I have two thoughts on this:
I find it highly unlikely that we live in a simulation. Anyone who has implemented any kind of simulation has found out that they are hugely wasteful. It requires a huge amount of complexity to simulate even a tiny, low-complexity world. Therefore, all simulations will try to optimize as much as possible. However, we clearly don't live in a tiny, low-complexity, optimized world. Our everyday experiences could be implemented with a much, much lower-complexity world that doesn't have stuff like relativity and quantum gravity and dark energy and muons.
The basic premise that simulations are basically the same as reality, and that there many simulations, but only one reality, and that statistically, we therefore almost certainly live in a simulation, is not consistent with my experience working on simulations. Any simulation anyone builds in the real world will by necessity be infinitely less complex than actual reality, and thus infinitely less likely to contain complex beings.
I can only speak for myself, but the simple fact is that we need to be about 70% of the population to be immune in order for anything resembling normalcy to return. With a 90% protection rate for new vaccines, this means about 80% of people need to either get sick or get the vaccine. Given how few people already have antibodies in many places, this means that pretty much everybody who isn't a vaccine denier needs to get vaccinated. That's why I will get vaccinated as soon as I am able to.
I think there are two basic reasons:
Scientists aren't entirely sure why 2. is happening, but there are multiple possible explanations, all of which probably contribute to some degree.
One nice thing about Switzerland is that there is no president, no single leader of the executive branch, but instead a federal council consisting of seven people who decide by majority, and where every member will stand behind the majority decision (there is technically a leader of the council, but he's first amongst equals, and has no special powers). Not having a single president means there's no winner-take-all outcome, which means you don't end up with a two-party system.
We should also consider whether we really want billionaires to make unilateral, wide-ranging public health/policy decisions without any real governmental oversight. We have a government for a reason, so that we can actually elect people to make these decisions, and have some accountabilities for the outcomes. I get that this sounds almost ridiculous at the moment, given how dysfunctional particularly the American government has become, but I'd still rather have some control than no control at all.
Rather than have billionaires take over governmental responsibilities, a better approach would probably be to tax them at a higher rate.
Is there actual evidence that a minimum wage decreases total consumption? I've never heard that, or seen any study on it, and I'd like to learn more.
(Intuitively, it doesn't seem highly plausible to me, since my assumption would be that it transfers wealth from rich people to poor people, which should increase total consumption, because there's more room for consumption growth for poorer people, but I'm also not sure if that is true.)
(Edit: after a cursory search of current research on the topic, it seems that the consensus is rather that a minimum wage has a small positive effect on consumption, which is what I would have naively expected.)
There are some additional it's/its mistakes on your text, e.g. here:
I run a denial of service attack on it’s server, cutting it off from the web before it can get it’s copies running.
I used to work as a software engineer. As the company I work for has grown a lot, I now no longer write code, but do software design, and hire new team members in different positions, inluding PMs, visual design, usability design, backend programming, and frontend programming.
It is extremely difficult to find good programmers, especially frontend programmers.
I'm pretty sure that the reason here is not that it is difficult to become a good programmer, but that a lot of people choose not do, for a number of reasons.
Two reasons that I have personally encountered:
For visual design positions, we get a large number of applications from many qualified people. Applicants are highly diverse in age, gender, interests, and so on. But hiring for software engineering positions, we get few qualified applications, and they're almost exclusively men below 35 years with often a very similar profile. If we search for people who have less common abilities (e.g. for full-stack developers), we basically don't get qualified applications.
This is in a city that has one of Europe's highest-rated technical university that produces a lot of comp sci graduates.
One intersting data point here is that game studios tend to pay developers much worse than other companies, and offer much worse benefits. The reason for this is likely that developers want to work at game studios, and that many more apply there.
Also, one other thing to consider is that software is eating the world. There are very few products that are not in some way dependent on software, directly or indirectly. Even things that ostensibly don't depend on software were probably created using specialized software, and were produced by companies that run on specialized software (e.g. process management software).
Consequently, when we find qualified applicants, they basically dicatete salaries. We are dependent on them, we can't grow without more people who write software. They are not dependent on us, and there's nothing we can offer that other software companies can't also offer.
I don't think the growth of our dependence on software will stop any time soon. Even if a lot more people started studying comp sci right now, that would only only lead to more growth, and thus increase demand further, at least for the foreseeable future.