Indeed: the background probability of a sane leader launching an unprovoked trade war on the rest of the world is near zero. 10% would be unsettling, 30% would be (and was!) alarming.
30% was already a ridiculously high risk, and should have already been decisive if this was the deciding issue for a voter. You don't have to know that the bullet is in your chamber to decide not to play russian roulette.
I think this might have been intended more in the purple dragon sense than anything: focus on how they know exactly what experimental results they'll need to explain, and what that implies about their gut-level beliefs.
That seems to be conceding the point that it has moral weight.
I teleport a hostage about to be executed to a capsule in lunar orbit. I then offer you three options: you pay me 1,000,000,000$, and I give him whatever pleasures are possible given the surroundings for a day, and then painlessly kill him; I simply kill him painlessly; I torture him for a day, and then painlessly kill him, and then pay you 1,000,000,000$.
Do you still take the money?
This strikes me as a pretty stark decision, such that I'd have a really hard time treating those who would take the money any different than I'd treat the babyeaters. It's almost exactly the same moral equation.
Last time I played, I just used pennies and nickles.
I really want to try it with a bucket of generic lego pieces some time.
It's a permanent mark that easily leads to tearing.
How... what...
People on the internet aren't from Saskatoon, that's my city!
Beetle-sized (of the beautifully blue sort), at least.
Note also that the body the mind wears apparently (according to quirrel) does have an impact on the mind.
It's been a while since I checked: can any of the frontier models pass the 2-4-6 task for a novel rule yet?