Good_Burning_Plastic

A mysterious but trustworthy agent named "Laplace's Demon" has recently appeared, and informed everyone that, to a first approximation, the world is currently in one of seven possible quantum states.

What is the word "quantum" doing there? Repeat with me: Quantum superpositions are not about epistemic uncertainty! Quantum superpositions are not about epistemic uncertainty! Quantum superpositions are not about epistemic uncertainty!

The following rules are stipulated: There are four possible outcomes, either "Hillary elected and US Nuked", "Hillary elected and US not nuked", "Jeb elected and US nuked", "Jeb elected and US not nuked". Participants in the market can buy and sell contracts for each of those outcomes, the contract which correponds to the actual outcome will expire at $100, all other contracts will expire at $0

An issue about that is that all other things being equal $100 will be worth more if the US is not nuked than if it is.

Would buying him the first round count? ;-)

OTOH "venusian" sounds like it's about the planet.

to the extent that 'paternalism' implies 'when done by males' I would perhaps want to use a different word

"Parentalism"?

(And "maternalism" when done by females? ;-))

You won't get approached by women just for looking good

Speak for yourself! :-)

Not many.

Since other people are biologically similar to me, they probably say "I'm conscious" for the same reason as me, so it makes sense to believe them.

Be careful (2, 3).

Meh. You can have two systems of coordinates related to each other by r_1 = R_Earth^2/r_2, theta_1 = theta_2, phi_1 = phi_2, t_1 = t_2 and as per general relativity both will give you the same answers if you use them right. (But one of the two will be much much easier to use right than the other.)

Why?

I mean that on a 2D board, you could have a king in the corner and a queen directly adjacent above and beside it, and that would be mate.

No, unless the queen is defended by some other piece, otherwise the king could just capture it. Or am I missing something?

Putting these numbers together, a value of "having a chicken for a specific lunch" is about 1 / 1 000 000 of a value of a human life.

I'd estimate that as ((amount you're willing to pay for a chicken lunch) - (amount you're willing to pay for a vegan lunch))/(statistical value of life). But that's in the same ballpark.

How large part of "a value of human's life" is "having lunch, in general, as opposed to only having a breakfast and a dinner every day of your life"? Let's say it's somewhere between 1/10 and 1/100,

I.e. you'd take a 1% chance of being killed straight away over a 100% chance of never being allowed to have lunch again, but you'd take the latter over a 10% chance of being killed straight away?

...Huh. Actually, rephrasing it this way made the numbers sound less implausible to me.

I don't know much anything about relativity, but waves on a grid in computational fluid dynamics (CFD for short) typically don't have the problem you describe.

Not even for wavelengths not much longer than the grid spacing?

Otherwise the distance is infinite.

A metric is supposed to be always finite. Note the round right bracket in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics)#Definition.

How so?

Do you also find the scientific doctrine of light, and mater, being both particle and wave internally incoherent.

Depending on what exactly you mean by "particle" that's either no less tautological than dogs being both mammals and animals or a possibly-only-approximate provisional model (complete with well-studied mathematical techniques to sweep the consequences of the incoherence under the rug) we're using while we figure out how to extend quantum field theory down to the quantum gravity scale and beyond.

you learn science inter alie to achieve job safety

LOL

They said "adjacent in design space". The Levenshtein distance between return val; and return -val; is 1.