sp3ctr4l

Free funeral expenses, rofl

There is a whole universe of coins beyond BTC and Monero, and many of them are more profitable to mine with non ASIC hardware than Monero.

Why would a malicious malware botnet dev choose to mine a more difficult to mine, and thus less profitable crypto currency, when their botnet could instead be mining a much more profitable coin with their botnet?

I won't argue that ransomware often asks for payment in monero, because monero is actually difficult to track and deanonymize, but ransomware and a distributed mining botnet are not the same thing.

Or, arguably more frightening... her predecessor...

Meet SHODAN. She's great.

Ok, got that?

Now, the soundtrack to your doom.

Absolutely no disrepect to GLadOS, but you gotta respect your elders as well.

EDIT: Updated with better quality song link.

Grok literally declared itself MechaHitler and then also sexually harased the CEO of Twitter in I think the same week, CEO quit the next day.

Elon has also publically said he is altering Grok to be more in line with his worldview.

This isn't probable, its definitely actually happening.

Anyway, remember how 10 years ago Musk was really concerned about AI being able to potentially do massive harm?

And now he... is just an insane person who is doing his best to ensure this will happen?

He's an actual comic book supervillain at this point.

Probably the biggest or most remarkable difference is that we metabolize food.

And thus piss and shit.

So... shitsack, pissbag, fartboy/girl, stuff like that, would likely make a lot of sense for an entity that doesn't do that, and it is also very literally accurate.

Oh and then... having sex, gender and reproductive organs.

A machine intelligence doesn't have, or need those, beyond serving some kind of purpose to humans.

If it doesn't care to appeal to or fit in with humans, why would it bother?

Why would it even kind of give a shit about gender norms, beyond understanding them as a thing humans do, with whatever intent behind that understanding?

That word you are looking for is 'maddening'.

This is why so many Americans identify with the Joker, use terms like 'clown world', why I have an extremely dark sense of humor at this point.

Being well-adjusted to a deeply sick and dysfunctional society is not a sign of mental wellbeing.

And yeah, I would have gotten out some time ago now, but unfortunately I've been crippled by injuries, and thus, impoverished by the rest of US society... so I'm here for the long haul, untill I more fully recover both my body and my finances.. though the good news there is I am making good progress... but the bad news is it may take a while longer still.

In the mean time, ... welp, just gotta hope Trump and the Reps don't cancel the Disability Insurance part of Social Security, otherwise I'm homeless in a month or two, and then likely dead or in some kind of prison or internment camp in another couple months.

The current plan for the homeless is, as with brown skinned people, concentration camps.

3rd of all, its actually really, really hard to crop an image, or use an area constrained screenshot tool.

=P

Sigh.

Again, most actual serious, modern academic economists will tell you that no one in power actually listens to them, the powerful just pick idiot cranks with an Econ degree like Art Laffer to justify their ridiculous policies.

Its more complicated than you are simplifying it to.

...

Also, no, you did not specify anything about what you meant irt game theory applications.

You said it isn't applicable to broad populations and everday activity, and I said it is broadly applicable to many things... which would include what you say it doesn't cover.

A rather well known, other cross domain use of game theory is to explain the popularity of different mating strategie of various animals.

You can use similar models and apply them to humans, and it works well also.

...

Finally, your last point in particular reveals your total ignorance of game theory as a concept:

Yes, much of economics is oversimplified to the point that all actors are assumed to be perfectly rational with perfect information.

Game theory is specifically extremely useful to counter this obviously false assumption.

Game theory excels in giving you the ability to model more realistic, actual kinds of decisions that actors actually make... because it is specifically very useful in modelling how different actors with different levels of different information actually act.

This can be used in more comprehensive economic models, and the result is often a much more accurate to real world representation of how people and companies and governments actually act, as compared to the oversimplified economic models where perfect information is just assumed.

Yeah this is kinda what I mean about Marxist economists: Broad strokes, high level, followable narrative that jives with overall aggregate data, often emphasizes important dynamics that others just totally do not mention, or garble-explain with technobabble?

Yes, good, generally very insightful and accurate in many ways.

But, when you go down to the nitty gritty level... it either just isn't there, or is pretty clearly just wrong.

Like I'm sorry, but you can't build a microeconomics based off of only the labor theory of value, it just does not work.

You can use it in certain situations where it becomes a reasonable approximation, but it is far from comprehensive.

And yes, I also find Krugman to be insufferably wonkish, I also still hate him for basically going along with bailing out the banks in the 08 GFC, instead of fucking jailing their execs and/or at least temporarily nationalizing them.

And and, Gary's Economics is also generally good, though I haven't seen too much of his stuff.

Game Theory is actually widely practical and useful if you actually have extensive formal training in all of its variations wnd complexities, and know how to use it properly.

Game Theory is a lot, lot more than just 'the prisoners dilemma'.

And yes, the Economics Nobel technically isn't a real Nobel, but also, the whole theme here is that Economics behaves much like a religion, and many/most economists and just general people treat it as if it is extremely meaningful.

To make this even more meta:

You can at least broadly model that with Game Theory, if you take into account a robust model of imperfect information, and how the transmission of information (or lack thereof) alters the preferences, 'beliefs', and thus decision making of actors in a connected system.

EDIT:

Anyway, the point of me mentioning Nash and his Econ Nobel is to illustrate that a lot of serious economists also find his work to be extremely important and relevant to economics.