You seem to have left out the fact that Robin Hanson is a renowned economics expert and likely has more skill in deciding when to sell stocks than his spouse.
1Your son has been arrested and the news media has all reported that your son confessed to you, you told a priest friend of yours, and that priest/retired Sheriff went to the authorities which is what led to your son's arrest. But this is a lie and the FBI is setting your son up as a patsy.
Do you either:
A) Give an unrecorded statement to an unknown source for a conspiracy-minded conservative journalist/podcaster and do nothing else besides that; or
B) Sing from the rooftops and to every single possible news outlet you can find that your son is being setup in order to free him.
To answer your question succinctly: I don't see or not see a rifle. The video is not clear enough to tell. And I think we should draw zero consequences from that.
I think trying to deeply analyze a grainy video to confirm or deny the existence of a rifle is a fool's errand when there's so much other evidence available. It's silly for the FBI to claim it's definitively a rifle, and it's silly to claim that not being able to see a rifle in that quality of video cuts against guilt.
There's a ton of other evidence, finding the rifle near the scene of the shooting in the woods, the other surveillance where a rifle is much more visible, the texts, the confession, etc.
Tyler Robinson is Rudy Guede. The evidence points towards him. Is it vaguely possible that the FBI has manufactured a ton of evidence and has convinced many civilians, including Robinson's own father and his boyfriend to lie, but that is a mere possibility and definitely not reasonable.
Who knows if it would have been better or worse if we preemptively nuked the USSR and all nations attempting to develop nuclear weapons? We might have entered a millenia of absolute peace enforced by imperial rule of a benevolent despot. We might have destroyed the world and eradicated the human race. This type of what-if is unknowable with our current simulation abilities.
We might not have ever had to even use the nukes if we merely made the true threat that we would nuke any country attempting to develop nuclear weapons or caught spying on American nuclear secrets. Japan was willing to take any deal short of absolute surrender to merely avoid fire-bombing. One can imagine that other countries with considerably less Bushido would fold to lesser demands such as "don't develop your own nukes or spy on America."
We have never seen a world in which one country had absolute technological and military superiority over all the others. I don't think with our current level of technology we can tell with a high degree of certainty if the world under US Total Domination would be a better or worse place. I would bet that if the US was more purely despotic and less benevolent it'd at least be better for the average US citizen. Instead of worrying about debt and global trade, the US could have merely demanded other countries export their goods for free to America and focus domestic production mainly on the construction of nukes and nuke delivery systems.
Did you intend to copy-paste the same text twice?
I really don't see where we go from "prevent USSR from developing nukes" to "completely destroy even all above-ground buildings". This argument seems like a clear case of moving goalposts. Clearly destroying a large portion of a country's government, research scientists, and manufacturing base would halt or destroy all progress on nukes even if the large majority of homes remain undestroyed. Also, destroying a country's military capability would lead to a much easier takeover. In Vietnam the US suffered more to internal politics and poor military policy decisions leading to no clear goal and no victory condition. If we preemptively nuked the USSR and then sent in the troops to hold the ground and slowly convert the Eastern Bloc into a US state that almost certainly would have worked.
1I feel like a post that was seriously trying to make the case that rationalism is a cult would be significantly longer and more thought out. This post provides a random definition of a set, claims that set = cult, and then makes the true assertion that rationalism is in that set.
What do you mean when you say "Compensation Impact: Low"?
There is no hider-expansionary dichotomy like you describe here. Hiding just means that the civilization is not exposing itself to outside threats by other more advanced civilizations, and is not detectable at our current level of technology. Hiding civilizations can expand, with whatever limitations the necessity of hiding requires.
The Dark Forest theory only tries to explain why our human civilization does not see obvious evidence of other intelligent civilizations.
How does AI being good at some tasks and worse at others make the graph you posted not a good tool at explaining FOOM or increasing AI capabilities?
I'm not talking about the dad telling Robinson to turn himself in. I'm talking about police reporting that the father said Robinson confessed. That is a massive distinction and the fact that Candace Owens continues to focus on the 'told him to turn himself in' while ignoring the whole part about the dad reportedly saying his son confessed makes me distrust her reporting on this issue.
Also, I am a criminal attorney. I would have the father sign and swear to an affidavit attesting to the truth, and then circulate that to the news media and immediately file it with the Court as part of a bond motion. I would also have Robinson's father testify at a bond hearing if possible. This is a routine practice of criminal defense attorneys. While this is an unusual situation, if Robinson truly was being setup by the FBI I would expect the next thing to happen is that he be killed in custody because the case clearly won't stick if they're making it up this bad.