and more ambitious?

They can't, which is why it won't happen. People at the top are there because they're very good at hamstringing competition. So the only legal performance enhancers will be those that are either inefficient, like coffee, or too expensive for you to afford.

Of course the situation will change once more efficient things like direct brain-computer hookups become available to top dogs; but until then, all the little muffs will be kept down.

Why don't the automakers just seek refuge under the DMCA from all those evil automobile hackers? Clearly, figuring out how your car works is a direct attack on the very hard work and property of those automakers.

Time to pass a bill state by state. I'm the sure the invisible hand of the free market will line all the right politicians' pockets to rush those through. Hopefully someday we won't be able to own our cars and we can go back to the Ma Bell days when every phone was rented.