I was largely raised in Ventura, California; my mother ran the household while my father worked to support the family.
If you are American, SSC endorses voting in this presidential election. Andrew Gelman, Nate Silver, and Aaron Edlin calculate the chance that a single vote will determine the election ie break a tie in a state that breaks an Electoral College tie.
It ranges from about one in ten million if you live in a swing state to one in a billion if you live in a very safe state. The average American has a one in sixty million chance of determining the election results. The paper was from the election, which was a pro-Obama landslide; since this election is closer the chance of determining it may be even higher.
But Presidents do shift budgetary priorities a lot. Neither of these are pure costs — Obamacare buys us more health care, and military presence in Iraq buys us [mumble] — but if you think these are less or more efficient ways to spend money than other possible uses, then they represent ways that having one President might be better than another.
In order to add signal rather than noise to the election results, we have to be better than the average voter. I recommend the Outside View — looking for measurable indicators correlated with ability to make good choices.
IQ might be another. Suppose you live in a swing state. If you value the amount of time it takes to vote at less than that, voting is conceivably a good use of your time. SSC endorses voting for Hillary Clinton if you live in a swing state.
If you live in a safe state, I endorse voting for Clinton, Johnson, or if you insist Stein. If you want, you can use a vote-swapping site to make this easier or more impactful. I think Donald Trump would be a bad president. Partly this is because of his policies, insofar as he has them.
But the latest news says: This is going to be close. And since the lesson of Brexit is that polls underestimate support for politically incorrect choicesthis is going to be really close. But if some of my blogging on conservative issues has given me any political capital with potential Trump voters, then I this is where I want to spend it.
So here are some reasons why I would be afraid to have Trump as president even if I agreed with him about the issues. Many conservatives make the argument against utopianism. These same conservatives have traced this longing through leftist history from Lenin through social justice.
Which of the candidates in this election are millennarian? If Stein were in, same, no contest. The left and right both critique Hillary the same way. All she wants to do is make little tweaks — a better tax policy here, a new foreign policy doctrine there.
The critiques are right. Hillary represents complete safety from millennialism. In my review of Singer on MarxI wrote that: It seemed like a pretty big gap.
But in fact Marx was philosophically opposed, as a matter of principle, to any planning about the structure of communist governments or economies. There might be some very light planning, a couple of discussions, but these would just be epiphenomena of the governing historical laws working themselves out.The lack of a logical reason for invasion is up to the author to devise a solution for.
Some of the motivational questions can be side-stepped by assuming the invasion is not an alien one, but instead a hypothetical human interstellar empire attempting to invade a human colony world.
This is straight out of Invasion of the Body Snatcher’s. Among the many known dangerous substances in Chemtrail Aerial Geo-Engineering like Aluminum and Barium, it has also been known for some time that these chemicals being dumped on us, also contained DNA.
Lee Benns, Europe Since In Its World Setting (New York: F.S. Crofts and co., ), p. A global catastrophic risk is a hypothetical future event which could damage human well-being on a global scale, even crippling or destroying modern civilization.
An event that could cause human extinction or permanently and drastically curtail humanity's potential is known as an existential risk..
Potential global catastrophic risks include anthropogenic risks, caused by humans (technology. — Chorus, If/Then, "What If?" For Want of a Nail is a what-if where the difference is a single, tiny change, usually with an effect all out of proportion to the cause.
In Spite of a Nail is the opposite; a what-if where a change results in a world almost identical to the original, albeit with a. The Blog of Scott Aaronson If you take just one piece of information from this blog: Quantum computers would not solve hard search problems instantaneously by simply trying all the possible solutions at once.